Essay writing, free sample essay topics, research papers
You are welcome to search the collection of free essays and term papers. Thousands of essay topics are available. Order unique, original custom papers from our essay writing service.
Sample essay topic, essay writing: Justifying War - 1751 words
NOTE: Essay you see on this page is free essay, available to anyone. We strongly do not recommend using any direct quotes from these essays for credit - you will most probably be caught for copying/pasting off the Internet, as it is very easy to trace where the essay has been taken from by a plagiarism detection program. You are welcome to use these samples for your research, but if you want to be sure that your essay is 100% original and one of a kind, we highly recommend to order a custom essay from us.
.. r can we say our lives are no more then just existing. This is why a utilitarian approach is the best way to look at this, but nonetheless it is not the only way. Character ethics has its place in this too. Since the "people", who just happen to be ordinary housewives, factory workers, farmers and such, are in no position to consider the wisdom of the politics on which their lives may depend on we must have a tiered society. Plato's "Philosopher King" idea comes into play here.
We need that guidance of the lawmakers so the lower tiers like the tradesman do not have to make decisions they are not suited to make. They can voice their opinion but it should not be so much that they try to make their opinion higher then that of those whose responsibility it is to make these decisions. Deontological ethics can be applied to basically performing your call of duty. The soldiers and generals are constantly ripped apart for their involvement in the war but it does not seem to clue in to these pacifists that this is their job. It is like a police officer shooting a criminal. It is what they are to do
When a person criticizes the generals for not being on the front lines fighting because they are scared they do not realize that there is a reason the general is in his position. He has experience and knowledge in warfare that a regular soldier does not. If a soldier had this he would be in the same position. The general's abilities are an invaluable commodity that cannot be lost. The soldier even realizes that.
This is the importance of doing your duty and a big part of war is doing your duty. The next essay is a shorter paper by Trudy Govier titled "Nuclear Illusion and Individual Obligation". She holds strong the position that we need to speak out against nuclear warfare because when we don't it expands quickly. She points out that in 1945 there were only 3 nuclear weapons to a point today where we can find 50 000 of them. This is due to the fact no one really thought much of it so without a public outcry there seemed to be no problem with it. It is quite possible that if something is not done about this threat a nuclear will end human life as we know it.
She says that ignoring this threat in discussions of moral values and political structures is absurd for it could eliminate all things that we value. She believes that applying ethics to problems such as abortion and sexism and ignoring the nuclear arms race is suggesting that these problems are more real then the problem of global war. Philosophers, being the educators they are, should play a huge role in ending this silence. Since the nuclear arms race and the accumulations of conventional arms weapons play an immense role in economics, technologies, ideologies, and scientific research problems that ignoring these would be to risk an analysis of social reality which is inaccurate. Philosophers have special opportunities to educate the public and are obligated to do so because they teach ethics.
According to a Catholic Bishops' outlook, maintaining nuclear arms is morally allowed only on the grounds that it is there for a period of time provided that all efforts are made to eliminate the actual use of the arsenal. The war theory requires a strict distinction between combatants and civilians in war, and these bishops say that this distinction cannot hold up when nuclear arms are being used. It would never be morally correct to detonate these in civilian areas. Many bishops offered this conclusion: If it is not right to use nuclear weapons, then it is not right to threaten to use them. If it is not right to threaten to use them, it is not right to possess them.
If it is not right to possess them, it is not right to manufacture them. One way to eliminate the risk of nuclear war, according to Jonathon Schell, is to eliminate the nation states. This is not a strong argument for it is a utopian view and of course this world is not like that. Future generations have been brought into the debate. When we regard moral decisions is it better to use moral decisions in the weighing of consequences of our actions equally with existing people or not all since the future generations are not real at the time the decision is made? This brings about a strong argument for this standpoint.
If there is a nuclear war would this end the era of human beings on this planet? Of course, it may not end all lives but the detonations of a number of nuclear weapons will destroy the protective ozone layer and all life would end. Govier asks if the annihilation of the human species is such a tragedy. If it is, then to whom would it be a tragedy to? Individual death is inevitable but the death of social life can destroy us all. People die everyday without affecting the world order but if all social life were to die out that is when we would fail. Individual death permits the survival of a species while social or species death does not. The nuclear arms scare, according to Robert Lifton, is responsible for hedonistic and selfish attitudes, for pollution and for the low birthrate in many industrialized countries.
This threat does undermine the meaning of human activity and forces us to question the meaning itself. A defense mechanism is used to make sense of all this disorder. Self-deception can be psychologically pleasing for it represses this information and looks to the optimistic side of things. This may be a case of society-wide-self-deception though for no one really thought much about the arms race until now. Most believe no one person can alone affect this so much to change the outcome of events so they do not see this as an obligation to go out and spread the word.
It is basically true but if you can muster up a large number of individuals trying to make a difference that is when you can affect the outcome. The impact of one person's actions depends on how other people act. We are not very obligated to act on something for which we do not know what others will do about the same thing. Annette Baier argued that in an individual's commitment to a project whose success requires the actions of a number of other individuals requires faith in other people. For social life to continue we need this secular faith. No one person can do this alone yet all are obliged to do their part.
In the end all are obligated to do play our own small role in changing the events because of the morality of it. As in the last essay utilitarianism, character ethics, and deontological ethics can be assessed and explained with few words. By promoting the common good that spreading the word about nuclear arms can end up affecting the outcome. The ends here justify the means and there is no reason for one to think otherwise. The help of individuals together can change the good of society. Character ethics has a very small role but a role nonetheless.
The philosophers must share the information because they have the education to do so. Deontological ethics, however, are the ones that are primary here. It is ones duty to step up and do the right thing. We are obligated to spread the word because when everyone works together it can be done. Not just certain people are obligated but all people.
These two essays are essays that are on both side of the debate. However a few differences and similarities must be pointed out. Earle used war as a general term; he uses it to describe any conflict that one may run into. He condemns the psychological portrayal and does not think philosophers should say too much because they are to listen to who is above them. Govier believes it is a duty of a philosopher to speak out against the higher order if we are to achieve what we need. Govier also discussed nuclear warfare and that is all.
She did not speak in general terms like Earle did. They do both speak about war whether it is good or bad. It is the main difference that Earle believes people should leave the decision making up to those whose responsibility it is to make these decisions while Govier thinks everyone should step up and try and do something about it. We will be able so see clearer distinctions in the strengths of the essays. Earle's essay was far superior to Govier's.
I am not saying this because I am on his side but I am saying this because Earle did not argue his opinion and that all but what he did was open the door to the truths about the opposition. He exposed the fallacies they commit and found numerous holes. He made rational sense of why war is necessary and does not try to force the idea. He simply wanted to avoid the confusion that often assembles with the media and let the reader make their own free choice. Govier on the other hand did not put up as strong of an argument nor did she explore the opposition. She offered her own ideas to support her own ideas, not being able to provide enough evidence to disregard the opposition as Earle was able to. In this sense we can see how much stronger his essay was.
In the end we have to make a choice. We can either be for or against but all in all it is not up to the general public to make the decision. It was much easier to write on Earle's essay because it was more distinct than and not quite as ambiguous as Govier's. It makes perfect sense to me that honor and pride do outweigh the problems with warfare. It seems quite efficient that all three ethical concerns can be drawn into each essay with one being the superior. I also may have been biased in writing this essay because of my standpoint so it is important to take that into account.
In conclusion, I do not change my view on the topic but do hope we can solve our conflicts with minimal bloodshed.
Research paper and essay writing, free essay topics, sample works Justifying War
Essay help, free essay samples:
How Does The Director, Steven Spielberg, Create Suspense, And Scare The Audience In The 1970?s Film, Jaws?, Swahili, American, Offensive Line, Defense Of Socrates, Marijuna: Should It Be Legalized And Is It Harmful, Life Is But A Choice, College Sports, Stress In The Workplace, The Dance, Helianthus Annuus, Catcher In The Rye, Looking To The Future 1984, and much more...
All rights reserved © 2004-2013 essaypride.com, links