Is it justified to kill in war for self survival

The author believes that soldiers are fully justified to kill in war to ensure self survival, as well as to safeguard his comrades in war, loved ones at home and everything else he is fighting for.

Evaluate

I agree with the author’s point of view as he supports killing in the name of defense and not just to satisfy a desire to kill. Even though killing is deemed as immoral by many in the world, it is only logical, practical and necessary to do so in the situation of war.

Elaborate

In war, the aim of the enemy is to kill you and if you do not protect yourself by killing the enemy before he strikes, it is equal to you waiting for an inevitable death. Even though the author’s argument on why it is important for soldiers to ensure his own survival, which is that “Every soldier should remember that his life holds importance to others as well.

Every soldier goes to war leaving fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, wives and children behind. These family members hope and pray that their soldier will come home safely” is flawed since it can also be the very reason why an enemy should not have his life stripped away from him either, his argument is valid. Although everyone’s life is precious, a soldier often only has the power to ensure the life of one person. The enemy or himself. Thus it is justified to kill the enemy to protect one’s own life.

Evidence

For example, in the case of an emergency during mountain hiking, you and your teammates are in a perilous situation whereby the rope you and your teammates are clinging to, is unable to support the weight of all the climbers, the rule is to sacrifice the last person, whose weight endangers everybody’s life. In this situation, you do not have the capacity to save his life as by doing so you are endangering your own life as well as many others. Thus from this example, it shows that when you only have two choices, to save your own and your other teammates’ live and sacrifice one teammate, or to endanger everyone’s lives as a desperate effort to not let a single teammate die. The logical thing to do is to sacrifice that teammate who is putting the rest in endanger.

Reiterate

War is cruel in nature. A soldier can only kill or be killed in the process. There is no room for moral conscience to sit in for that split second when the enemy prepares to fire his weapon at you and threatens your survival. Hence, I agree with the author’s stand that killing is justified in war.

Language Arts SRQ essay group assignment

Foo Hui Yun (4)

Foo Li Ting (5)

Foo Ling Li Audrie (6)

Point

The author believes that soldiers are fully justified to kill in war to ensure self survival, as well as to safeguard his comrades in war, loved ones at home and everything else he is fighting for.

Evaluate

I agree with the author’s stand as in the situation of war, all acts committed by both sides are fair as no one is willing to be responsible for the harm they have done unto their enemy. Therefore, killing is justified for the soldiers in war where they face the equal threat of being attacked by their enemy.

Elaborate

In war, it is a harsh and cruel game of survival where it is either you or your enemy who perishes. Killing though on the moral basis is wrong, but an act of killing committed out of desperation is considered justifiable. Our lives are all precious but are we that willing to not pull the trigger on our enemy simply because our moral belief tells us it is wrong to kill? Our survival instinct would likely overrule the possibility of us being so noble to sacrifice our own life just to not kill someone who likely does not even bother about our life. Logically, we are deemed right to kill the enemy as they do not value our life.

Hence, the right thing to do is to sacrifice your enemy instead of yourself. The author states “But when to choose between killing enemies they don’t know and don’t care for, and indirectly causing harm or danger to people they love, it really isn’t too difficult to figure out which option is more appealing.” This argument is logical as no one would sacrifice for someone barely related to them even needless to say of someone who is out to harm them. Hence, the rational decision to make is to kill the enemy and such an act is justifiable.

Evidence

For example, for the drivers on the roads of Singapore, they are used to the routine traffic jams during the morning rush hour and the evening peak period on the roads, everyday. Everyone is equally eager to reach home after a long day at work and in school. Unfortunately, the long beeline of vehicles on the roads results in the slow crawl for everyone on the road. Drivers soon get impatient as time travels on while they remain almost stationary on the roads.

The common situation all drivers face is when you intended to cut to the right line which seems a faster travel to your destination which is relatively far, the car which you had wanted to cut into his lane, responds to your with a deafening and sudden horn. In such cases, both drivers get irritated with each other as they find fault in each others’ lack of courtesy on the roads. After a few minutes of staring and exchanges of resentment, both drivers carry on their slow progress on the road. Thereafter, the ‘inconsiderate’ driver who horned at you to not cut his lane, signals his intention to cut into your lane. In face if his decision, who you be willing to allow him to have his way? The likely choice would be to respond to him with an eye for an eye.

Similarly, most people would blast their loud horns and not allow the other driver to cut into his lane though he has nothing to lose or gain if the driver was to cut into his lane. This scenario displays the common experience of most people putting their own interests first. The decision is made from the basis that if your enemy who kill you why not kill him first? Correspondingly, drivers have the same mentality. When others do not allow him to cut their lane and make his journey slow and difficult, his shall do the same unto others and not allow them to cut into his lane too.

Reiterate

Therefore, in war, we consider our self interests first before our enemies. Since our enemies are bent on harming us too, we are thus rightful to do the same thing unto them as everyone wants to protect their own interests, rather than allowing our enemies to benefit from pulling the trigger on us.

Conclusion

Hence, it is justifiable to kill in war for self survival and to eliminate the chance of our enemies killing us, so we are warranted to do the same unto them too.