Used War As A General Term example essay topic

When a person sees all the grisly images of war on the television set they cannot help but think, "This has got to stop". But what reasons can this person justify their decision on? There are many people in the world who can only argue their opinion through what they see on TV, which of course is not what war is. In William Earle's essay "In Defense of War" and Trudy Govier's "Nuclear Illusion and Individual Obligations" we respectively see a pro-war and an anti-war opinion.

We must differentiate between the two because Earle's essay talks about war in generalities but Govier focuses on the nuclear aspect of war. As with most essays discussing similar topics they have their similarities and differences and that will be a big part of discussion here. Subjects referring to the morality and justification as war and exactly what we can use to justify it are some of the few things that will be mentioned. These will also be discussed in ethical terms and what part of ethics they fall into. Along with this will be an analysis of why each essay falls into its given category. The strengths of each essay will be mentioned as well as the weaknesses and a comparison as to which is the stronger essay and which is the weaker essay will be provided.

The most important part, however, is the basic understanding of the message that the author is trying to get across. These main points will be highlighted throughout the paper when discussing the essay in question along with the provided evidence that accompanies the argument. Finally, a personal take on the subject from me will be provided just to clarify any discrepancies about what is written. I am writing this (aside from the fact it is a major assignment) in hopes that the reader will take these questions seriously and be able to look at both sides of the debate rationally and without fallacy.

It only seems appropriate to start this out with Williams Earle's essay, "In Defense of War". I stand beside him when he provides his opinion because I share the same attitude on this subject. In a nutshell, Earle provides a provocative look at the opposition's view towards war which is the anti-war opinion. It appears that Earle is not like most writers trying to defend his own argument with his own ideas but what he does is position his argument that war is necessary by unveiling the ideas of the pacifists. He gives us reasons why most people are with this group and it is because media has provided such a false look at the concept of war. When a person sees the consequences of war on their TV (which is usually dismembered bodies and bloodshed) they do not realize that TV is confined to showing what can be shown since it cannot offer any picture to the thought of war.

The media does not provide a real look at what war really is. Earle criticizes the underlying presuppositions of pacifism as well as tracing the harmful consequences of it. He believes that the principle of pacifism is absurd and morally deplorable. Ideally, war is evil and peace is good. This is the perspective that pacifism takes. The supposed pacifists who Earle says are retired baby doctors, neurotic poets and novelists, psychoanalysts, ministers and confused philosophers claim they have some sort of "special insight" that allows them to speak out for the suffering of humanity.

In doing so they eliminate the careful political thought and emerge with slogans that are supported by massive demonstrations and the exchanging of insults. Since they see no justification for war they believe that there has to be a cause and in turn a solution to the problem. Earle believes the justification needed for war is in fact its own cause. Pacifists trash around for explanations of why bad things happen.

They constantly spout out reasons for this. All in all, the assumption of these explanations is that there can be no moral justification for war at all. It is pure evil and since man is naturally good there must be a cause. Earle points out that if a man does not seek for causes for a man doing good works other than the goodness of the work itself, then there is no need to seek biological, psychological, cultural, or sociopolitical causes for a justifiable war.

In this sense, the justification for the war is the cause. An important point is made when Earle says that a "justifiable war" could be a contradiction in terms but it could be the pacifist who represents a living contradiction in terms. The fact that men are not naturally good or peaceful means that an explanation for this is found in the artificial distortion of the pacifists' passionate nature. Earle blames this on the way they think rather then the way it actually is. Men are rational creatures but neither reason nor spirit belongs if they continue living on a primal instinct that is contradictory to the natural state of man. He is constantly blaming the irrationality of these pacifists for their absurd arguments.

They believe that a treaty is a verbal solution to end these hostilities. Philosophically a treaty seems like the perfect answer but because their confidence in words is faltered by actual reality they do not see that the mind, their so-called strength, is obligated to tend to the existential needs of its own life. This is why is the last 350 years around 85 percent of treaties signed in the Western world have been broken. It can be proud of the fact that an aggressor or culprit has been identified.

They believe another solution may as well be a single super-state. Everything must be put in order but Earle offers a very clever look into this. This order needs to be imposed but it is imposed by the force that made it so horrible. With this imposed order is it wrong to say that its protestors are now the order's enemies?

Earle says that the first thing lost sight of is a small point of logic that any order is also only itself a specific order. Its medium of existence is the word so talk is cheap. If this were to happen hostilities would not have been eliminated but only re dubbed so we would not have two nations fighting but a civil war within this World State. This is all wrong. There is a proper justification to war and the world does not need a solution. This justification removes the premise of the search for causes and cures.

This justification aims at showing both its morality and rationality; if there are occasions when a moral and rational man must fight, then in principle a proscription of war itself is rational and moral. This justification is primarily existence. But this term of existence is too open. Life is more then just existing. It is more then just the beating of the heart. It is then justifiable to fight not only to stay alive but to keep those things that make life worth living.

A criticism could be that all could be shared by man, all goods and possessions. But existence or life individuates itself. We must be able to say I instead of We and my instead of Ours. Individuation is essential to existence. This is thought to be selfish but Earle points out that it is not selfish to protect ones own life, or those of their family, friends, or compatriots. It is important to protect our human life with its wealth, customs, laws, and basic autonomy.

The pacifists who are not willing to protect his own life or another by killing another person must really hate themselves. The objections to war are plentiful, even soldiers believe there is nothing heroic about war. But is it not heroic to risk your life to save a fellow soldier, to live in mud and rain with poor food and constant danger? Heroism is going beyond ones duty under extreme circumstances and when a soldier says something like that on TV people do not see the actual deeds he is performing. When it comes to the actual "people" we have to distinguish who they really are. The only ones with the right to complain are the citizens of that actually country and even then their government, whom they are bound by duty to listen to, makes the final decision.

Earle goes to point out that in any event, war and peace decisions are determined by those who are in the national government and not the radical groups or pacifists that so openly disagree. One of Earle's ending point's opens up our minds. He says that victory does not always fall to the just, and in turn victory is no measure of the justice of the cause. He goes to say that one is not defeated if they fought well. It is something far more important that allows this, the infinite self-respect which defines our humanity.

In some cases battles are so unequal that going into them are simply suicidal. However, a victory for the defeated comes out of this simply because the courage needed to do this is something that most do not have. It is a virtue that can carry one to transcendental realms. Without war, this courage cannot take place. The honor and pride that come from war are necessary if we are to lead meaningful existences. Even though wars are not fought to prove courage, they do prove it all the same.

When it comes to ethical concerns this essay falls underneath all three: character, utilitarian, and de ontological. The main ethical concern is utilitarianism. By what Earle says we can see that his ends justify the means. The pure honor and pride one gets from protecting human life and dignity is well worth the battle.

When a person is willing to risk his life for the selfless reasons of others is that not enough to justify fighting and even killing another human being? Is it not right to take the necessary means to survive when you have so much to live for? In pacifism there is no honor, and with no ho nor 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 Lift on, 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.