• Cuz it is. It iz cuz it wannna be cuz ita G like dat

    It juz iz cu dat how us peepoe wer rased. Wen peepoe wanna go to da miltery we gotta pass a nolege tezt nd clerely i aint dat smert. I aint gotta worry bouit gettin killed in da militery cuz i broke nd dont wanna go too da militery. JC out deucez

  • Huge penis in bum

    He has a small pecker so yeah hes allowed to do whhat he wants so fuck off the guy hes got a tiny pekcer d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d dd d d d d d d d d

  • Moral or not, we do it

    Is it immoral? Sure. But people go to war when they can't come to a peaceful compromise. Really, you would think that our elected leaders could compromise (that's why they are there...) but when worst comes to worst, they result to war. It would be great to end war, especially in the middle east, but when you have so much greed in the world, it's hard to do so.

  • It is not bad to kill some to protect a lot

    Some times to protect others you need to kill alot. It is justifiable because by doing this you saved a lot of lives. Suppose there is a suicide bomber in public, taking him out could save thousands of lives therefore the most ehtical thing that a person can do is to taking him out which eliminate all the chances of others getting hurt because of him.

    Like in the movie 'in time': "For few to be immortal many must die"

  • Obviously, yes it is...

    Monstrous cultures and nations existed and still do exist. Hitler and Nazi Germany was easily one of these cultures/nations. They had to be stopped because of the great evil they've been doing.

    Aside, from stopping evil, I'd say self-defense is also a good reason, assuming the nation defending itself is innocent as a nation/group.

  • "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

    Eradicating barbarous organization that intents to inflict murderous atrocities upon humanity is not only morally justifiable but also an obligation for men of goodwill and those who want harmony and peace in society. Many would agree that killing the Nazis was an essential approach toward achieving this objective. When Hitler's long-reach machinery weapons were knocking at Europe's door, murdering incalculable number of children and women, other countries take a moral stance and join force against Hitler, killing the Nazis and ultimately terminating the continuous murdering of children and women. Was this approach toward the Nazis morally justifiable? Anyone with the slightest degree of scrupulosity would say yes.

  • Jordan lopez has pledged his life to isis

    Jordan Lopez from grand view Washington has pledged his life to Isis at the age of eleven and a half. Jordan was involved in the bombing in pairs along with his sidekick eggplant nose Estrada. There minion pizza roll was the one taking the blame if they ever got caught for the next bombing at the playboy penthouse. Mr. Lopez told reporters he wants to die by getting suffocated in fake titties.

  • Killing in war

    I believe that you should not be rewarded as sometimes you may win a medal for your service and that encourages others to kill people if they feel threatened or use violence in circumstances where they could instead use words. With all the problems there are in the world we should not encourage these people to do things or though technically in some circumstances it is self - defence but if nobody saw this as self-defence but murder then most people would not do this and there would be an absence of war. Thank you

  • Killing is never a good solution to any problem, not even killing Hitler.

    Reason is. Even if you do not believe in God, or the rules put down by God, you will not want someone to come and kill you, because of something other people did. That is what war basically is.

    Many innocent people die, people who have absolutely nothing to do with politics, or government issues. Women and children are killed in this so called war. How do you justify something like that? If we as a society hate mad killers.
    When a crazy guy kill innocent people and we see it in the news we get angry, but yet we allow our president or government to send soldier to other country to do the same kind of killing, but this time around we are happy about it, how do you explain that? Soldiers do not bring peace, they bring chaos, pain, and sorrow to every family and everywhere they go. YOU CAN NOT MAKE PEACE WITH GUNS AND SOLDIRES.
    And as for morally justifying the actions of war, this should be very easy, is it a moral thing to kill someone who has done absolutely nothing to you? In fact is it moral to kill a group of family whom you do not even know? If these things are perfectly justifiable then I guess war is ok.

  • Violence is Never The Answer

    First of all killing is never the answer not even if it is to prevent the death of many others because if you apply is to Emanuel Kant's process of perfect actions and apply murder or killing to a large scale society then we as a society would cease to exist. But this cannot apply to war in our current day and age instead of fighting we should enlighten ourselves so we don't have to fight where everyone from Africans to Americans to Russians to North Koreans all rise above violence and all are ruled under one sovereign absolute government like Thomes Hobbes states in his book Leviathan in which he describes how humans in their natural state are chaotic and unpredictable leaving th world to ruin so this question can never be answered until everybody in our world realizes that war itself is irrational therfore this question is pointless and meaningless to answer. Case Closed!

  • Killing is a grey area, especially at war.

    Certain countries (America is infamous) choose their moral code as an established, highly progressive and decide anyone not up to scratch are barbarians. Rome did it it's whole life, Europe did it all over Africa and Americans have done and continue with this policy. What must be understood is that the world and it's separate societies are progressing at completely independent and different rates. While America may be in an age of industry, middle eastern countries haven't quite got there yet, and that's fine too. But a problem arises when America decides to intervene for profit and to boast their moral views. They have to remember, before america was colonized, they were extremely more primitive than the Jihaadists.

    In my eyes, murder is only acceptable as a necessity. If you must kill someone in order to immediately survive or save others under threat also: what has to be done, must be done. Cases like Hitler's holocaust were not out of necessity and therefore immoral. This needed to be changed so the war was therefore somewhat justified.

    However we also have to look at things like the cold war, where america's involvement was purely protecting their own image. It is therefore immoral for them to start and kill in a war. Same principal in Iraq, they only retaliated out of frustration of being 1up'd. They could have taken a moral high ground. Same goes for all the wars started (but they don't admit it) over oil.

    To conclude, killing in war is only justifiable if it is to save the lives of many more, and not because some country was butt-hurt.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.