In time of war, actions not morally acceptable become acceptable Essay Example for Free

In time of war, actions not morally acceptable become acceptable Essay We live in an imperfect world where human interactions breeds frictions occasioned by participation of different individuals in matters of society, economics and even religious inclinations of the different masses. Human beings have voluntarily or involuntarily found themselves in different areas of life due to their races or ideologies and consequently have had to act in line with a certain set of belief. Therefore this has bred differences in how a different society approaches issues relating to both governance and interaction and lack of consensus among individuals and sometimes groups within and without have led to violence. This violence is sometimes political and involves a set of organized military groups fighting for a certain goal that is usually political in nature. War is rough on the participants and mostly on innocent civilians caught in the middle of the chaos. The questions that strongly begs a just answer is â€Å"can there be a just war. † Hedge (2002) claims that in essence there is not much difference between the U S government and Alqueda arguing that despite what motives drives them to violence both the outcome is death of innocent civilians. However there are those who feel that to agree with Hedge would be to deny that there cannot be moral reasons to go to war and that the presuppositions behind the just war theory are fallacious and misguiding. In this regard it would be equal to agreeing that no reason should drive a country to wage war on another or even that terror groups must be allowed to exploit the weakness of less able nations in order to bring terror to perceived enemies. In my opinion such a stand is untenable and unrealistic and a way to avoid taking responsibility in accordance to the natural laws of justice that guarantees freedom and rights of individuals (Zupan, 2004). It is therefore important to highlight that it is hypocritical to deny that a party might be justified to wage war to counter similar aggressiveness or as way of stopping gross violations against fellow human beings. All human beings have a right to life is a clearly accepted fact and anything that contravenes such a fact would ordinarily be considered immoral and against fundamental pillars of justice, rights and freedoms. However whereby a war has been taken as to being justified then a waiver is taken in order to grant the involved parties the right to take away the lives of those perceived to be the enemies. In addition the loss of civilian life in the course of such a war is simply taken to be the costs of bringing such changes as necessitate that war. Hedge actually accuses Washington of stooping so low as to use death as a means of expressing its dissatisfaction with certain issues (Hedge, 2002). In other wars certain groups of people who previously viewed as morally incorrect might receive a change of perceptions simply because they direct their atrocities to the perceived enemy. In this regard the common phrase that an enemy of my enemy is my enemy becomes true. There are those who would argue for the sovereignty of nations and that a state has a right from external interference. In ordinary times such a status applies and there are clear efforts to observe and even promote the status quo. However in times of war sovereign borders are breached and this usually leads to the removal of leadership or occupation of such state. Hedge (2002) however seeks to point out that while he is not a war supporter, that it is sometimes important to use force to counter a force that is much immoral as compared to the countering force. It is therefore important then that we must understand that we have a moral responsibility to take care not to ignore or indeed breach the fundamental rights of citizens as we engage in war. Hedges, C. (2002). War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. New York: Anchor books. Zupan, D. (2004). War, Morality and Autonomy. London: Ashgate publishings.

Genetic Engineering is Unethical Essay -- Genetic Engineering is Immora

â€Å"Just as the success of a corporate body in making money need not set the human condition ahead, neither does every scientific advance automatically make our lives more meaningful'; (Wald 45). These words were spoken by a Nobel Prize winning biologist and Harvard professor, George Wald, in a lecture given in 1976 on the Dangers of Genetic Engineering. This quotation states that incredible inventions, such as genetic engineering, are not always beneficial to society. Genetic engineering is â€Å"altering the genetic material of cells and/or organisms in order to make them capable of making new substances or performing new functions'; (Wald 45). It is also one of the top controversial issues of the 20th century (Epstein 1). Many believe that continuing to provide genetically constructed inventions in this world is ethical, which means that these inventions conform to one’s moral standards (Epstein 5). Others argue that such inventions as human clones, which are geneticall y constructed humans, and other genetically created figures, are wrong and should be stopped (Epstein 5). Overwhelming textual evidence proves that genetic engineering is not beneficial to society. Accordingly, genetic engineering is unethical and therefore should be stopped. One reason why genetic engineering should cease is because genetic engineering disrupts society’s moral values and causes society to act out in destructive ways. An online survey done by Time Magazine in 1997, found that 11% of those who were interviewed believe that if clones are created in the future, the genetically created humans will only be good for â€Å"target practice'; (Epstein 2). Another survey by the same magazine was conducted and found that 50% of those who were questioned believe that clones should be treated as lower beings and should not be given the same rights as unaltered humans (Epstein 2). Furthermore, a similar survey, completed by MacLeans Magazine in 1993, reported that 11% of those interviewed confirmed that if technology was able to change defects within their unborn child, they would not hesitate in changing the child’s genes in order for the child to be born â€Å"normal'; (Epstein 3). The choice to create one’s own child will have many believe that the better the genes, the better the child. These statistics, without a doubt, reveal that genetic engineering will be harmful to society if certain means... ...g'; (Bereano 18). One would think that people would have control over their own genes; however, that does not seem to be the case. Therefore, the rights to one’s own identity will be abolished if human genes can be selected; thus, genetic engineering should be stopped, for it is unethical. Genetic engineering should be eradicated due to the fact that it is immoral. It is proven that such inventions as genetic engineering can negatively affect society and cause rash and inappropriate behavior. Also, genetic engineering involves altering nature’s balance, which is not the job of scientists, or society. Finally, genetic engineering can destroy one’s sense of individuality and spoil God’s plan of making all people unique. Because of these reasons, genetic engineering should be stopped. It is a bad science making a dangerous alliance with a bad business. Works Cited Bereano, Phillip L. â€Å"Body and Soul: the Price of Biotech.'; Seattle Times. 20 Aug. 2005: 18-20. Epstein, Ron. Ethical Dangers of Genetic Engineering.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  (http://online.sfsu.edu/~ron/gedanger.htm) (February 26, 2000). Wald, George. The Case Against Genetic Engineering. New Jersey: Englewood  Cliffs, 2006.

Money Cant Buy Health Essay

Ah, money. The grease that moves America. The love of which has perhaps caused more human anguish than perhaps any other object with the possible exception of abuse of the Bible, Torah or Koran by religious extremists. Money can’t buy health. All the money in the world can’t undo the damage caused by smoking, drug abuse, cancer, sex act, and a thousand other health problems which destroy one’s quality of life. Of course, if you are rich enough you can buy a new kidney or heart. But what is kind of life does one have fighting AIDS, cancer, a dead liver, destroyed lungs or a brain tumor caused by saturating yourself with pesticides, herbicides and other life-destroying chemicals? Money is an essential energy booster needed to see you through your life smoothly. It gives you a status symbol and you are placed in an elevation in the society. You are able to buy the best things available and your materialistic possessions give you a sense of elation. But is money the -be- all -in -life and is it enough if you have a big bank balance and many enviable things which only money can get you. No, nothing can be farther from truth. Money can get you many things in life which will give you a superficial happiness that gets sated very fast. There are many things in life money cannot buy. Can money buy you happiness? Of course it cannot. Happiness is a state of mind which has nothing to do with money. If money is needed to feel happy, then only rich people will be the happiest lot. In fact, it is the rich who feel a vacuum within them as money alienates them from the others. You might ask if money is not important. It is very much important to make you lead a life where your self esteem will not be affected by being dependent on others for your day to day survival. You should strike a correct balance between seeking money for your betterment and a mad rush towards it to keep in pace with other people’s wealth. If you start comparing you always feel lacking. Earn for yourself, not for competing with others. Give priority to your inner wealth, so that you can truly enjoy your materialistic wealth. Money can buy healthcare and medicine, but it cannot replace health once it’s lost. It’s far better to take preventative action such as watching what you eat, exercising, not smoking, and getting regular physicals than to rely on money to save you once your body has started to fail you. Money also can’t buy back your youth. No amount of money you make in the future will replace those days when your body could do anything easily and look good doing it. You can spend thousands on â€Å"treatments† to preserve your youth, but it’s an illusion. Once your youth is gone, no amount of money will get it back. If money could buy peace, I think we’d be there by now.

Religion as a Tool of Conquest in Chinua Achebes Things...

Religion as a Tool of Conquest in Things Fall Apart In the novel Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe, the white men who come to Umuofia find success in conquering the village by challenging Ibo religion. Because the first white men to appear in Umuofia were missionaries, the slaughter of Ibo society began with the challenging of the highly-regarded religion of the Ibo people. The white men began their religious assault by openly denouncing the many gods worshipped by the Ibo in order to convert them to the new faith. After accomplishing this, the white men set out to prove that the Christian religion was superior to all others by defying the powers of the Ibo gods when they built their church upon the cursed ground of the Evil†¦show more content†¦Continuing with the already successful method of overtaking the Ibo by questioning their religious beliefs, the Christians then decided to directly challenge the Umuofian gods. Having asked for a plot of land, and then receiving a section of the Evil Forest, the Christians built thei r church. The Ibo believed that the spirits who lived in the Evil Forest would not allow the Christian church to be present on its soil, and that the church would be destroyed. To prove to the Umuofians that their gods did not exist, the Christians were happy to build the church in the given location. The Ibo believed that the spirits of the Evil Forest would not allow the church to stand for more than twenty-eight days and so when the spirits did not wreck the church, the Umuofians further questioned the spirits and gods who they had previously accepted. Thus, the Christians had now given proof to the Ibo people that their gods were powerless, and this was the second successful stage of taking over Umuofia and converting its inhabitants. The final step to eradicate the Ibo religion from Umuofia and replace it with Christianity was taken by the converts. It was well-known within the clan that the royal python was a sacred creature, as it was believed to be the god of water in animal form. When itShow MoreRelatedOne Significant Change That Has Occurred in the World Between 1900 and 2005. Explain the Impact This Change Has Made on Our Lives and Why It Is an Important Change.163893 Words   |  656 Pagesglobalization, both of which can be seen as hallmarks of the opening decades of the twentieth century. This intermingling of the forces and processes that were arguably essential components 2 †¢ INTRODUCTION of two epochs we routinely set apart as centuries suggests the need for flexibility in demarcating phases of world history, and for determining beginnings and endings that accord with major shifts in political and socioeconomic circumstances and dynamics rather than standard but arbitrary