'All Is Fair in Love and War – Paper Essay\r'

'Love and state of contend ar two contrasting forces; the former involves conduct and personal attachment while the latter involves tool force and destruction. They argon also very confusable in the sense that supremacy in have a go at it and war aro intent lead to the creation of happiness, relationship, devotion, emancipation and freedom and so forth all of which stick out establish a persons or societies lifestyle. However, beca enjoyment of much(prenominal) tempting and primal factors, in both love and war hoi polloi hobo become so much cerebrate and obsessed in their cause that they forget close to their moral values and may charge interlock in malpractice to achieve their goals. Although much(prenominal) essence can mosttimes help them achieve their goals, I rec all over these are non at all confirm as they lead to the benefit of bingle at the loss of a nonher, that is, they lead to selfless(prenominal) biasness, and according to Sen & group A; Mitra (1956) can hinder the overall peace and furtherance of a society. As such, I disagree with the vox populi do by John Lyly in his curb ‘Euphues’ (1578) that â€Å"all is fair in love and war”.\r\nJustification of my necessitate can be turn up by illustrating the criticisms of an ethical framework known as Machiavellianism. This concept is similar to the belief of John Lyly because it states that â€Å"ends unloose means”. According to this concept, people can use any means, no matter they are braggy or immoral as long as it helps them accomplish their goal (which in this field of study is achieving success in love or war) by utilise them. I imply such a saw is very much illogical. If we approve this, it would mean that even use of unfair means to achieve goals is reassert under the circumstances similar to love and war. To flesh out for instance, in love this would mean the use of cheating, blackmailing, betrayal, stalking, and infighting. S imilarly, in war it would also involve cheating, torture, kidnapping, bribery, fraud etc.\r\n in all of these are il profound acts and as Richman (2012) blocks out, involves a cost, or more precisely a dupe of the action. Performers of such action merely treat the victims as less than human and as mere means to their ends. Their only justification for their action being that the benefits achieved are incommensurable. However, in doing so they forget the fact that such malpractices are all against the law which are made to secure say and stability in the society. Thus, in this context supporting John Lyly’s claim would mean supporting illegal activities, instability and rebellion all of which would make human beings no less than animals. Therefore, these criticisms provides adequate defense for my claim.\r\nIn addition to this, find real life examples can also proves my claim. An limpid example is the violence being inflicted on women and bush league in Bangladesh. Incid ences such as trafficking, abuse, sharp-attacks are a common scenario in this country. According to Unicef (2005) there were 266 acid attacks reported in 2005 over a one year period, affecting 322 people1. Of these, 183 were women, 76 were children under 18, and 63 were men. Although, there were other reasons, a majority of the attacks can be directly or indirectly attri buted to some sick form of â€Å"one-sided love”, where the perpetrators apply threat as a means of make the victim to accept their proposal and upon being denied treasured their demise.\r\nSuch justification of love is obviously not acceptable. Similarly, in case of war I think it seems illogical destroying hundreds of innocent lives just to kill a few enemy combatants, as in the case being undertaken in Afghanistan, Iran and other Arab countries. It is also not fair work as henchmen for enemies who are abusers of power. This is on the nose what the Paramilitary force known as the â€Å"Razakars” did when they assisted the Pakistan Army against the Mukti Bahini during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Their actions lead to the murder of more or less 300,000 to 500,000 people at that time. As such, their means of loving the war was the killing of millions of innocent people, which can neer be justified.\r\nThere are however, drawbacks of my claim. An example can be abortion of a baby to drop a line a mother’s life. In such case, taking an innocent life is morally wrong, but saving the life of the women is morally decently. As such, the point is, in all things there must be lines which should never be crossed, since if that happens, it would lead to destruction of order and control. But if the morally right outcome justifies the use of immoral means to achieve it, then such an action is justified.\r\nTherefore, in conclusion the notion â€Å"All is fair in love and war” is not always true. Application of ethical frameworks and examples clearly proves this, and so I firmly disagree with the idea. However, there are alternative ethical frameworks that can overcome the drawbacks this notion and my claim, one of which is Rights Theory. As Hohfeld’s (2001) points out, this theory focuses on actions based on the fundamental rights of the parties involved. It does this by scope up hierarchy of rights, where the highest order right includes rights to life, indecorum and human dignity. Second order rights involve the rights of the government, legal and civil rights. Third order rights involve the right to education, good healthcare and so on. As such, fulfillment the higher order rights take preference over the lower order rights and in this way ensuring right justice and fairness for all.\r\nReference\r\nSen, K. & Mitra, J.K. (1956) commercialised Law and Industrial Law. Kolkata, The Word Press cliquish Ltd.\r\nApperson, G. L. (2006) The Wordsworth dictionary of proverbs. Ware, Herts. : Wordsworth Reference\r\nRichman, S. (2012). Do Ends Justify fashion? (ONLINE) Available at: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/do-ends-justify-means. (Accessed 27 January 13).\r\nRainbolt, G. W. (2006) Rights Theory. philosophy Compass 1, ET 003, 1â€11.\r\nBBC. (2012). Bangladesh Islamist leader Ghulam Azam charged. (ONLINE) Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18049515. (Accessed 27 January 13)\r\nUNICEF. (2005) Women and Girls in Bangladesh. Support to the virulent Survivors Foundation and the Kishori Abhijan Project in Bangladesh. 1\r\n'