War is Ethically Wrong The purpose of this essay is to prove that under no circumstances is war ethical. It follows specific logic rules of argument.
My thesis is that war is ethically wrong. My main argument goes as follows: Any action that kills an innocent person without their direct consent is ethically wrong; war kills innocent people without their direct consent. Therefore 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 whatever reason would hold up as murder in a court of law. Yet, one 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 essential to establish the unethical grounds of war. If direct consent to die was given by all innocent people in times of war then there would be no moral issue to discuss. Accordingly, imposing one's 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 great teacher in proving to us that innocent people die in times of war. Yet, one could even 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 military on his or her own free will. Yet, when the soldier sign's up he or she never 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 comes about. It is never by choice or desire. When a soldier enlists he or she
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 whatever reason would hold up as murder in a court of law. Yet, one 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 essential to establish the unethical grounds of war. If direct consent to die was given by all innocent people in times of war then there would be no moral issue to discuss. Accordingly, imposing one's 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 great teacher in proving to us that innocent people die in times of war. Yet, one could even 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 military on his or her own free will. Yet, when the soldier sign's up he or she never 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 comes about. It is never by choice or desire. When a soldier enlists he or she