Shawn Mende

Morality and Judgment

Morality by definition is the conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous
conduct which means did we do what was right, or what was easy? Its a question that can
plague people in their past memories for the rest of their lives. Judgment is the process of
forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing evidence and testimonies in the
attempt to find the absolute truth of to what happened and then sentence them based on the
laws of the land. Now in the face of extreme situations it can be very hard for morality to take
hold such as in times of war, many abominations occur during these times and it is truly
saddening that it does. But we as human beings who live above the Natural law and place upon
ourselves our own law which to live buy, even in the hardest of times have a code to live by.
Those that break the law need to be judged and have the wrongs answered on behalf of the
wronged. Many things happen when genocide occurs in a country, rape, senseless and mass
killing, torture, and I am sure much more horrific actions that I dare not even think about. Who
is to be judged for these actions from the leaders down to the soldier there are many people to
take action and to blame and where is the moral actions in all of this, do they carry out orders
out of fear and self-preservation, or is it because they are just as sadistic as the ones carrying
out the orders.
As we all know for one of the biggest and most well-known examples of genocide, the
holocaust. Many people ask why this happened; some are even to this day in denial that it truly
did happen because the atrocities are so unspeakable and horrific. The first question I would
like to ask about is the moral culpability of countries and leaders who make civilians the targets
of warfare. When you begin to target civilians as part of the war you mostly do so on purpose,
on the cause of bringing the moral of your enemy down. It is one thing of targeting weapons
manufacturing plans to stop or halt the creating of more tanks or planes and such for building
up arms but its another to target a city in lets say an air raid. The Nazis first started this action
in world war two with the bombing of Brittan and the creation of concentration camps. Soon
after Brittan went and returned the action by hitting a civilian target, the United States did the
same as well by dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I am not arguing if what
they did was right or wrong but stating the fact that it did happen. But genocide has occurred
outside of a world war time to, for instance in Rwanda the Hutu tribe killed and raped about
800,000 men, women, and children of the Tutsi tribe. The action and start of the war was
believed to be by Hutu extremists shooting down their own president for his political move of
the transfer of some power in the country, in doing so chaos broke out, fingers were pointed
and the killings began. The truth of what I have come to terms with when it comes to civilian
killing is that it is not moral and wrong especially when all that most of these people are trying
to do is live peacefully and some men or women on a power trip think its ok to try and start
killing civilians for their own political gain. It is very greedy of them for what they do and the
reason behind it, I have never once herd of a good reason for genocide because truthfully there
isnt one at all to give and I dont think that there ever will be. I know and understand in war
that there will always be unfortunate civilian casualties but there is a very big difference
between targeting civilians in war times and having some casualties from crossfire.

Now for all of these wrongful actions committed their must be some actions done
against them for the sake of justice. I believe that it is the right of any country or international
body to legally judge individuals for policies and actions undertaken during armed conflicts. This
can help maintain order and the atrocities that may happen during war times to a minimum to
hold the person accountable for their actions during times of war and when in times of peace.
As horrible as war is, two enemies fighting can respect each other and show respect by
upholding their own laws and other simple acts at the very least. But like the Nuremburg war
trials for the holocaust, they are forced to answer for their actions and placed on trial. For
example Fritz Sauckel was a Nazi war criminal; he went and organized the systematic
enslavement of millions of people from lands being controlled by Nazi Germany. When Fritz
was captured, he was given a fair trial to answer for his crimes that he committed during the
times of war. In doing so the court found him guilty and he was sentenced to death for his
crimes against humanity. Every man is accountable for his actions at all times; there is no
excuse for what has happened to the millions that have died. The Nuremberg Trials are a great
example of justice and fair trials given to these men who have done some horrific acts of
cruelty and forcing them all to face up to the actions that they have taken against mankind.

It is possible to prevent anything to happen like this ever again by act of targeted
killings. But are targeted killings ever morally right and is it really justified to deal with others in
this way who commits acts of terrorism. I personally think that it would help a lot as long as it
can be proven without a shadow of a doubt. It would need proof of action in what they are
doing, and second the persons identity would have to be verified for it to take place. For
example with Osama Binladens assassination when seal team six went in to take his life, it was
not just a US operation, it was jointed with other countries as well giving intelligence and
cooperation so the team can carry out its mission. It was a rather large secret, but thats the
way it has to be in order for something like this to take place. But the question is it morally right
to do something like this without giving them a fair trial. I personally would say it is fair because
even if a trial would be held, we would be spending so much time and money on the trial, and
all of the public access that person would have on TV would be ludacris to even give him a
chance for further public action turning himself into a martyr. Having a targeted killing or
assassination would not only save much, time and money but would also lessen the
propaganda that person could do with his extra publicity given to him via the media covering
the trials that would have to take place. I believe that it would be a good and smart decision to
have something like this in place but not only for the political or financial aspect but also for the
countless lives you could save by ending it much sooner than later.
As a people and human race I would like to believe that we all have the duty of helping
each other out in times of dire need, for instance of having the moral duty to act in the
presence of genocide. As a people and international affairs we have usually left incidences to
their own countries letting the United Nations help those countries in need of some type of
military intervention, but what if they chose not to, and the representatives voices are not
herd and fall on deaf ears, whose duty is it then? I understand that a lot of political things have
to come first to take action especially in the United States were the president has to take it up
with the judicial branch before any actual action can take place due to the check and balances
of power. But I believe that it is important that no one ever turns a blind eye to a country I need
of assistance when facing genocide. Too often have countries stood idly by thinking it will just
blow over or something similar that it would just go away or take care of its self, because in
reality it will but not until after countless number of people have died. Like what happened in
Rwanda so many have died, and it was known by the United Nations as to what exactly was
happening, how could you not but they chose to do nothing as the Hutu tribe killed countless
numbers from the Tutsi tribe. I believe if known it is the duty of Nations who know about it to
help stop the genocide and force them to resolve their differences in another fashion without
all of the killing and tragedies that happen with genocide. It is said that for a good man to do
nothing is evil enough, and in this case it is even more so particularly true to the facts. To
further protection against genocide from happening again, specific criteria would have to be
made, a list of common symptoms that happen with genocide so it is noticeable and known
when it is going to happen. It is important that all countries and the United Nations keep a
watchful eye on this subject because genocide doesnt just affect the targeted group, it can
affect the world like it did in World War 2.
In conclusion to Morality and judgment, genocide in of its self has no morality in it what
so ever, it is extremely barbaric with equal acts of cruelty to both adults and children alike. I
wish proper justice to be served on all offenders of it, but the simple truth is that not everyone
can or will be judged on their acts due to different circumstances that vary from fleeing the
country or hiding, to suicide or death from the war. I hope genocide will never again happen
but I easily fear that is a very naive wish, but what isnt is hoping that a country will be able to
recognize what is really going on and to be able to have the moral fortitude to stand up to it
and stop it before it claims the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.