Rules of War
Does war have rules?
Does humanity?
Within which contexts? Why?
posted by D. Robin @ 10/23/2008
56 comments
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Does humanity?
Within which contexts? Why?
Does humanity?
Within which contexts? Why?
56 Comments:
War does have rules. I learned this fact from my brother who is a pilot in the Air Force. When he goes on a mission there are certain cases in which he can not tell his family where or why he went. That is an example of one of the rules of war; the rule of secrecy. They use this rule because then the enemy can not find out our military’s plans. Humanity has many unwritten rules. There are actions which are deemed socially unacceptable. Some examples of these socially unacceptable actions are making fun of someone else or purposefully hurting their feelings. They are called socially unacceptable because it leads to others feeling upset. This is one of the unwritten laws of humanity because humanity is defined as humankind and to benefit humankind the race must remain happy.
Meghan Taylor
For a certain amount of flexibility, I would describe "rules of humanity”, as definitive boundaries between the humane and inhumane. The thing about humans though - our gifts of reason and emotion often allow us to break those rules. Reason can lead humans to justify retaliation or violence with the false dilemmas like "the greater of two evils," and on the flipside, emotions cloud the judgment and rationality of humans, leading them to equally destructive tendencies.
Of course war has rules. War embodies the rules of humanity, and successfully breaks most, if not all of them. How are the rules of humanity pertinent in the context of war? On the macroscopic scale of the war encounter, the sheer quantity of involved human lives goes unsurpassed. It makes sense to me, considering war is singularly the greatest (largest) engagement between human beings, that the rules of humanity should at least be relevant. Without the rules of war, the rules of humanity would be all the masses have to act upon. By following the rules of war, humans must be willing to compromise the rules of humanity.
To kill or be killed. All participants in war must accept, or at least be aware of this rule. This rule alone can drive one human to end the life of another, in order to prolong his own. The result of this false dilemma is a selfish and inhumane act, perhaps, but a naturally human one too. If one decides neither to die for his country nor kill for his country, the third option of running away means an escape from war, and escaping the confines of this rule, but abandoning his country. Patriotism evidently allows humans to sacrifice the rules of humanity, and kill others.
To kill or be killed is expected, or at least accepted by the participants in war, yet other inhumane acts seem unacceptable. Worse than death, of course, is torture. The substance of the Geneva Conventions dictates the humanitarian rules of war. Essentially, they apply rules of humanity, or the humane treatment to others, to the methods of warfare. The Conventions specifically entitle humane treatment to citizens, wounded, prisoners of war, and more.
From what I understand, the Geneva Conventions concretely combine the rules of humanity with the rules of war. I am aware of certain inhumane American acts of war, like the bombing of innocent civilians in Hiroshima, or our president’s methods of Iraqi torture. Just because humans have displayed a natural tendency to break rules doesn’t mean that war doesn’t have any.
Human ≠ Humane
“All’s fair in love and war.” This quote would imply there are no real rules when fighting in war. This statement is untrue. In the context of the United States military, there are a multitude of rules applied to every battle fought. Without rules, a battle would result into complete and utter chaos. Although it can be argued that anything goes over seas, I would argue the opposite. Every segment of the army follows guidelines. Uniforms have a certain way to be worn. Men are organized into platoons, divisions, and each man has a specific role to play. I state “men” it is illegal for woman to fight on the front lines of battle. Although certain ethical “rules” may come into question, ethical rules are not written down. There are thousands of written rules for military members to follow. Consider the 5 military academies. Talented young men and woman take 4 years of elite schooling to learn all the rules of their selected branch. There most certainly rules in war.
Danielle Vetter
To answer this question, one must first define war. War is any sort of conflict, not necessarily one that consists of armies. There is only one rule of war: it must result from peace, and end in peace. Before a war is begun, by the very nature of war itself, there must be peace. Once a country, organization, or person decides that peace is not the most desirable state of the world, there is a conflict, or war. The war itself has no rules. As Mitchell Sanders says in “How to Tell a true War Story,”: “‘well, thats Nam,’ he said. ‘Garden of Evil. Over here, man, every sin’s real fresh and original.’” (O’Brien 80). Besides making an edenic allusion, the word original also means unique, and the reason every sin is unique is the lack of any rule to follow. There are no guidelines in war, so each individual must invent their actions as they go. No boundaries exist in war, and no height of atrocity thrills people. Any story with horror in it is simply passed off as its just war. The only rule of war, is not really a rule of war, but a context war must exist within.
Humanity starts and ends wars on a regular basis because humanity thrives off of war. This is related to the concept of war bringing peace. Humanity constantly fights, and eventually someone wins. If one considers a rule as a statement laid down by self-elevated officials, then rules become laws which are often broken. In this interpretation of “rule,” humanity does have rules. Every country that has a constitution has rules, but if rules weren’t constantly broken, there would be no crime. If one defines rule as a binding ideal that every being involved in humanity follows, a different situation arises. In this situation, there are no rules to humanity. The statement: “Rules are meant to be broken” would not exist if there were true rules to humanity. “There is a first time for everything” is another common saying, and its true. There is a first time for every so-called rule of humanity to be broken. In this way, there can never be a solid rule for all humanity. Certain religious groups have rules for their sect, countries have rules for their citizens, cultures have rules for their people, but the rules of one group could be absolutely atrocious to another. For example, the people Americans call terrorists have rules within their organizations, and condone suicide bombers, but as an American, I cannot fathom that rule. No rule exists for all humanity.
Like many of our other evaluative questions, the answer to whether war has rules remains “It depends”. Within certain contexts, a definite answer can be applied. For example, if we take the beginning of TTC, we can find concrete catalogs that list materials that soldiers require during the war. In the example of catalogs, war possesses rules in regards to the items a soldier needs and does not need. If this rule did not exist, inexperienced soldiers would not know what items prove essential in battle and could risk their lives. Another example applies to one’s morality and humanity; the issue of killing a soldier on your side of the conflict. Here, humanity appears to possess rules. Acting as an unspoken rule, a soldier should not attempt to wound or kill a peer intentionally. If this situation were to happen, soldiers would be missing the point of lessening the enemy’s power by killing the enemy. With these two situations, rules clearly define war.
In contrast, in different contexts, war appears to lack rules. At times of high emotion, such as the death of a close friend, what normally seems strange and immoral, what contains rules, occurs with no question. In TTC, the death of Curt Lemon sparks Rat Kiley’s sadism and inhuman-like retribution on a baby buffalo. Morality would not call for such horrible treatment to an innocent victim. In this situation, the all-encompassing war setting does not retain its rules and the humanity that soldiers would normally show.
-Sonia Lipov
Wars do have rules. A rule is an agreed upon statement from a similar perspective forbidding or forcing certain actions to be placed. While many rules do need to be written so that there is as little controversy as possible, a rule does not need to be written. In war, there are two perspectives to look at, the battlefield and the home front.
On the home front, the rules for war are written. An example would be that Congress must declare war before the President is allowed absolute control as Commander in Chief. Other rules from the past would be taking all products of copper and silver to make weapons during the Revolutionary war or getting drafted in the Vietnam War.
On the battlefield, most rules tend to be unwritten. The soldiers may go to any means necessary to achieve their goal, but they have rules to follow to get them there successfully and efficiently. These actions may seem very inhuman, but the soldiers follow certain rules. For instance: soldiers can agree that in order to win the war, blowing up your own platoon of comrades with grenades is forbidden. Some written rules on the battlefield are perceived in ranks. It is a rule that the commanding leader in a platoon is in charge and their orders must be taken. It is a rule that the medic of a squad is in charge of healing the wounded. It is a rule for the snipers to lay low, stay hidden and use caution.
With every rule, there come consequences if they are not followed. On the battlefield, it’s death. On the home front, it could be as simple as losing the war. To avoid the consequences, desperate measures are taken. The measures can be seen as inhuman, but there are no rules against them. There may be beliefs of certain soldiers or possibly even of the platoon, but all of the soldiers don’t agree with it. In Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried, the only two soldiers against staying in the church were Kiowa and Dobbins. The rest of the platoon took the necessary measures to survive. Since the Vietnamese soldiers agreed on avoiding churches in the battle, the American soldiers took advantage of that. While the action may seem sacrilegious, there was no rule against it. The conflicting views of the Vietnamese and the American soldiers bring another topic up concerning rules. Does humanity have rules?
Humanity does not have rules. All humans have free will. This free will allows them to think, do or say whatever they like and whenever they want to. However, society then comes in with its rules and can possibly punish the actions. Humans can choose to go on killing rampages in churches and orphan homes (not suggesting, just saying), society will punish that human for that.
When humans get shipped off into war, they are sent with no rules. They arrive with the same rules for every soldier. When people are sent to war, are they dehumanized? Another topic for another day I suppose.
~~Zach Steinbach
War has no rules. It is a free-for-all that can involve anyone of any race, age, culture, or background. On a surface level, war may seem to have some rule or logic to it. Innocent people appear to be removed from the conflict that is war. Specific entities support specific sides. In the end, though, alliances change and innocents are sacrificed. The apparent rules of war cannot be applied to every situation. They are no more than guidelines that suggest a possible way to conduct a war. These guidelines change depending on the people fighting and the location and the available technology and the funding provided and the severity of the possible outcomes and the culture in which a war is fought and much more. These ideas are not rules. War has no rules.
Humanity does have one simple rule: do good. This rule is the basis for many, if not all, religions. In Christianity, the greatest commandment is “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39). Everyone should be treated equally. This ultimate rule goes beyond religion. The golden rule, treat others as you want to be treated, is not directly associated with any religion, yet conveys the same belief. Help others. Treat the world with respect and caring. It does not matter what higher power you believe in or even if you don’t believe in a higher power. If you can make the world just a tiny bit better in your time on earth, you have followed the rule of humanity. This idea encompasses basic morality and kindness and should govern the lives of all. It transcends all cultures and ideologies.
Unfortunately, not enough people follow this rule. They put themselves before others and act like their wants and needs hold more importance than anyone else’s. They are the ones who start conflict and hurt others. They hurt our world. If everyone tried to follow the simple rule, do good, the world would improve because people would consciously care about people outside of themselves. A rule does not have to be followed by every person, but a rule should be followed by every person. The simple rule, do good, should be followed by every human being for the betterment of all.
Kathryn Hasz
Rules of war are determined by humanity. Humans can make and modify certain rules of war, as they have. New weapons, methods of warfare, strategies, etc. have all developed to hasten war, to hasten its end. That’s a part of human nature in and of itself. Its even depicted in “Sweetheart of Song Tra Bong” “Jesus Christ, it’s against the rules,” Sanders said. “Against human nature. This elaborate story, you can’t say, Hey, by the way, I don’t know the ending. I mean you got certain obligations” (page 113, O’Brien) The only rule in war is that what humanity expects of it. Humanity expects it to end.
There are no rules in war besides this because never can we say something cannot happen in a war. The possibility exists for almost anything to happen. The only thing that is most plausible for never happening is a war going on indefinitely, on the grounds that this has never happened before.
I will be using Merriam-Webster’s definition of rule as a prescribed guide for conduct or action to define my key term. The government of a certain army in times of war always needs to instill written rules for combat or engagement to establish order and organization in the chaos of war. But, in battle, the choice to follow the guidelines that the government provides becomes gray and the rule of the jungle begins to dominate and victory over the enemy dictates the army’s actions rather that what the government wants. As for society, I believe common courtesy applies as a guide for conduct that hopefully parents have the responsibility to teach their children. In order for an individual to be socially acceptable, it would make most sense to at least be courteous and polite. The golden rule also applies in my daily life too. These unspoken rules guide us but it becomes our decision again whether or not to follow it but there will always be consequences. But for those who don’t follow these guidelines, they may believe that there are no rules when they do exist, they are just ignorant.
Literary speaking, there are rules of war. An example is after world war one, in Geneva, Switzerland, a number of countries set regulations for war called the Geneva Protocol which including regulations for biological warfare. Following and regulating these rules is a completely different topic. During war, it is a life or death situation. In order to preserve one’s life, I would think, most people would break a law to stay alive. When it becomes life or death, following regulations is not the main priority any more, but survival is. Another problem is enforcing any sort of regulations of war. Even the organized township of Schaumburg, the police do not catch ever single illegal action. In the chaos of war, and though the entire wilderness it would be impossible to track every single action. War does have rule, by following them is a different topic.
Ricky Ariton
War does not have rules. I define a rule as a customary or normal circumstance, occurrence, or manner. In war, which can merely mean a type of conflict, (even on a small scale) people may attempt to set boundaries or guidelines. Once actually engaged in "war", the once reasonable mindset of those involved is hindered by adrenaline, raw emotion, and the primal instinct to survive. I argue that "to kill or be killed" is an unspoken trait embedded in the human psyche, not a rule. A wide-scale war (such as one between countries)-in the physical and mental sense, is an extreme situation. The act of being placed in such a different environment, an environment void of nourishment and social guidelines warps the perspective one must take on this question. While it would appeal to our reasoning as civilized members of society to claim that rules are upheld during times of war; we can not truly assess the situation without personal experience.
Erika Alexander
As Lauren said, a war is defined as a conflict, not necessarily including soldiers. Wars can range from a misunderstanding between two individuals at school or between entire nations. The occurences of war can be described as inhumane. Of course, there are plans and strategies for war, but not everything and everyone can be controlled in war times. There are many variables. A persons personal feelings due to their background can influnce their decisions and cause them to behave immorally. There is a conduct in war that if a country gains captives from another country they are supposed to treat them in a humane manner. Before this conduct or rule countries would take prisoners hostage and treat them worse than animals. They would torture them relentlessly until information would emerge and render that hostage no longer useful. This approach was completely inhumane. I personally do not understand how humans can commit such an attrocious deed. War forces people into situations where they feel like they have to choose to act in an inhumane way in order to survive. This is a false dilemma, there are always other options. War may not have distinct rules, but I believe that humans should follow an unwriiten code of conduct in order to remain moral and not destroy the world around them.
Fellow E319 students and Mr. Robin,
I do think there are rules to war, and humanity in general. I think rules are mere guidelines for anything any humans participate in. I do not think that a rule is something someone cannot do. Some may argue that these guidelines put a constraint on what we as humans are able to do, but this is a false dilemma. Certainly there are limitations on what we should do, rather than what we can do. For example, elementary school, we students used to have to ask the teacher, “Can I use the bathroom?” The teacher then would point out that ‘can’ implies physical ability, and the word ‘may’ asks for permission due to a rule. Of course the student could walk right out of the room, but rules stop the student from doing so. The same applies for war. Soldiers can, at any time, choose to act as they please. But, the guidelines of humanity and the specific rules for the war prevent the soldiers from acting upon free will. One of the most common rules for humanity is to not kill another human being. But, what is really stopping anybody from doing so? Maybe their conscience or morals stop a person from killing. Although this is a rule, anybody could defy it and act upon free will. I think this applies to most contexts because the guidelines, of what people should and should not do, concerns everyone.
Sincerely,
Poonam Sahasrabudhe (period 1)
I think that humanity has rules. I just don’t think that everyone chooses to follow them. Take, for example, the “golden rule” (treat others the way you want to be treated). We refer to it as a rule because we know that it is something that SHOULD be done, but does not always happen. I believe that a rule is like a guideline, it should be followed, but anyone has a choice to follow it or not.
I also think that war has rules. Since there is a system of leadership, like a commander or officer, and they are in place to make sure the soldiers are doing what they should, I feel that is a type of “rule.” It is someone or something that sets guidelines for the proper way to act.
I think that in any part of life there are rules because common courtesy, to my definition, is considered a rule, and that always applies in any situation. Also, how could we define good and bad or nice and mean without knowing what is “good” or “nice.” The rules of humanity dictate what these words mean in everyday life.
Missy Clougher
There are no set rules to war. One must do what they have to, to survive, and that is the bottom line. The law of the jungle, to kill or be killed. How can one make such a rule that compenstaes for the act of killing? How can rules exist in the same situation where the act of killing, as inhumane as it may be, is socially acceptable and also the most necessary act a soldier will commit. Of course there are unwritten codes that all soldiers abide by, whether they believe in them outside war or not. Do not betray a brother. Fight until the end. Never give up, never surrender? Are these unwritten codes rules? No. They are simply guidelines. Guidelines of respect, guidelines of war, guidelines of a soldier. How could one expect to make rules in such a situation as war? If rules were made, they would simply be broken. War is the greatest scene of inhumanity. War is the greatest scene of peace. One can find peace in oneself because even though they are in the middle of visual chaos, they are millions of miles away from the mental chaos that lingers within them when they are safe at home. How can one set rules to inhumanity? To peace?
War has rules, even though the rules may not be written. The leaders of a country will not just use an atomic bomb at the first chance to use it. The leaders know it is best to not use large area weapons for destruction unless the country wants to end the war, like the U.S. did on Japan, without setting off more fighting. It is just an unwritten rule that people know about enough to follow the rule. Shooting a nuclear bomb somewhere would devastate the whole area. Using a nuclear bomb would cause controversy between all countries and would need approval to use the bomb.
Humanity also has rules. At homes, parents set rules for their children of what to do and what not to do. Normally, parents do not need to write these rules down for the children. Parents hope the children will follow their rules. Also, humans have limits to where they can go. One human does not have enough power to control the entire world. As long as there are opposing forces in the world, there will always be rules for humans and war.
-Matthew Schnepel
When defining war as a conflict that does not necessarily include any type military intervention, it is possible to say that there are no rules in war. I wrote my “war story” on an internal conflict, and this qualifies as war under my definition. Wars such as these obviously have no rules; one can torture him/herself through mind games to no end, constantly going back and forth over an issue inside the mind. In issues of emotion, it is easy to see that rules are absent. What rules could possibly govern the loss of a dear family member? Emotions take over when such tragedies occur, and even the strongest rule could not contain these strong emotions.
In these wars, another issue emerges, that is humanity. There is only one rule of humanity, the Golden Rule: “Treat others in the way that you want to be treated”. This rule covers a great deal of ground, essentially stating that to be humane, one must treat fellow humans with respect. In war, humanity is often overlooked. In internal wars, one may torture him/herself through constant second-guessing. No one would wish to be treated disrespectfully by others, yet individuals commonly treat themselves without self-respect. Situations such as these indicate that the laws of humanity are suspended in times of war.
-Kevin Mangan
My definition of war would be a conflict between two different countries. I do not think that war has rules because war has no boundaries. If one thinks about weapons such as nerve gas, bombs, guns, or torture chambers, there are not any boundaries. If a country wants to drop a bomb, they will do it; if the country wants to torture innocent bystanders, they will do it. Sonia does make a valid point about the soldiers having to carry certain items, but I see that as more of a need for survival instead of a rule. I do believe that humanity has rules that relate to morals. To the majority of the society, going on a killing rampage would be immoral and inhumane, there are unspoken/unwritten laws regarding humanity. The rules of humanity relate to what society deems acceptable and unacceptable, the typical views of society on issues such as killing people set unwritten rules down for what is wrong and right.
-Sonal Chaudhari
War has rules; end of story. When talking about war as a battle between two armies, soldiers have specific tenets they must follow. They have to abide by the rules given out by their commander. If all the soldiers did as they pleased and no one complied with commands, the army would not win and suffer great losses.
If war is defined as a battle or conflict within oneself or between multiple people; rules still apply. No matter how much one disagrees or refutes what the other person says, certain things should not be done. Just because two people disagree does not mean a fight should occur. This statement is normative though and brawls do occur because of disputes. Death, betrayal, and deceit also should not occur simply as an effect of an argument.
When I think of rules of war, I think of rules like in a game. Some games have specific rules and others have the rule of no rules. War is just a game between two countries. In the big picture, the game does not have rules between the two countries because there is not a referee or higher power to say one team is cheating or not following the rules. Within the war, on each side, the soldiers have to follow the commands or rules of their higher powers. Those higher powers are leaders like lieutenants and generals that are in charge of the war. There are also the rules of humanity. These rules are known, unwritten, and, mostly in war, broken. In war, there is not time to think about being polite, courteous, or about any of those other lessons mothers teach their children. In school, these lessons become the rules of the classroom. In different situations, there are different rules.
Mona Patel
Yes, war does have rules. A rule is a set of guidelines that one should obey by. There is no way that a commander or any other high ranked authority would let his men do whatever they want on the front. Doing so would end up causing chaos, like Danielle stated earlier. If the war didn’t have a set guideline for the soldiers to follow, it would go against humanity. We as people look upon this as treating others the way we want to be treated. Well is that possible without rules?
Humanity, along with war, has rules. People have the choice to be respectful or not. Their actions are their reflections towards humanity. This rule is to treat others the way you want to be treated. If the golden rule was just written for no reason, then why do most obey it? Because as humans, we realize that it’s a guideline and it ought to be followed. It is a common courtesy, which is why the rule is instated in the first place; otherwise we would live in complete mayhem.
Jenny Birkholz per.1
I personally believe that rules do exist in war. In order to maintain a strict and organized team of men, with a strict and orderly procedure it is necessary to create a basic plan and basic rules to ensure that these plans are followed through. Although I believe that rules are created, I think that these rules are not strictly enforced at times. I think rules are seen as loose guidelines. I understand that rules are important and needed to maintain order, however, at times it is simply impossible to follow every rule. If you are in a dilemma and your choices are to follow the rules and kill innocent men, or break the rules and save them, which would you pick? I think that these same rules apply to humanity itself. Although breaking rules like cheating or stealing is wrong, some rules have exceptions. In many cases the rules being enforced are just too silly to understand. For example, in Connecticut you may not throw away used razor blades. (http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/connecticut) In Michigan a woman is not allowed to cut her hair without her husband’s permission. (http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/michigan) Some laws are just silly, and simply unable to be followed. Rules are a very important part of war, as well as humanity as a whole, however, in some cases I believe that rules are meant to be broken.
I believe that both war and humanity has rules. However, they are unwritten rules. Especially in earlier centuries, war had certain rules. For example, it used to be wrong to kill a noble or one of the leaders. They would be captured occasionally, but not killed. There are a lot of “rules” that soldiers follow, but they aren't sure why. Although war has been becoming less based on rules, being polite, ethical, or humane has transformed into unwritten rules. These “rules” aren't used much anymore, but they are still somewhat there. This also applies to humanity. There are certain things that people just don't do, because that is the way society functions. This can be seen with children especially. There are times when a child does something “wrong” but when they ask why, there is not always a good answer. The reason, though, is because society has developed rules, and people are expected to follow them, even if they aren't explicitly written out.
I think that there are rules because humans are uncomfortable without them. Having rules gives everybody the same general idea of how to act and behave. Since people don't like being extremely different from everybody else, rules help to keep conformity.
-Victoria Ammon
I believe there are rules to war.
If there were not rules to war, people would not know what to do. A person acts based on the rules governing the situation, and without rules a person will not act.
People learn how to fight in a war. If there are no rules; what are they learning?
The rules of war are both spoken and unspoken; personal and political. People make their choices based on what they learned was right and wrong. If a person learned to “treat others like you want to be treated”, they will be less likely to kill the innocent for fear of being killed themselves. A person who has lower ethical standards will be more likely to kill because they were not taught the same morals. A political rule of war is that the president cannot declare war on another country without the approval of congress. If a president does so without congress’ approval, he would be breaking a rule of war.
There are probably many more rules that I would not know about, never having been to war myself, that exist. I cannot comment on what I do not know for sure, but I do feel there are rules to war.
-Ashley Blum
For this purpose, rules can be defined as code of regulations bringing structure to a group of people, so accordingly they all have rules. In life, almost every group, organization, idea, or event has some sort of basic structure. Depending on the context, the rules may or may not be followed. In either situation, the rules can be forgotten in a moment of intense emotion or if logic is provided to disprove the rule. During TTC, Rat Kiley’s anger was so intense that he broke the rules of humanity (not torturing innocent animals.) in his need to feel better. If Rat had done this action at a time where he was feeling fine, he would have been punished for breaking the unspoken rules of humanity. Because of the context, none of the men questioned his actions.
Lisa Caponigri
War has rules. When a mission is secret, no one can tell it. When a higher up gives an order, the lower rank obeys it. Rules are ever-present in war and within humanity. Humanity’s rules include treat other the way you want to be treated, be respectful of others and your elders and give back to others who have given to you. These rules of humanity come from different cultures and religions yet the messages are still the same. However, everyone does not follow rules of both humanity and war. In war, some orders are unheeded, such as to leave a man behind or when a soldier tells a family member his secret mission. In the war environment, nature dictates whether or not a rule should be followed, such as following orders or killing a man, friend or foe. Rules may be set in place, but that does not mean they will be followed.
Sam Rill
Rules can be seen either as helpful, unwritten guidelines or legal laws that must be followed. Based on this interpretation, both war and humanity have rules. Sometimes, the rules of each even intertwine. In humanity there are many general rules that almost everyone, no matter what background or religion, believes should be followed. Views such as do not lie, cheat, or steal exemplify the basis of humanity. Do not kill, which is above the rest on the list of rules of humanity, does not successfully carry into the realm of war, even though rules still apply. Many unwritten rules do exist in times of war among the soldiers. An example would be leave no man behind. Although rules like these are not necessarily enforced, there is an expectation for the soldiers to follow them. On the other hand, it is said that drastic times call for drastic measures. This belief explains why a rule like do not kill cancels out. The drastic times can cause any rule, written or not, to be overlooked or entirely ignored.
-Brianna Saviano
War does not have a specific set of rules, but a person may create their own guidelines to follow. “Webster’s Third New International Dictionary” defines war as “a struggle of any degree of intensity carried on between two opposing forces.” War can be fought in any way a soldier wishes to fight it. Although war does not consist of rules, it does have structure and organization. Humanity consists of the same principles. A person may formulate their own set of rules, but no specific guidelines exist for all humans. Humanity is the quality or state of being humane. The way a person wants to act depends upon that person.
~Becky Wisniewski~
To start off, I view war as some sort a conflict between two or more nations, for which the military/army/any sort of armed forces are needed to settle the dispute through the use of hostility. I believe that, when it comes to people trying to resolve issues through the use of violence, although there may be suggested guidelines to follow, there are no "set in stone" rules. If thought about, one can conclude that a war always results in death, whether it be of one person, or thousands of people. In war, the young and innocent are killed along with the experienced. Innocent people from other countries who are forced to fight in the war are stripped of their dignity, respect, and even their lives by the enemy. For these reasons, as well as the fact that, there are medals such as the Purple Heart when one is injured or killed in war, efficiency awards, awards for good conduct, and for development upon many other things, I can affirm that there are no rules when it comes to war. After all, since when are people rewarded for following rules? I mean, if, on any given day, a person decides to not go over the given speed limit, does the police or government give this person some sort of a treat or reward? If one decide that he or she does not want to murder someone anymore, although they wanted to a couple of days ago, is someone going to be knocking on this person’s door to congratulate him or her, or would this person, rather, be shoved into the back of a police car, and wheeled off to a psych ward? The point is, the only reason for soldiers to be rewarded is because they exceed the expectations one has of them (not for following the rules!!!).
I feel that humanity also has ethics and morals, but does not have specific rules. While the government implements rules, these are just for the safety and security of others, and were made to prevent horrendous events from occurring. These rules were not there from the beginning of time, and were made as atrocious events were experienced. The only reason for a rule to ever be implemented by the government is because they fear, and are well aware of the capabilities of man, and know that, at any given moment, one can break all ethical guidelines, endangering many people.
Amina Iqbal
Society has certain written rules that must be followed in order to perserve peace. Some rules or laws for humanity are you cannot steal or you cannot kill someone. These laws are to the extreme and compared to the majority of the world, few people break these rules. Severe punishments are given to those who break laws in order for people to take them seriously. But there is one basic "rule" of humanity that all other rules are derived from, to treat others nicely in order to keep the peace. This rule is more of an unwritten guideline that if followed, the world would be in better shape. Unlike a law, breaking a guideline does not necessarily have a punishment though unfavorable results may occur. If the guideline of treating others nicely was followed, the world would be without conflict. Because humanity is imperfect, this guideline is broken many times. This dilemma inevitably leads to war, or conflict.
In the context of being in an army, war does have certain rules that soldiers and those involved in the war must follow. Rules such as following the orders of your peers is essential in order to get anything done. If broken, punishment awaits. But in war, the rules change. In order to achieve peace, violence must first be used (the paradox we talked about it class). Like humanity, in the heat of the battle, war has one simple rule and that is survival of the fittest. The real reason you kill the other person is not to win some war or battle but because if you don't that person will kill you. The need to survive and live another day is one rule that most people try to follow no matter what in war. In this context, there are no true "rules" for war and anything is up for grabs on how to survive. Humanity has rules to keep people from doing sociably unacceptable things that disturb the peace but in war, certain rules such as not killing someone, are broken in order for survival.
Ben Wu
As many of my peers have stated, rules are merely guidelines. By this definition, and using the definition of war as a conflict, war does in fact have rules. At an individual level, soldiers are given orders by their superiors, and these orders act as rules used for guidance. Rules also govern the concept of war (in this case, military combat), as there are many guidelines determining which actions should be taken in certain situations. On an even larger scale, all conflicts have rules that are set by circumstance to guide the actions taken by participating groups or individuals. Beyond this, humanity itself is given (and many times sets for itself) rules that govern every action taken by every individual human. In every situation (though the focus in this comment will be war) there are different sets of rules that are set by both the circumstances and by everyone involved in the conflict, and therefore in every context, all wars have some type of rules.
In the context of military combat, there are many rules set by the nature of war. The final goal of any group in war is to end up in a situation more favorable than that of their enemies. While this can be done in a variety of ways (kill them, persuade them, negotiate with them, etc.), the end result is always one sided in favor of one of the groups (this applies to every perspective, though perspectives on the victor may not match). With the goal being victory over others, war always possesses a single rule and guideline: take action for the purpose of “winning.” The basic premise of this rule is that groups in war need to take action in order to reach their goal or goals successfully, and not take actions for the purpose of losing. If the groups goal was to lose at something, then by losing they have reached their goal (yes, it does sound confusing) and have therefore “won” the war. Regardless of whether or not a group succeeds, the main rule governing their actions is that they need to pursue their goal (and all wars have a goal), and this rule cannot be removed from war. Humanity is no different from war, in that it has rules based on the situation. However, humanity possesses sets of rules unique and different from those of war. On the other hand, these rules are similar to the rules of war in that they are based on situation, and can be broken, changed, or disobeyed.
On a side note, while I am happy to see many other comments (probably since it is mandatory to write about this subject on the blog), it will take a while for me to properly analyze each of the responses that were posted before mine, and so I will write a separate comment responding to everyone else’s comments in the future (but not right now).
Randolph Chua (is too tired to write another comment at the moment)
War does not follow rules. War is a whole other playing field where different rules apply, it would be like playing girls powder puff ( no protective clothing) with the same rules as varsity boys football. In war, the rules of humanity are not really rules, they are more like guidelines. Having qualities of humanity can be defined as a general compassion or sympathy towards another human being or animals. In war, the kind that involves combat, guns, bombs, and, violence, it is inevitable for there to be casualties. If there is any rule in war it is to kil or to be killed. Soldiers in combat will at some point kill another human being. A soldier risks his or her life everyday and they are dependent on the those in their troop. They do not go around each others backs and try to hurt one another, it is an unwritten rule to watch out for a fellow soldier when both are fighting on the same side. Even though they can show compassion towards some, they can still lack the qualities of humnaity at the same time, like like Rat Kiley when his friend was killed. He took out his anger and sadness out on an innocent animal, a baby water buffalo. This is definetely not showing any kind of compassion.
Christie Huang
I define a rule as a guide line or basis at which others comply with. In war I don’t necessarily agree with saying that these types of rules are present but I do believe that there is a code. Wars are often associated with honor, a theme throughout many texts having to do with the subject of war such as Julius Caesar. I believe that this code is to abide by moral and ethical values in war. It's obvious that most people can differentiate between right and wrong and I believe this code is present within a war and that this code must be followed.
-Brianna Blackshire
ps: What happeed to the 100 words or less rule? There are some novels on this blog.
There are rules to humanity which are vital for the function of society. For example, the Ten Commandments (whether you believe in them on a religious level or not) govern society in that they are the basis of how humans treat each other. Without rules to humanity it would be impossible to have a functioning society or even relationships among individuals because no one would be on the same page when it comes to basic human decency.
When it comes to war I believe that the basic rules of humanity are the only ones that apply, and even those can be stretched and tweaked to better fit situations in the heat of battle. While there are guidelines in war, to me they are different than rules because guidelines dictate structure while rules dictate conduct and behavior. There are certain behaviors you don’t engage in during a war such as hurting a soldier on your side because it is an unwritten rule based on the rules of humanity. Without rules war too would be uncontrolled chaos causing it to be ten times as dangerous as it is now.
Maggie Miller
Although it would be easy to argue either side, I believe that there are most definitely rules to war. To me, a rule is a regulation that determines or sways an action. Not only are there obvious rules such as not to kill people that are on the same side as you, but there are also many more complex and moral rules. In TTC, the camp was set in the field and the generals could not change where they were supposed to set up camp for the night. Although men that died that night could have been saved, they could not override the rule. This can be seen as a rule because it prohibits people from doing something. Higher ranking people can also make rules for the troops following them. Even though the rules in war are different, they still apply to the word "rule." Therefore rules exist and can be created during time of war.
War, in fact, does have rules even though they may not always be followed. One such example is the fact that women can not fight on the front line. Even though women know this rule, they choose to break the rule in order to help protect their country. Rules are made to help protect and keep order but sometimes those rules must be broken to help preserve the cause.
Humanity also has rules to it but they are also not only followed. The rules are often based upon the culture that one is living in. In sone cultures, such as Cuba, torture is acceptable while in other places, such as Canada and most of the United States, people consider torture inhumane and a crime against humanity.
David Jenkinson
War has procedural rules, however no official moral standards seem to exist. To extend on what Danielle Vetter said, all is fair in love and war. Tim O’Brien, on page 85, describes his war story as actually being a love story. So regardless of how this story is viewed, as either a love story or a war story, all tactics are fair game. Another issue that this prompt brings up is if the ends can ever truly justify the means. O’Brien, on the same page, describes true war stories being about sunlight, love, and memory. His message is that all of the negative experiences, or his personal “wars”, have been worth it when he saw the end result. If the ends justify the means, the only true rule is to make the end worthwhile enough to compensate for the harsh means.
As for humanity, I do not believe that humanity has any rules. For example, British police officers shot a man that they believed to be a bomber. He fit the physical characteristics, so the police officers shot mercilessly. Officers shot the man five times in the head. This man was innocent. The police officers received no punishment. Is this humanity? Killing someone simply because they may belong to a certain racial background? The lack of action taken against these police officers demonstrates just how lawless humanity actually is.
Safia Kazi
I think that war does have rules, Meghan pointed out that her brother could not disclose certain information, that is a rule. Soldiers have to follow certain protocols or they would get into trouble with the military. In war, soldier’s can only shoot a person if they are carrying a weapon or blatantly showing aggression, other than soldiers just basically have to sit by and hope that this person does not harm them or anyone else. Also, there are rules set forth in documents in the Geneva Convention, which state that you should treat prisoners with human decency, it also states not to use certain types of weapons. In our first period class, Chris Baker, was arguing that no one follows these rules, but that does not mean that they are not there. For example, if we take the school rule of those students are not allowed to use cell phones during school hours. Majority of students, who have a cell phone break this rule on a daily basis, but not following the rules, do not make the rules disappear.
-Mo Khan (p.1)
Although it would be nice to believe that war had rules, I think the rules are more like guidelines really. The implied standards a soldier should follow when at war can easily be thrown out the window in search of victory. Although there may be certain codes a soldier should follow, these rules are not set in stone. One such example may be the implied rule of sparing the lives of innocent civilians. What about the bombs dropped on Hiroshima? This caused death of countless civilians for what other purpose but victory? The rules of war are intertwined with the rules of humanity. In both war and life failure is not acceptable. The one law almost every human, soldier or not, follows is kill or be killed.
Dominique Beaupre
Both war and humanity have rules. However, they may not necessarily be spoken. During war, one must make choices that will benefit the group. Unspoken rules such as always protecting one another, allow the group to remain safe and protected. Without certain unspoken rules such as protecting one another, war may be found to be more chaotic than it already tends to be. Just like war humanity has unspoken rules. Actions that one takes in their everyday lives are governed by rules that a person is first taught as an infant. Rules such as be kind and respectful towards everyone, are taught to children at an early age to guide them throughout life. These simple rules allow people to have a more optimistic view upon life.
Whether or not wars have rules are constantly changing based on current events or may not even exist in certain situations. For example, rules of war while aristocrats still employed feudalism are completely different from the rules that are followed today. Rules today would include things like guerilla warfare is an acceptable way of fighting while in those times, this would be dishonorable and would never be used. However, the rules of war today do not always exist as in the events of September 11. These actions were direct acts of war against the United States and very quickly claimed the lives of thousands of innocent civilians. This can also be seen as breaking the rules of humanity because so many lives were lost unnecessarily. Rules of humanity, or morals, have become part of the foundation of many societies. In the past, these beliefs brought people together and allowed leaders to control the people. Since rules, such as treating others as you would want to be treated, are a part of our history, they have become how society is expected to function. The individuals who choose to neglect this rule often suffer consequences because of their actions.
Sanup Desai
I do not believe war has rules. People in war fight for their beliefs and their lives and most people fight for these two things by any means necessary. War has always been a dirty game of who has the better ammunition or ambush tactics. People in battle respond to the situation with an idea of either fight or flight. Soldiers can not take time to wonder if a rule pertains to their situation. They need to react quickly and without hesitation or else detrimental consequences could occur.
However, humanity has a few simple rules. These rules include the Golden Rule of treating others how one wants others to treat them, tell the truth, and follow the law of a person’s country. These informal rules of humanity help people to cooperate and live peacefully with one another. When someone breaks these rules, war begins and all existing rules have no more meaning.
Marni Gonnering
I think that there are no real rules in war. I believe that my claim is true because although there are written rules, people loose sight of these rules while in combat. Rules are written down as a guideline before a war occurs but there is no way to tell whether rules will actually be followed once the war actually begins. To kill and be killed is a rule that soldiers have to readily accept as a part of life in war. There are unspoken rules in war such as not killing your alliances and leaving innocent lives out of the war. War has rules that are usually broken or should be broken based on whether the decision will help or hinder a situation. Some rules are a necessity to follow such as the rule of secrecy and orders given by higher authorities. Humanity does have rules as well such as doing unto others what you would want upon yourself. I believe many people have lost sight of their humanity by neglecting to care for the feelings or the position of others. Many people live in worldly ways which make them blind when it comes to caring about others. People break the rules of war and humanity when they allow emotion or poor logic to get in the way and negatively affect a situation. People decide to allow their emotions to effect a situation in which their judgment could be messed up. I believe rules of war and humanity need to be followed but are usually neglected due to circumstances and life altering situations.
Of course war has rules. There are rules of how operations are handled or when faced with a life or death situation which road are you supposed to take. Although, when rules are defined as humane or abiding by moral instinct, there are none. The reason that there are none is because there are people that end up fighting in war that do not believe that killing is right. These people do end up going against their morals therefore breaking the rules that would have been there in this sense. Some religions also portray that killing is not a way to resolve issues, but can be acceptable if in a time of war. This also presents the idea that a rule is removed for war.
--Rachel Kakareka
Anyone who is involved in, or knows someone in the military is aware that there are rules of conduct that soldiers must abide to in war. Rules of secrecy, rank, and position are all standard in war situations. When determining whether or not rules exist in war, the answer is clear; yes of course they do. There is no denying that certain guidelines and codes of conduct are laid out for soldiers to follow. I think that a better question to ask would be, “Do rules of war matter?” When faced with wars in life and on the battlefield, these concrete rules morph into casual guidelines. Kill or be killed becomes the prime motivation in our “dog eat dog” society. The only rule that reigns supreme is to survive. Similarly, there are set out rules of humanity. Though not all are written out, there exist proper moral behaviors that go without saying. Some look to religious books such as the Bible or Koran for rules to live their life by. Though these great texts provide good standards to follow, the rules are often broken in humanity’s greedy pursuit for their own gain.
-Chrissy
War has concrete, spoken rules, but no enforced unspoken rules, while humanity has both concrete rules and unspoken rules that must be followed in order to maintain order.
My own definition of war is any battle, conflict, contest, or struggle. Soldiers in political, physical war must adhere to certain guidelines and codes. Those rules are set in stone and given out by the government. Concrete rules regarding policies and order in war must be followed. Other than government-issued orders and rules, there are no rules in war. Pretty much anything goes, as is proven when Rat Kiley torturously shoots and kills the baby water buffalo. Although this act may have been against many moral “rules”, it was accepted because of the trying issues involved in war. There is no exact “right” thing to do in most situations in war, so there aren’t many rules that must be adhered to at all times.
Humanity has both concrete and unspoken rules that most humans choose to adhere to. Concrete rules for humans are quite obvious because they are the ones put in place by the government. Those laws are deemed as necessary to maintain order within the collective population, and are set in stone. However, the unspoken laws of humanity really rule over the human race. These rules apply to what practices of behavior and morality are widely accepted as the best codes of conduct. Humanity has these rules because without them, the human race would be rather misguided morally, and would have no sense of what is “right” in certain situations.
-Devin Ross
One can define war as a struggle to peace. I think war has both spoken and unspoken rules. For example, only men are drafted into war, when women today have proved to have the same capability to fight. If women would be drafted like men into war, the fight to peace would be more efficient and fair. War has many unspoken rules as well. For example, men promise to sacrifice their lives in war. Of course, no one says this out loud, but every soldier is aware of the unspoken statement before going off to war. War has spoken and unspoken rules, yet sometimes not obeyed by soldiers because rules of humanity overpower them. Rules of war and humanity do not mix and, in fact, are opposite as black and white. For example, in war, soldiers must be prepared to defend and kill. Emotions cannot intervene in these actions. But rules in humanity state that kill is a sin, or a violation against the moral principle. So, yes, both war and humanity contain rules, but ones that oppose each other.
One can define war as a struggle to peace. I think war has both spoken and unspoken rules. For example, only men are drafted into war, when women today have proved to have the same capability to fight. If women would be drafted like men into war, the fight to peace would be more efficient and fair. War has many unspoken rules as well. For example, men promise to sacrifice their lives in war. Of course, no one says this out loud, but every soldier is aware of the unspoken statement before going off to war. War has spoken and unspoken rules, yet sometimes not obeyed by soldiers because rules of humanity overpower them. Rules of war and humanity do not mix and, in fact, are opposite as black and white. For example, in war, soldiers must be prepared to defend and kill. Emotions cannot intervene in these actions. But rules in humanity state that kill is a sin, or a violation against the moral principle. So, yes, both war and humanity contain rules, but ones that oppose each other.
War has no rules. Rules are guidelines or standards that have negative consequences for anyone that breaks them unconditionally. All supposed “rules of war” are actually conditions. If, for example, the United States suddenly bombed Canadian cities, then the American public and the United Nations would put heavy pressure on the government and penalize it greatly. However, if the United States first accused Canada of massing troops in its cities for an invasion, then little or no consequences (excluding war with Canada) would come from the bombing depending on how strong of evidence the United States presented. Punishment for attacking without being attacked first has conditions for its application. A more realistic example comes from the world wars. The winner of the war never receives punishment. Germany lost many civilians in the war as well as suffering other considerable damage, but they still had to pick up the bill for the war because they lost. The victor never has to worry about their actions in war because they won and no one can force them to do anything. Again, conditions, not rules, govern war. Even when written rules exist they do not really do anything. Covert operations have been very popular in recent wars and their tactics nullify any supposed rule. Organizations such as the CIA and military special forces do not have to follow any rules or even adapt to any conditions because no one ever finds out what they did. If no one enforces a rule, or can enforce it, then it effectively ceases to exist. If the United States tortures POWs at Guantanamo Bay and no one ever finds out, then nothing happens. The Geneva Convention has failed. A politician’s signature or even a general’s orders cannot rule over war. War has no rules, and neither does humanity.
A rule has to be constant and defined in order for it to exist in the same sense in the minds of many people. Humanity, like war, has conditions, but no rules. Human beings base all of their actions on their motivation, which changes constantly. This fact makes it impossible to define any rule which won’t change eventually. In different situations with the same motivation people may even have different standards of action. Every person has a unique motivation and a unique way of achieving what that motivation pushes them to accomplish. This means that humanity has no rules as a whole and, since motivation changes over time, no one person keeps their same rules without altering them. Like war, humanity has no rules only conditions.
A rule is a law or principle that operates within a particular sphere of knowledge, describing or prescribing what is possible or allowable. When one is involved in a war, one must know the rules involved in the war, such as all soldiers must strive for identical perfection, hence the idea of wearing uniforms and marching in step. If a war did not have rules, then it would be chaos because there would be no boundaries to the endless actions people could make. Another sort of unwritten rule of war is that women are not allowed to fight in the war. This ties into the rules of humanity, making a clear dividing line between men and women’s rights. Because women are believed to be the weaker sex of the two, they are believed to be too weak to fight in a war. In terms of the rules of humanity, this allows men to feel somewhat superior to that of females.
Melissa Baxter
On a more basic and concrete level, of course war has rules. The military has specific guidelines that soldiers are required to follow. For example, there are standard operating procedures (SOP) in war. On a moral level, war has no rules. The ultimate goal of war is to defeat the opponent and people do this in anyway possible. For example, to effectively guarantee Japanese surrender, the U.S. dropped two atomic bombs on Japan in WWII. This action was morally wrong because it killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, and caused many more to be sick. If there were moral rules in war, there would essentially be no war because it is immoral to kill another person. Humanity most definitely has rules. The very structure of our government and legal system is the biggest set of rules. Without these rules our society would become barbaric and primitive. Everyone would do whatever necessary for personal gain causing our society to have no structure.
Josh Pirahmadi
First off, let me define what a rule is. To me, a rule is an interpretive statement made to be followed. For example a rule such as “No talking while the teacher is talking” can be taken several ways. When the teacher is not talking directly to you, you may speak. If the teacher is taking a break to write on the board you may speak. Or simply one may not speak during a class period dedicated to the teacher. Like this, the rules of war can be interpreted in many ways. Not specific rules like formation and directions, but rules to survive. If soldiers are in need of shelter, they will, and should, be able to stay in whatever place they need to whether it is a school, church, another persons home or an empty building. Moral rules are rare in war, simply because war is not moral. The golden rule, if there must be a rule in war, is to survive. If breaking the other moral/literal rules such as “no staying in sanctuary structures” or “no going past a certain boundary” help you follow the golden rule, they your playing the game of war correctly. Technically, there is no room for rules in war. One must do the best action at a certain time, not think about rules constricting them.
-Britnie Blackshire
I agree with everyone else's claims that war can be defined as any human conflict, concrete or abstract. I also agree to some extent that war has rules which can be (and are) broken, but I see the concept of rules in war as more the attempt by human beings to apply the laws of civilization to the exact opposite of civilization. Civilization is the product of humanity's ability and desire to rise above instinct, and to survive because they've created things worth living for, rather than surviving for survival's sake, whereas war is all fear and base instinct and survival at any cost. The act of going to war itself is an uncivilised act, because part of rising above ourselves is learning to recognise others as possessing the same worth as we do, and yet entire nations rise against each other, categorically repudiating the beliefs and lives of others.
One can look at war as the human expression of animal instinct; rather than a lone individual lashing out in automatic defense like an blindly enraged animal, entire nations mobilise in unity, and make regulations that should be followed, but the two have a shared purpose: to win. If you die, you lose, and so any pretense of basic morality is dropped when the situation demands it.
To look at it concretely, some general sorts of rules in a physical fight include don't attack from behind, and don't kick a man when he's down. And yet the Japanese won an important victory over the U.S. at Pearl Harbor because they attacked in deadly secrecy, and the U.S. took the initiative to end WWII unarguably by dropped the atom bomb.
Abstractly, most of us know what it's like to get into a heated fight with a loved one, and end up saying something that wouldn't normally have been said because it's very hurtful. This breaks the Golden Rule.
It's ludicrous to say that war truly has rules, by its very nature, and not much more correct to say that humanity does either, because humanity is often in conflict, and then all bets are off. Rules are also subjective, depending on people and their cultures. Therefore, there are no rules common to every single human being.
Lauren Nokes
Any war has rules. Rules are guidelines and laws set by an individual. Every soldier sets different rules for themselves to follow in the war. The unique rules depend on an individual’s morality and limit as to how much they can follow the rule. For example, in the beginning of the year, we played the game Star Power. There were no ‘logical’ rules to this game, but just to get the most valuable chips. However, some of us set rules for ourselves. Some of us ran after one another desperate to get the most chips. Few decided to stay silent the entire game, and some just stayed in a trade the entire game period. These are rules that Mr. Robin never told us about, but methods we decided to use in order to win. Similar to this game, in order to survive or to keep a sane morality, soldiers make their own rules to follow. If in a war, a soldier did not follow a set of rules, then he becomes an animal, immoral, mad, and corrupt.
The society is similar to a war, in that we compete to survive, so humanity also has rules. Consequences exist to punish those who break these rules. If rules did not conduct us, preset or self set, there would be no purpose for us to live. In Christianity, Bible gives Christians rules for them to follow, or they commit a sin. Because their purpose in their life is to please God with everything they can, they have to follow the rules, and the Ten Commandments were created for this reason. In humanity, we all have rules, some very odd. The rules gives us purpose to live, prevent corruption, and simply guide our everyday life.
Rules are the product of mankind's need for order, simply a creation meant to provide a basis of what is acceptable or not in a given situation. In the sense that people are the very ones who make these rules, they also have the power to alter, dismiss, or betray any they find unappealing.
In war, where there are not written laws accompanied by consequnce and punishment, the soldier's own personal morals become the basis of right and wrong. This allows one to develop their own set of rules. Making the idea that war, itself, has rules, false.
1. My cell phone has helped my friendships I would say. I am able to talk to my friends, and family, whenever and where ever I need to. For my parents, they always can reach me to find out where I am (the GPS chip in my phone helps as well). My friends and I talk much more because I am not “running up the phone line” at home. Instead, I am just using my unlimited texts.
2. The internet lets me express myself in a number or ways. Using myspace and facebook I am able to have pictures, my interests, “about me” sections and much more available for my friends to see. Whatever I put online is my choice of what I want people to know about me. Obviously I am not going to be putting my address and phone number unlike others on the internet but still putting information so people know it’s distinctly me, not someone else. Bumper stickers on facebook are my favorite. For the unaware, they are basically pictures of random things or phrases that you could send to your friends. I will admit I do overuse them quite often to express my thoughts.
3. School projects first come to my mind for this. We as students are able to get in touch with each other with ease these days. We used to have to plan in school what we did for each project and where we would meet after school and hope everyone in the group would remember, but now we can just send a text message or a facebook comment as a friendly reminder. You are always able to be in contact with someone, which sounds like a good thing, but also kind of a creepy thing.
4. Technology has helped my education personally because I have so many more sources of learning to do research and homework with. Google has become my best friends lately. On the other hand, students have the internet as a default and text books and readings as a last result. We are becoming a lazier country because technology has taken over our lives.
5. This blog is a perfect example of using technology to better ones learning. Not everyone wants to talk in class, and the fact Mr. Robin puts a blog up for other students to express themselves is only helping their education, not hurting it.
6. Love is such a strong word. I personally do not love myspace or facebook, but I am however addicted to it. It is so entertaining to me. To look at all the amazing features one website can do is just so interesting. I spend most of my time trying to get into each different parts or myspace and facebook to experiment. What I do like about myspace is how you can completely choose how yours looks. Dark or light, small font or big, one picture or one hundred; it’s all your choice.
7. Facebook and myspace are very popular with high school students, and unfortunately even older groups. If ones intended audience are teens ones age, myspace and facebook can send messages to all ones friends with ease. If one writes something on their facebook a message is sent to all their friends what they wrote. Ones message is quickly and easily shared with everyone they choose to associate themselves with online.
8. When creating text online, you can’t really have an intended audience. The World Wide Web serves people of all ages and all locations. Everything can be accessed by any number of people. How can you have an intended audience when everyone and their mothers can read it?
9. No, it is not. Even though you have free speech, you can’t just post anything on the internet. Illegal threats and plans to harm someone is just one example. You can easily offend different races and different people so censorship is a big thing when posting messages or ideas anyone can get their hands on.
10. Hopefully when posting something on the internet ones Exigence is to have a positive message heard. Unfortunately a percent of internet users do not have this Exigence. The purpose as American citizens should be to help one another and have a positive message to be heard and recognized. People today abuse the privilege of having the right to the internet and conceal themselves while sending out a hurtful negative message to all World Wide Web users.
britnie blackshire
Post a Comment
<< Home