Ethics

One is buying a hotdog from a vendor, as he looks into a near buy ally he notices a man being beaten and robbed by a criminal with a baseball bat. One must now consider their options both to ignore the problem and go about as if nothing happened, or secondly to help the person in need. For the purpose of this essay it will be agreed that one will come to the aid of the man in need. One must now ask them self how to help the one in need. Is one, under such circumstances, morally obligated to use force and violence to rid the assaulter? Through the views of a rule utilitarian it will be argued that one should have a moral obligation, thus being the last resort, to act in a violent manner in pursuit of a greater happiness for all. Viewed on a small scale, the same principle can be applied on a larger, and more moral, global scale. Countries are faced with decisions regarding life and humanity regularly. Violence and war are not equitable answers to problems that surround politicians and people through daily life. However it will be argued that under a number of circumstances violence and war may be just if they fallows certain principles and is the absolute last resort that would result in a superior happiness.

To be a rule utilitarian is to consider the consequences of the practice of promise keeping or promise breaking. In a more understandable manner one must ask them self what would fabricate the best results when people fallowed a certain rule. For example, using the instance of the man in the ally way, it should be understood a rule utilitarian in this case would help the man being robbed. Analyzing the situation and realizing that people cannot simply go around robbing others through acts of violence, the rule utilitarian will come to the conclusion that the act being committed is wrong, thus to resolve the problem one should help the man in need by all means necessary. Helping the man will result in a greater happiness for the man, his family, his future, and so on. If one was placed in the position of the man being robbed violently and one realized that around him was a metal pipe, one is moray obligated to defend them self with the same amount of force that is needed to remove them self from that situation. However to act in a violent manner towards a hostile situation is easily proven to be unjust, and unfair. If one takes into account a hostage situation, although there are many ways to confront this problem violence should be ones last resort to fasten the situation. For if the hostage taker is shot and killed, by a sniper for instances, this is clearly an unjust use of force. Although the man may have seemed violent there may have been other ways that would not only prove to result in no violence but also prove to be a more peaceful and just solution. However if the situation was reversed and the hostage taker was intent on killing the hostages, it can be clearly seen that the life of the hostage take is worth less to a rule utilitarian then the lives of the hostages. Thus in this case one should be morally obligated to act towards violent acts with violence, thus so violence was used to result in a greater happiness that was collectively agreed upon by a surrounding majority.

Defined as the threat or use of violence often against the civilian population, to achieve political ends. Terrorism often involves threats, bombings, and death to innocence. However many so called Ð''terrorists' see what they are doing as a means of a greater good where it is believed the end justifies the means. To counter terrorism Ð''in 1997,the UN General Assembly approved of a resolution that "declared all terrorist acts in any circumstances as unjustifiable criminal acts:' Through the views of a rule utilitarian, terrorism can be seen as a selfish and unjust act for it seems to constitute a law in which nothing else matters except applying the use of force and violence to obtain a desired demand or result. For in this manner it can be agreed that if everyone went towards terrorism there would be a great loss in innocent lives, this including women and children. One must once again ask them self does the end justify the means?. The answer to a rule utilitarian is simple. There is simply no negotiating with terrorists for they admire the use of force to obtain a goal. For example the terrorist acts of 9/11 produced no more then proof of the might of terrorism and its many forms. Many innocent people were killed from this incident. In a situation such as the one held on the planes, it is clearly evident that as a last resort it should be ones moral obligation to act violently to promote a greater happiness. For example in the two planes that hit the twin towers there was violence used to hijack them, however if violence