All Is Fair in Love and War †Paper Essay

Love and state of fight ar two contrasting forces the former involves c ar and personal extension while the latter involves brute force and destruction. They are too genuinely similar in the sense that success in rage and war can crown to the creation of happiness, relationship, devotion, liberty and freedom etc. totally of which can shape a persons or societies breedingstyle. However, beca give of such tempting and consequential factors, in both adore and war people can flummox so much focused and obsessed in their cause that they bar about their moral values and may even engage in malpractice to fulfil their goals. Although such mean can sometimes help them achieve their goals, I hypothesize these are not at all confirm as they trail to the benefit of one at the loss of another, that is, they lead to selfless(prenominal) biasness, and according to Sen & Mitra (1956) can hinder the oerall peace and work out of a society. As such, I disagree with the tone made by John Lyly in his book Euphues (1578) that all is pretty in bonk and war.Justification of my claim can be proved by illustrating the criticisms of an honourable framework known as Machiavellianism. This concept is similar to the notion of John Lyly because it states that ends justify means. According to this concept, people can use any means, no matter they are bad or disgraceful as long as it helps them accomplish their goal (which in this pillow slip is achieving success in get laid or war) by using them. I think such a proverb is very much illogical. If we delight in this, it would mean that even use of unfair means to achieve goals is reassert under the circumstances similar to love and war. To illustrate for instance, in love this would mean the use of cheating, blackmailing, betrayal, stalking, and infighting. Similarly, in war it would also involve cheating, torture, kidnapping, bribery, snake oil etc.All of these are amerciable acts and as Richman (2012) points out , involves a cost, or more precisely a dupe of the action. Performers of such action nevertheless treat the victims as less than pitying 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 secern and stability in the society. Thus, in this background supporting John Lylys claim would mean supporting illegal activities, instability and anarchy all of which would make human beings no less than animals. in that respectfore, these criticisms provides adequate defense for my claim.In addition to this, observing real life examples can also proves my claim. An obvious example is the violence being inflicted on women and minors in Bangladesh. Incidences such as trafficking, abuse, acid-attacks are a coarse 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 at present or indirectly attributed to some sick form of one-sided love, where the perpetrators used threat as a means of compelling the victim to accept their proposal and upon being denied wanted their demise.Such 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 resistance 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 exactly what the paramilitary force force known as the Razakars did when they aided the Pakistan Army against the Mukti Bahini during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Their actions lead to the murder of around 300,000 to 500,000 people at tha t time. As such, their means of lovable the war was the killing of millions of innocent people, which can never be justified.There are however, drawbacks of my claim. An example can be abortion of a handle to save a mothers life. In such case, fetching an innocent life is virtuously wrong, but saving the life of the women is morally right. 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 coiffe and control. But if the morally right outcome justifies the use of immoral means to achieve it, consequently such an action is justified.Therefore, in conclusion the notion 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 Hohfelds (2001) points out, this theory focuses on actions based on the fundamental rights of the parties involved. It does this by setting up hierarchy of rights, where the highest order right includes rights to life, autonomy 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, fulfilment the higher order rights take preference over the lower order rights and in this way ensuring proper justice and fairness for all. typeSen, K. & Mitra, J.K. (1956) commercialized Law and Industrial Law. Kolkata, The Word Press Private Ltd.Apperson, G. L. (2006) The Wordsworth dictionary of proverbs. Ware, Herts. Wordsworth ReferenceRichman, S. (2012). Do Ends Justify Means? (ONLINE) Available at http//www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/do-ends-justify-means. (Accessed 27 January 13).Rainbolt, G. W. (2006) Rights Theory. Philosophy Compass 1, ET 003, 111.BBC. (2012). Bangladesh Islamist leader G hulam Azam charged. (ONLINE) Available at http//www.bbc.co.uk/ newsworthiness/world-asia-18049515. (Accessed 27 January 13)UNICEF. (2005) Women and Girls in Bangladesh. Support to the Acid Survivors Foundation and the Kishori Abhijan Project in Bangladesh. 1