Violence, Terrorism, and War Essay
The world we reside in today is full of animosity, anger, and misconception which is what brings out the violence in people. Different elements formulate together to influence violence. One of the reasons is why it is necessary to commit the act. The top two worst kinds of violence are terrorism and war. They bring out the worst in everyone and are harmful to society. Both inflict anguish to not only the civilians and soldiers experiencing it first had, but also on the following generations to follow them.
The novel Violence, Terrorism, and Justice states “Consequentialists, then, will doubtless stand out as much against contractarian views here as they do against natural law or Kantian ones” (Frey & Morris, 11). Does this reason justify the atrocities that have occurred and currently occur in the world should happen? We were taught as children to play nicely and be understanding of others, why should that idea be excluded from our mindset as adults? It shouldn’t be. It’s farfetched to say, but I believe that eventually the world can learn to live without hatred towards one another.
People need to start to realize that or we will be the downfall to the end of all humanity on Earth rather than the end of the world 2012 epidemic. People need to come to the realization that regardless if they are fighting or in the country that is under attack, in one way or another they will be affected by the aftermath of the harmful assault that has taken place. Many factors come into play when violence is presented, economical issues is one. it has been proven that a higher rate of violence presents itself in poor countries and low-income neighborhoods compared to higher end neighborhoods.
In the readings, violence is also linked to the media such as movies, television shows, video games and news that focus on the violence that occur worldwide (Mackinnon, 434). all of these portals portraying violent actions show a great influence on children today. Other factors such as child abuse, physical and emotional, can cause that child to repeat the same actions on their children as well. Violence from a consequentialist perspective, such as a utilitarian who “would want to weigh the harms caused y the violence with the supposed good” (Mackinnon, 435). According to the text “Non-consequentialist such as Kant would want to evaluate the violence from a perspective of using persons or doing something that involves something irrational, such as saying that my killing is permissible but others in similar situations are not” (Mackinnon, 435). My definition of terrorism is violence being inflicted on a civilization from a different civilization in order to perpetrate fear and harm the other.
The text defined “The term ‘terrorism’ means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience” (Mackinnon, 436). Mackinnon states, “One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter” (435), which I believe to be one hundred percent factual. “The reasoning that supports terrorism is most often basically consequentialist and utilitarian.
The end is thought to justify these means if one supported this type of reasoning, then one would want to know whether, in fact, the benefits or the harm and suffering caused by the means” (Mackinnon, 437). The non-consequentialist “self-defense of some sort might be a basis for using violence against another, those who are not attacking but are simply going about the business of life cannot be used by others” (Mackinnon, 437). I side with the consequentialist ideals in this reasoning because there is a rhyme and a reason for everything.
After breaking down the chapter and fully understanding the ins and outs of violence, terrorism, and war, I believe that people need to change. Intentionally inflicting pain through violent acts on to another can be avoided and in order to able us in to handle issues in a civilized manner. War and terrorism is said to be done in order to defend ones’ country from harm; however, the consequentialist’s form of reasoning of the matter is that “violence does more harm than good” (438) which is true. I myself take the path of pacifism, which the texts states “to kill another is wrong in itself.
Pacifists must address the criticism that it seems inconsistent to hold that life is of the highest value and yet not be willing to use force to defend it” (438). I could never bring myself to harm another, regardless if that person has committed a horrendous act in order to harm me.
Frey, R. G. , and Christopher W. Morris. Violence, Terrorism, and Justice. Cambridge [England: Cambridge UP, 1991. Print. Mackinnon, Barbara. Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. Seventh ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.