“Great men are never good men.” To be great is to be considerably above average in terms of ability, quality or eminence. To the British, Sir Winston Churchill was indeed a great man and he is most well known for rallying and leading the British during the Second World War during his term as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, inspiring them to strive for victory. However, not all of his actions were “ethically sound”, or morally good or correct, possessing and displaying moral virtue, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, even though his intentions were for the good of his people and country. Therefore, I agree with the quote and in this essay I will be evaluating the extent to which some of his decisions and actions were ethical
…show more content…
On August 4th 1943, Churchill ordered the increase export of grain from India to fuel the war effort, while decreasing the quantity of imports of grain into India at the same time. In addition, he diverted supplies of wheat to India, insisting that it should be stored in Europe instead to build a reserve to feed European civilians after their liberation, and he turned down appeals to send shipments of food to India. In defending himself during a cabinet meeting held on September 4th in 1943, Churchill stated that he had been prioritizing the citizens of Greece who were also suffering from famine, and that the “starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks”. To Churchill, it was more important to help the Greeks and other liberated countries than to help the Indians, whom to him were always undernourished and too poor anyway, even though they clearly needed more aid and resources at that time. Having said that, it was made clear that his refusal to import grain was due largely to racial contempt, and his Anglocentric and imperialist view of the world when he blatantly told others that he hated Indians and that “they are a beastly people with a beastly religion”. (Amery 832) Churchill, in another war cabinet meeting, even accused the Indians …show more content…
To him, the end would justify the means, and his main aim during his leadership was victory for his country, as he once stated in his one of his speeches as Prime Minister: “You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror”. (Churchill) In striving for victory for Britain, he had to make decisions that were not ethically sound, and take actions that were not morally right, in order to progress further and be one step closer to his ultimate goal. To many British people, this dedication and motivation of Churchill’s meant that he was a good man, as he only wanted success for his country. However, it was this same motivation that led to the unnecessary and even unjustifiable deaths of millions of people. His motives might have been for the good of his people, but some of his actions and the fact that the benefit towards the Europeans would mean that other people that were not as favourable to him personally would have to suffer and bear the consequences of his decisions made his actions as a whole morally
On August 4th 1943, Churchill ordered the increase export of grain from India to fuel the war effort, while decreasing the quantity of imports of grain into India at the same time. In addition, he diverted supplies of wheat to India, insisting that it should be stored in Europe instead to build a reserve to feed European civilians after their liberation, and he turned down appeals to send shipments of food to India. In defending himself during a cabinet meeting held on September 4th in 1943, Churchill stated that he had been prioritizing the citizens of Greece who were also suffering from famine, and that the “starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks”. To Churchill, it was more important to help the Greeks and other liberated countries than to help the Indians, whom to him were always undernourished and too poor anyway, even though they clearly needed more aid and resources at that time. Having said that, it was made clear that his refusal to import grain was due largely to racial contempt, and his Anglocentric and imperialist view of the world when he blatantly told others that he hated Indians and that “they are a beastly people with a beastly religion”. (Amery 832) Churchill, in another war cabinet meeting, even accused the Indians …show more content…
To him, the end would justify the means, and his main aim during his leadership was victory for his country, as he once stated in his one of his speeches as Prime Minister: “You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror”. (Churchill) In striving for victory for Britain, he had to make decisions that were not ethically sound, and take actions that were not morally right, in order to progress further and be one step closer to his ultimate goal. To many British people, this dedication and motivation of Churchill’s meant that he was a good man, as he only wanted success for his country. However, it was this same motivation that led to the unnecessary and even unjustifiable deaths of millions of people. His motives might have been for the good of his people, but some of his actions and the fact that the benefit towards the Europeans would mean that other people that were not as favourable to him personally would have to suffer and bear the consequences of his decisions made his actions as a whole morally