903729366
Essay 2: Intervention to Stop ISIS In President Obama’s speech in 2014, “Intervention to Stop ISIS”, he elaborates on the significance of helping others in need, that because we hold “unique capabilities” (i.e. our highly advanced/geographically ubiquitous military and a request of aid from the Iraqi government) we should act carefully and responsibly to prevent potential evil actions happening in our world. One could determine the morality of President Obama’s military actions by applying the Just War Theory — the doctrine that war be morally permissible under stipulated conditions. — into Jus Ad Bellum theories. In the first theory, “The cause must be just”, the order meets the condition because the action was taken in respect …show more content…
jets to airstrike terrorists in Iraq and determining if it is morally permissible or not, one would have to consider the weight of all people that are affected. When this methodology is applied, the conclusion would be that it is morally permissible to perform the airstrike because the death of innocent people would generate far more unhappiness than if a group of terrorists were killed. To Apply Kan’t Means-End principle, the outlook on people has to be parallel with treating people as a rational being and not a “thing”. Kant would say that President Obama’s action was not morally permissible because his position on murder is that there are no circumstances that can justify someone killing, hurting, or damaging another person; by performing the airstrike and killing ISIS members, even though they are very bad people, this would still violate Kant’s principle. My personal opinion on the matter is that the actions taken by President Obama to authorize an attack on ISIS terrorists were morally permissible because the act of terrorism is something that should never be carried out by any individual and it never results a positive impact in any instance. This, along with my favored moral reasoning theory, Utilitarianism (which says that the attack was morally permissible), I believe that all terrorists who commit such nefarious crimes do not deserve the right to
Essay 2: Intervention to Stop ISIS In President Obama’s speech in 2014, “Intervention to Stop ISIS”, he elaborates on the significance of helping others in need, that because we hold “unique capabilities” (i.e. our highly advanced/geographically ubiquitous military and a request of aid from the Iraqi government) we should act carefully and responsibly to prevent potential evil actions happening in our world. One could determine the morality of President Obama’s military actions by applying the Just War Theory — the doctrine that war be morally permissible under stipulated conditions. — into Jus Ad Bellum theories. In the first theory, “The cause must be just”, the order meets the condition because the action was taken in respect …show more content…
jets to airstrike terrorists in Iraq and determining if it is morally permissible or not, one would have to consider the weight of all people that are affected. When this methodology is applied, the conclusion would be that it is morally permissible to perform the airstrike because the death of innocent people would generate far more unhappiness than if a group of terrorists were killed. To Apply Kan’t Means-End principle, the outlook on people has to be parallel with treating people as a rational being and not a “thing”. Kant would say that President Obama’s action was not morally permissible because his position on murder is that there are no circumstances that can justify someone killing, hurting, or damaging another person; by performing the airstrike and killing ISIS members, even though they are very bad people, this would still violate Kant’s principle. My personal opinion on the matter is that the actions taken by President Obama to authorize an attack on ISIS terrorists were morally permissible because the act of terrorism is something that should never be carried out by any individual and it never results a positive impact in any instance. This, along with my favored moral reasoning theory, Utilitarianism (which says that the attack was morally permissible), I believe that all terrorists who commit such nefarious crimes do not deserve the right to