Part One:
Is it justifiable to kill another person within the context of military action under a given set of conditions?
Introduction
This paper will look at the issue whether it is ethical for one human to take the life of another especially in a military setting. Just like any other organization, the military is bound by societal rules and ethics that control its operations. In the society, killing is always frowned upon and therefore, the military should have a valid reason in which there is the justification of taking away the life of another individual. It can be seen that sometimes in military operations, those who suffer most are not even linked with war like women and children and this begs the question, is killing a necessity in military operations and what instance makes it necessary and ethical for a soldier to kill? This paper will question whether it is justifiable or not to kill when faced by certain circumstances in the military.
Position Statement
It is justifiable for soldiers to take the life of other person in given conditions like war or when combating threats to a certain country and their people or to intervene for humanitarian reasons in case of dictatorial regimes and execute those that are involved in the perpetrating of war crimes (Regan, 2013).
Supporting Reason
During war, soldiers have to kill the enemies for the interests of the state or they will have failed themselves and the powers they had sworn to protect. By taking another person’s life, they are protecting the liberties and freedoms of other millions of people who are at home. This is for the greater good; they sacrifice their lives and safety so that others can enjoy a life without threats and fear. Another reason to kill is that they can eliminate a potential terrorist figure that has transgressed against the state or is planning to harm the state and their people. Therefore, under certain circumstances, killing another person can be seen as having more benefits than allowing them to live. There are humanitarian and utilitarian reasons that are accomplished when a soldier takes away the life of another individual. For instance, oppressive regimes are ousted from power and the people are freed which is a greater good for all humanity (Regan, 2013).
Opposing Reason
A thin line exists between moral and immoral killing in a war. Taking a human whether morally or otherwise often weighs down on the conscience of the individual who perpetrated the act. There can never be enough justification in killing of a person whether an enemy or not and therefore soldiers are conditions to accept their feelings and temper them down by being given the notion of morality. In war, it is not straightforward that there are targets which should be eliminated and those that shouldn’t, most of the time there is the issue of collateral damage where noncombatants like children and women are killed in process. In war, clear rules of engagement lack. Differentiating between combatants and noncombatants is hard which makes killing a very unethical issue that causes uproar when those who are killed were not involved in combat but were at the wrong place at the wrong time. Therefore, an alternative way to deal with things should be sought like the use of dialogue and promise of embargos and use of power to make the necessity of fighting a war futile (Hensel, 2016). By doing this, soldiers and the society should not have to be subjected to questions of whether it is moral or not to take away a life.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be seen that the morality of killing during war is a vague concept and only the results of the deed can be used to justify the killing. As can be seen above, killing can be beneficial and at the same time, the wrong people can be killed as there are no clear rules of engagement that are set when it comes to war.
References
Hensel, H. M. (Ed.). (2016). The prism of just war: Asian and Western perspectives on the legitimate use of military force. Routledge.
Regan, R. J. (2013). Just War. CUA Press.
