All Is Fair in Love and War †Paper Essay

Love and war are two contrasting forces; the former involves care and personal attachment while the latter involves brute force and destruction. They are also very similar in the sense that success in love and war can lead to the creation of happiness, relationship, devotion, liberty and freedom etc. all of which can shape a persons or societies lifestyle. However, because of such tempting and important factors, in both love and war people can become so much focused and obsessed in their cause that they forget about their moral values and may even engage in malpractice to achieve their goals. Although such means can sometimes help them achieve their goals, I think these are not at all justified as they lead to the benefit of one at the loss of another, that is, they lead to selfless biasness, and according to Sen & Mitra (1956) can hinder the overall peace and progress of a society. As such, I disagree with the notion made by John Lyly in his book ‘Euphues’ (1578) that à ¢â‚¬Å"all is fair in love and war†. Justification of my claim can be proved by illustrating the criticisms of an ethical framework known as Machiavellianism. This concept is similar to the notion of John Lyly because it states that â€Å"ends justify means†. According to this concept, people can use any means, no matter they are bad or immoral as long as it helps them accomplish their goal (which in this case is achieving success in love or war) by using them. I think such a proverb is very much illogical. If we approve this, it would mean that even use of unfair means to achieve goals is justified 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, fraud etc. All of these are illegal acts and as Richman (2012) points out, involves a cost, or more precisely a victim 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 order and stability in the society. Thus, in this context supporting John Lyly’s claim would mean supporting illegal activities, instability and anarchy all of which would make human beings no less than animals. Therefore, 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 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 attributed to some sick form of â€Å"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 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 exactly what the Paramilitary force known as the â€Å"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 that time. As such, their means of winning 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 baby to save a mother’s life. In such case, taking an innocent life is morally 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 order and control. But if the morally right outcome justifies the use of immoral means to achieve it, then such an action is justified. Therefore, 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 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, fulfillment the higher order rights take preference over the lower order rights and in this way ensuring proper justice and fairness for all. Reference Sen, K. & Mitra, J.K. (1956) Commercial Law and Industrial Law. Kolkata, The Word Press Private Ltd. Apperson, G. L. (2006) The Wordsworth dictionary of proverbs. Ware, Herts. : Wordsworth Reference Richman, 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, 1–11. BBC. (2012). Bangladesh Islamist leader Ghulam Azam charged. (ONLINE) Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/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