War is defined as ‘a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state’. As well as a ‘state of competition, conflict, or hostility between different people or groups’. These are definitions that embody my generation. A childhood filled with war and conflict. The generation after 9/11, the ones who have become desensitized towards war because it has been there since day one. During my highschool days speeches and poems and essays were devoted to soldiers with PTSD, devoted to the children being unjustly killed overseas. So many words bouncing around and yet nobody ever stopped and asked if killing fair. More so is killing non combatants permissible just as permissible as killing combatants is.The purpose of this essay is to evaluate Robert K Fullinwider position in War and Innocence, more so on his views on the act of “killing in war”. I will describe his position and show his arguments as well as give my opinion on the views that he presents. Fullinwider asks the audience if it is morally permissible to kill enemy noncombatants (fullinwider 36). He takes a negative position to this question. Stating that it is not morally permissible to kill enemy non combatants. To expand on this concept that he presents to the reader. Fullinwider…show more content… Using his argument for self defense fullinwider clarifies that while jones had all the right to kill smith, he has no permission to kill the mobsters or the wife. The threat came from smith and only him. To kill the others would be no more than to kill innocents. Smith represent the enemy combatants, Jones represents the nation's combatants and the mobsters represent the enemy noncombatants(fullinwider 37). This idea that combatants or “guilty” are those posing immediate threat and that non combatants or “innocent” are those who pose no threat leaves some room for critique and
