All is fair in love and war- do you agree or disagree and explain why?
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 …show more content…
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 “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