The definition that I got from an online dictionary defined “collateral damage” as it pertains to armed conflict as “the killing of civilians in a military attack”. Determining circumstances where this is justified and immoral is a tough call for me; I have seen and heard of both sides of the spectrum because, as many of the readers out there, I have family serving in the U.S. military; my uncle was active in the Army and my brother recently returned home from his second tour in Iraq. I think there are certain circumstances where collateral damage is morally just; for example, if a country is completely against another, often times the civilians are also involved in combative warfare. Soldiers have died under the fire power of a civilian, but then again, the other side of it is that there are always a very select few that aren’t involved in said warfare and want nothing more than the violence out of their country so they can return to their normal lives. However, in this perspective, the members of our military are in the frontlines bravely fighting, and some losing their lives, to protect their country and in a way, citizens may live with a similar situation, whether they chose to or not. An example of this is the attack on the Twin Towers on September 11th; many citizens lost their lives due to a form of collateral damage. This is an obvious example of an unjust distinction, with the loss of innocent lives through terrorist actions against our country.
Another perspective that argues that collateral damage is immoral is what is commonly used to appeal to one’s emotional integrity: children. As I mentioned above, some do engage in violent behavior out of hatred for the opposing party, but young children also make up that percentage of the civilians who don’t partake in any kind of active warfare that innocently die for a cause they felt they wanted nothing to do with. And looking at our society and the various views on the war on Iraq and now Afghanistan, there are many people for the war, but just as many against it. However, I think in a way, whether one is for or against a particular war, the entire country is seen to be for the war seeing as their country is actively fighting. Each individual isn’t really given a distinct voice to be for or against the war. As it pertains to children, however, many are too young to understand the implications of the reasoning for the violence going on around them and sadly lose the lives of their loved ones or even their own lives with this misunderstanding.
I feel like I didn’t exactly hit the nail on the head with this blog topic this week and I’ve been sloppily jumping from topic to topic to argue both sides of my ideas, I’ve been contemplating this all week and could never come up with a straight distinction between what would be morally just and what wouldn’t be. I think there are many sides to consider, perhaps many more than I shed light on in this blog. Even though it may seem unclear in my blog, I do think that when looking at a specific situation, it could be distinguished whether the collateral damage is moral or not, but I also believe that there is a rather thin line between morally just and downright wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I also did my blog on this topic, like you I felt it hard to say whether it is possible to concretely say that collateral damage is just or unjust. I understand your point of view because I also have family members who are involved in the military and I know how hard it is for them and their family. But at the same time I understand that from the point of view of the people that are invaded and attacked, as we felt on 9/11, it is hard to see the good intentions that armed forces from other countries come with. Sometimes the risk of collateral damage, on every side, is too high and no matter the goal I think it should be avoided. It is virtually impossible to anticipate the outcome of every decision and when it comes to something as important as human lives, I feel like that is just something to precious to be tampered with. Even though the term collateral damage is defined as a military attack I do not think it is limited to this. It can also pertain to social problems and personal, in my opinion I feel like for many it is like a cop out, a way to justify many of the atrocities that are committed in the name of progress or the like.
ReplyDelete