Its not too long so I am just posting it.
James Beins
11 September 2002
If a person was to believe that an end cannot justify the means then there could be no valid reason to kill. There would be no reason good enough to go to war. With this reasoning there is no possibility that the act could be good. On the other hand, and this is the reasoning I will defend, what if the end does justify the means. What if taking a life to save many is okay? What would it take to make it a “just” act?
I will next tackle the actual question in three parts. When is it forbidden for a person to kill, when it is permitted, and when if ever it is required. Soldiers in a just army may never kill an innocent person. They also cannot kill a guilty person unless they or their fellow soldiers are in immediate danger. This means that there must be an immediate threat on the person’s life or that of their friend. Of course in all instances even if you or a friend is in danger and killing the threat would save you, you may only use that lethal force if it is the only thing that can save you. So, if there is a way, any way at all to resolve the situation without killing, that method must be used. There must never be doubt in the soldier’s mind. He must practice relentlessly until he knows how to properly identify threats. So when could it possibly be mandatory to take a life, what action could be so threatening that it demands fighting.
There are those who cannot fathom going to war, those that decry killing at all costs, people that will not fight for any cause or ideal. One argument is the oldest around. It says “evil begets evil” or “violence begets violence.” This reasoning supports the idea that if you hurt me I will hurt you in return, therefore no good can come. This implies that it is inherent in human nature to seek revenge. Another argument that has value deals with the issue of both parties in a conflict having valid reasons and both believing in what they are doing. What good can come from a conflict where both sides believe in their cause? Both sides of a conflict can be following their ideals.
The idea that war is unacceptable has been around for a long time. Some say that we must avoid it no matter what. To these people there is no good reason to fight a war. As Plato and Aristotle would have said we must fight in defense of virtue. All positive virtues lead us to goodness. We have great ideals as Americans. We believe that these ideals are if the utmost importance. Freedom, Justice, and Honor among them. When these ideals are threatened we cannot allow them to fall. Even if the foe we face has strong beliefs and ideals we must maintain the belief that ours are stronger and closer to good. There can be no good nor any basis for good if we do not hold true to our ideals. As Aristotle said we must also be consistent in our application of virtue. An act is only truly virtuous when we have practiced and are capable of continually doing it without contemplation. An action cannot be good if it is not based on an absolute, a belief for which we are willing to give anything.
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which they are willing to fight, nothing which is more important than their own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”
-John Stewart Mill
In this situation a person must fight, must have the will to protect those ideals that are just and true. Some will say that an “evil” action cannot bring forth goodness. This is a valid argument and I would agree. Good cannot come from evil. My suggestion is that by the consequent the action becomes good.
Intention is vital. If you do something normally considered wrong with the intention of doing great good you can do no wrong. This only works if the intentions you carry are good. If the intention is in line with ideals that are worth fighting for only goodness can come. This is where the argument remains. The person took another life. Someone is dead regardless of why or weather they deserved to die. How can that be good? There comes a time in this discussion when you must ask which is the lesser of the evils. Take this example as a closing argument. A soldier has been dispatched to eliminate a threat at a meeting of college students, professors, and such. Intelligence has “suggested” someone may try to attack the meeting. (By suggested, there is no concrete proof) The soldier encounters a man with a bomb. The man is crazy; willing to give up everything to stop this meeting. Should the soldier not kill the man and allow him to kill hundreds of innocent people?
