Moral choice of man in war. Moral choice: examples

The war is perhaps the most terrible thing that humanity could learn during the years of its existence. Floods, earthquakes, tornadoes - all this is the whim of nature, in which people from ancient times rallied for survival. It is a kind of a challenge from above, to find out if a person will stand, of course, people themselves can not do anything about it.

War is a challenge, completely artificial, dictated by the desire of one person to kill another. This is a real plague of humanity, for which he will be ashamed until the very end of time.

Poetization of war

If you pay attention to the way to cover this terrible, bloody event in literature, cinema or theater, you can see that along with cruelty, horror and chaos, there is always beauty, selflessness, greatness. Recall at least the Trojan War, unleashed because of the love of the beautiful Helen? Or the war of the Roses and the Roses? Or even the Great Patriotic War? How is it covered in literature and cinema?

As a rule, war is considered a great feat of the people, about which later it is customary to compose legends and write books about heroes. From all this we should conclude that art largely poeticizes this terrible event, the real scourge of mankind. The moral choice of a person in war in this case, as a rule, goes to the background, but more on this later.

Choice of war

First of all, it is worth mentioning that this phenomenon in history is always someone's choice. As a rule, this is not at all the will of the people, as it is customary to write in textbooks and speak in beautiful television programs. In fact, this is a decision of a very specific person who has managed to give his own idea of life, to infect the people with it. For example, let's take a war that was once unleashed by fascist Germany. Did ordinary workers, teachers, and librarians want to exterminate Jews and representatives of other races (who, incidentally, lived quite safely before that)? No. This was wanted by Adolf Hitler, who managed with the help of his charisma, persuasiveness and other personal qualities to convince people that they need war.

The moral choice of a person in war, in fact, begins with the question: Should it be unleashed?

Features of choice

If this topic was touched upon, one should think about the kind of choice that can be given to the person involved in the war. The topic may seem simple and insignificant, but this assumption will be highly improper.

How much does the whole person attack at the first call to military operations? He needs not only to decide whether he is fighting for the war or against it, but he also needs to take weapons or better just wait out this terrible time, saving himself and his family.

Literally right after that, he faces the question of dividing the ideal. A person is forced to decide for what he went to kill. Who is he going to take life to? Who is the enemy here?

And of course, we should not forget the moral choice of a person in war. In this case, we mean the choice not only between "shoot and not shoot," but also between "save or not save."

And, worst of all, the right option can not be chosen.

Alea jacta est

Unfortunately, not always a person goes to war at his own will. Sometimes it is required by the state or an elementary need to protect their family. And this is the worst thing.

The problem of moral choice in war does not arise for those who go there voluntarily, who go there to kill for the sake of murder. If we have already talked about fascist Germany, its example will be used further. No spiritual hesitation was felt by the fascists in the full sense of the word - people who enjoyed the killing of other people.

But there were also those who did not want to go to the front. Those who are obliged to take up arms and go into battle to defend other people's ideals.

That's before them the problem of moral choice in war opens. Kill or die yourself, save a friend or your own life, run or stay in position until the last breath. And these are only the most vivid examples of impossible dilemmas.

Of two evils

Many will disagree, but it is very likely that whatever choice is made, it will be incorrect. Following the technique of the famous Sophists, we note that everything depends on which side to look at this or that phenomenon. The saved life for some can become an invaluable action, the greatest of all possible. For others, it will be a betrayal of the homeland and a fall of man.

What can be guided, if you need to make a moral choice of a person in the war? The only correct option in this situation, perhaps, will be personal beliefs, the very soul of a person who can encourage or oppose a particular decision.

A few examples

If we raise such a topic as moral choice, examples are required first. Turning again to literature, we recall the famous hero B. Pasternak - Dr. Zhivago. At one point he was with a gun in hand in front of a whole field of soldiers, thrown into a fight. The hero of the novel could shoot at people and help with his own, but instead he released the clip into a tree - so unnatural was it for him to take someone's life.

Or remember Irene Sendler, who saved two and a half thousand children, taking them out of concentration camps in a bag. Just imagine, what moral choice of man in the war stood before her. She could save her life or lose her life, and in tortures that are hard to even imagine. And yet she ventured.

Why is it so difficult

When it is required to make a moral choice of a person, the arguments for or against can be very different. But the greatest, most weighty of them, of course, is fear. You can be afraid for your own life or the welfare of your family, for what others say, for what awaits in the day ahead. All this often confuses and does not allow to remain the person in resolutely inhuman situation.

Among a number of other factors, the issue of material remuneration is particularly prominent. Of course, from the point of view of morality, there can not even be a talk about the choice between money and the life of a child, an old man, a woman ... and any living being, in fact. Nevertheless, there are those who have a bowl of the weights on the other side.

Open your eyes, humanity!

The theme of a person's moral choice is traditionally considered in a completely different aspect: Shakespeare's - whether to be or not to be a schismatic creature - to be trembling or the right to have Gerasimovsky - to sink Mumu or not. The war, in this context, was pushed to the background, as if humanity was trying to forget this misfortune, so many times with it happened.

Of course, this theme was raised in their works by famous writers, of course, it was reflected in the cinema. However, we tried not to pay special attention to this, so as not to point out to a person the absence of humanity in him.

Now this question is asked by many: the moral choice is the composition of the USE or just the reasoning in the classroom. Philologists and psychologists are increasingly turning to this when writing diploma and course papers. More and more often, all humanity thinks about this.

Perhaps someday we will understand that the only correct solution is life without war, and a justified choice can be called only that which does not warp our soul. We can hope that this grief of the whole mankind will not pass through one country any more. We can believe in this. And we believe. This is our choice.