War is Ethically Wrong Essay Example for Free

War is Ethically revile EssayMy thesis is that war is goodly untimely. My main argument goes as follows Any action that kills an liberal individual wi gramt their cover bear is ethically wrong war kills indigent people without their direct assume. whence war is ethically wrong.The first premise of my main argument states that any action that kills an innocent person without their direct consent is ethically wrong. On average, many people would agree with this statement. To kill an innocent person for what of all time reason would hold up as murder in a court of law. Yet, one and alone(a) might object to the part of the premise that states, direct consent. This leaves room to debate the questionable subject of euthanasia. By one giving direct consent to someone else to terminate their life, would, according to the premise be acceptable.though euthanasia is not the subject of this paper it is important to understand that direct consent of the individual is crucial to establish the unethical grounds of war. If direct consent to die was pass awayn by all innocent people in times of war then there would be no moral answer to discuss. Accordingly, imposing ones will, though the intentions may be good, is second-rate to the right of the individual to give direct consent in matters concerning their life.My second premise states that war kills innocent people without their direct consent. History has been a outstanding t apieceer in proving to us that innocent people die in times of war. Yet, one could evening argue that the soldiers in the war are considered innocent people and do not necessarily give their direct consent to be killed.This may sound ludicrous since often times a soldier goes into the legions on his or her own free will. Yet, when the soldier signs up he or she neer sends a letter or calls the enemy and states that the enemy has their direct consent to kill them. This is absolute nonsense. It is only indirectly that death come s about. It is never by choice or desire. When a soldier enlists he or she signs up to run for the cause of there country, they did not sign up to be voluntarily slaughtered.This is besides helpful to show the innocent nature of a soldier. On average most soldiers join the military because they believe that the cause they are defending is right. This is important to understand gulling that war is hardly ever one sided. Upon examining one can see that when nations are battling rarely does one side discover that they are the big, bad evil enemy. Both sides feel justified in their cause and are willing to fight for their beliefs. Even during World War II, Nazi Germany felt justified to rise from their poverty state and whiplash out against the nations that had oppressed them.This helps set the stage to understand why war is ethically wrong. If both sides feel that they are right in their cause then it is also free to state that both sides are wrong. One might give the objection, What if a country invades my homeland, dont I have the right to protect myself by killing them? The answer to this question is an unwavering no. Great men such as Gandhi and Martin Luther fagot Jr. have proven that one can throw off the shackles of tyranny without the shedding of blood. If you were to cope with your enemy by taking the life of an innocent person then you would be as conscience-smitten as your attacker.My first sub-premise is that everyone has the right to life. Simply by breathing you exercise your right to exist on the earth. From the beginning of civilizations there has always been rules or laws established to protect this right. Whether it has been the simple Mosaic law of thou shall not murder to the complex laws that we have today, the right to life has always been recognized as a universal principle for all people.My second sub-premise for my main argument is that killing an innocent person without their direct consent bollockss the right to life. A drunke n husband comes home and savagely run aways and kills his wife. With this example it is easy to see how the wifes right to life is being violated. Did the wife give her husband direct consent to beat and kill her, most likely not. Did the husband rationally think to ask his wife if he could viciously beat and kill her, again probably not. The act of killing an innocent person without their direct consent infringes on the right to life because the intrinsicvalue of choice has been stolen away form the individual.This understanding leads to the last sub-premise that it is ethically wrong to violate ones right to life.According to Dictionary of Religion and Philosophy the term ethical comes from the Greek word ethos, which means customs duty or usage. Plato used this term to mean a custom or usage to designate the right way of behaving. To violate ones right to life very good falls under the wrong custom or usage of the right way of behaving or more than simply put, it would be un ethical. Whether a man beats and kills his innocent wife or nations war against each other there is no difference when it comes to the right to life. Without direct consent it is ethical wrong to violate ones right to life.Throughout this paper I have proven my thesis that war is ethically wrong by stating two main arguments, they were Any action that kills an innocent person without their direct consent is ethically wrong war kills innocent people without their direct consent. It is through these premises that one can see that the conclusion that war is ethically wrong, is valid and sound reasoning.