Free Essays on Position Paper

â€Å"Ethical Warfare† President George Bush once put forth, â€Å"Using military force makes sense as a policy where the stakes warrant, where and when force can be effective, where its application can be limited in scope and time, and where the potential benefits justify the potential costs and sacrifice.† (President George Bush, p.423) This criterion as Bush describes is nothing new. It has been traditionally known as international law. They are also part of what is known as just war theory. Some people have preferred the use of the phrase â€Å"justified war† instead of â€Å"just war† because they believe that in just war theory there is a presumption against the use of military force that must be overcome or should it? Just war theory can be traced all the way back to 400 A.D. by the writings of St. Augustine. He was concerned about how to reconcile traditional Christian views of the immorality of violence with the necessity of defending the Roman Empire from invading forces. He asked â€Å"what one should do if one sees an individual attacking an innocent, defenseless victim? His response was that â€Å"one should intervene and do whatever is necessary to protect the victim, even up to the point of killing the aggressor.† (St. Augustine, p. 424) We know of this theory today by The Hague and Geneva conventions. Remember, also that human beings have been fighting each other since prehistoric times. But is war really bad? The ethics of war starts by assuming that yes, war is bad, and it should be avoided whenever possible, but it recognizes that there can be situations when war may be lesser evil of several bad choices. War itself is bad but when justified it serves a purpose to protect the life of human individuals. Although war itself can be backed by a number of ethical theories, ethical egoism sort of stands back and says, yeah if I was in charge on the United States, of course I am going to act the way I ought to ... Free Essays on Position Paper Free Essays on Position Paper â€Å"Ethical Warfare† President George Bush once put forth, â€Å"Using military force makes sense as a policy where the stakes warrant, where and when force can be effective, where its application can be limited in scope and time, and where the potential benefits justify the potential costs and sacrifice.† (President George Bush, p.423) This criterion as Bush describes is nothing new. It has been traditionally known as international law. They are also part of what is known as just war theory. Some people have preferred the use of the phrase â€Å"justified war† instead of â€Å"just war† because they believe that in just war theory there is a presumption against the use of military force that must be overcome or should it? Just war theory can be traced all the way back to 400 A.D. by the writings of St. Augustine. He was concerned about how to reconcile traditional Christian views of the immorality of violence with the necessity of defending the Roman Empire from invading forces. He asked â€Å"what one should do if one sees an individual attacking an innocent, defenseless victim? His response was that â€Å"one should intervene and do whatever is necessary to protect the victim, even up to the point of killing the aggressor.† (St. Augustine, p. 424) We know of this theory today by The Hague and Geneva conventions. Remember, also that human beings have been fighting each other since prehistoric times. But is war really bad? The ethics of war starts by assuming that yes, war is bad, and it should be avoided whenever possible, but it recognizes that there can be situations when war may be lesser evil of several bad choices. War itself is bad but when justified it serves a purpose to protect the life of human individuals. Although war itself can be backed by a number of ethical theories, ethical egoism sort of stands back and says, yeah if I was in charge on the United States, of course I am going to act the way I ought to ... Free Essays on Position Paper In today’s society, there is a controversial debate on whether the outcome of the contact between the Europeans and the Native Americans was a positive or a negative outcome. Some people will argue that there were many benefits and others will argue that there has been a lot of pain and suffering since the contact. There is a hand full of evidence to support both sides of the situation. Most arguments are very strong, but like most situations, there are always two sides to a story. The history behind this topic is so controversial because there is not one person, still living today, that can speak from first hand experience. Today, many people are now questioning the elementary school perception of Christopher Columbus and his voyages. In the year of 1492, Christopher Columbus, along with a crew of Spaniards, sailed across the Atlantic Ocean, discovering many different lands. Some of the first areas he landed on were the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico. The dominant people on these islands were the Taino Indians. The Tainos were very friendly and welcomed the Spanish with open arms. The Spanish traded material that wasn’t worth anything for gold and jewelry. The Spanish used the Tainos to gain their knowledge and then executed them. The effect of the contact between the Native Americans, such as the Taino Indians, and the Spanish was a negative outcome because today, the population of indigenous people is very low, their culture and traditions were stolen and used by others, and people, that are not rightful owners, are using their land. There are many positive arguments related to this topic. Although, the Spanish did kill a lot of Native Americans, the decline in population had a lot to do with tribal enemies. Evidence has also shown that a large quantity of Native Americans, during that time period, committed suicide. Another argument is that other nations were going to conquer these lands anyway. Today...