Is it possible to say that in war all means are good?

War is a difficult test for people when, at borderline moments, they are forced to choose between good and evil, loyalty and betrayal... It is difficult to understand what determines the means of achieving goals (especially in wartime, when the line between life and death becomes subtle). Some are guided by personal interests, others by eternal, enduring values. It is important that the chosen means do not diverge from moral beliefs, but, unfortunately, sometimes a person’s actions go beyond generally accepted norms.

We find confirmation of this on the pages of Russian literature. Let us recall, for example, M.A. Sholokhov’s story “The Fate of a Man,” which shows the story of a man who managed to preserve human dignity, living soul capable of responding to the pain of others. Is it always Andrei Sokolov, main character story, chose a worthy means of achieving your goals? He is the defender of the country, it is important for him to stop the enemy, and therefore he serves honestly, without hiding behind the backs of his comrades. But Sokolov is forced to kill the man. Many will say: “War – someone kills someone. This is the law. There’s nothing wrong.” Maybe so, only he kills his own, the traitor. It would seem that the end justifies the means, but a drama plays out in the hero’s soul: “For the first time in my life, I killed, and then my own... But what kind of person is he? He’s worse than a stranger, a traitor.”

This internal monologue of Sokolov indicates that for him murder as a means of achieving even a noble goal (preserving the life of the captain) is immoral. Andrey agrees to this because he sees no other way to solve this difficult problem.

Classical literature, being a vivid example of moral values, also shows cases where insignificant means of achieving goals deserve condemnation. Let us turn to V. G. Rasputin’s story “Live and Remember.” The very title of the work, like an alarm bell, sounds a warning-spell in the reader’s heart: live and remember. What can't you forget? About a war that crippled the destinies of people?! About those who, through their actions, destroyed the lives of loved ones or tarnished military honor?!

It would seem that the usual desire of a soldier, after being wounded and treated in a hospital, is to stay in his native village, to feel the warmth and care of his wife and parents. There is nothing reprehensible in this, because this is not murder, not theft... But, having chosen the path of desertion, Andrei Guskov forces his wife Nastya to lie and hide from her fellow villagers. This road turned out to be unbearable and disastrous not only for her, but also for Guskov. Hiding from everyone, he turns into a hunted animal, living by the instinct of self-preservation, unable to understand Nastya’s pain, her anxiety about their unborn child. He does not give in to his wife’s admonitions to repent and give up, but only accuses her of wanting to free herself from him. Judgmental glances from fellow villagers, reproaches from my husband’s parents, the inability to rejoice at the end of the war, constant feeling guilt towards those to whom the funeral is brought makes Nastya’s life unbearable. But she, like a devoted wife, steadfastly endures all the hardships. Maybe Andrey should remember this? Probably not only that.

The scene of the heroine’s death is terrible: she sacrifices herself and the life of her unborn child to save her husband; she rushes into the Angara. Who is to blame for these deaths? Life? War? Andrey Guskov?

A person, having decided to desert, could not retain the main thing in himself - a sense of human dignity. He condemned his beloved wife and long-awaited (never born) child to death, which, perhaps, became for Nastya a kind of deliverance from the difficult trials that befell her. This is exactly what you need to remember: you, Andrei Guskov, are guilty of the suffering and death of loved ones, you are doomed to loneliness and condemnation, because the means you have chosen cannot be justified by anything.

Returning to the question “Can we say that in war all means are fair,” I come to the conclusion that often in the “life and death” dilemma we do not think about how and what we do. This is wrong, although none of us is immune from mistakes. We must remember: whether this is a time of peace or war, we are people and we must try to preserve the soul within ourselves, and therefore, treat with special responsibility the means we choose to achieve the goal.

595 words

The essay was sent by Vanyusha

War is, without a doubt, one of the most terrible trials that can befall a person. Nothing brings so much misfortune, so much sorrow and suffering as wars do. From small tribal skirmishes to the catastrophic conflicts of the twentieth century, they have haunted humanity throughout our history. In addition to the enormous risk to life, war is also the most difficult test of the human psyche. To remain a person at the front, when comrades are dying around you every day, or in the rear, when you constantly live in fear for your loved ones, afraid of receiving a fatal letter from the front - only a truly strong-willed person can withstand this. I believe that the consequentialist principle of “all is fair in war” is a fundamentally flawed way of looking at the world, especially in the context of actual warfare.

When discussing the war, it is difficult not to recall one of the greatest works of Russian and world literature - “War and Peace” by L.

Our experts can check your essay according to the Unified State Exam criteria

Experts from the site Kritika24.ru
Teachers of leading schools and current experts of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation.

N. Tolstoy. Tolstoy's ideas of non-violence made a huge contribution to Russian philosophy, and were also reflected in the characters of many of the heroes of this work. The highest manifestation of moral qualities and love for humanity is the episode in which Natasha Rostova, a person with an extremely rich inner world, in tears persuades her parents to give all the carts that the Rostov family had at their disposal to the wounded soldiers, who otherwise would have faced inevitable death in French captivity. In this scene, the goal is to evacuate Moscow with as little cost as possible, but to achieve this goal the Rostovs would have to refuse to help the soldiers. This did not happen only thanks to Natasha, who was able to convince the whole family and manage the carts fairly.

We encounter another incredibly difficult episode for both the reader and the characters in the epic novel “Quiet Don” by Mikhail Sholokhov. Here the heroes face an even more difficult test - a civil, “fratricidal” war. Ilya Bunchuk is an example of a person who is ready to do anything for the sake of the party and “the fight against the bourgeois system.” He is engaged in agitation at the front, preparing militias in the rear, and making every effort to suppress the white movement. However, even he is unable to withstand the work of the commandant of the revolutionary tribunal. After a week of constant executions of White Guards, Bunchuk’s psyche was completely shaken. He suddenly realized what a terrible sin he had committed, “bringing the revolution to the masses.” The death of his beloved finally breaks him: death for him becomes a happy occasion, a release from suffering.

Thus, using the example of two different works, we were convinced that, despite any circumstances, the most important thing is to maintain basic moral guidelines and not turn from a man into a beast. I would like to end with a quote from a philosophy textbook: “A person who violates fundamental moral principles undoubtedly acts against himself, since he destroys his psyche due to the constant conflict of consciousness and subconsciousness. He cannot avoid this conflict, even if he convinces himself that he does not care about high morality.”

Updated: 2017-09-25

Attention!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.

It seems to me, friends, that everything we have already seen performed by Real and Barcelona in the spring of 2011 was nothing more than a warm-up before their main battles of the year. The draw in the championship left no one feeling hot or cold.

Champions League. 1/2 finals. First match

Judge: Wolfgang Stark (Ergolding, Germany).

Bookmaker quotes: 2.64 – 3.40 – 2.80.

Madrid's victory in the Cup, of course, stroked the capital's pride, but nothing more. The Cup is just that – a cup – not only in Spain the attitude towards it is condescending and cool.

Whether it’s the Champions League. This is where the genuine passions and significant fees lie. That's where the prestige is! It’s probably good that they first warmed up at home - now they’re guaranteed to rock it in Europe. There is simply no point in hiding something from each other and normalizing workloads. Everything faded into the background - even the finale. The third round of the Clasico is on the agenda. The climax is near...

The team coaches, long-time acquaintances from cooperation at Barça of the last century, tried so hard not to say anything stupid to each other before the previous games, but before today’s meeting they still couldn’t restrain themselves. And they exchanged barbs in absentia.

Mourinho, in particular, said that his young Catalan colleague is a one-of-a-kind specialist who scolds referees for making the right decisions and sarcastically reminded the guest how his team overcame Chelsea at one time, and this year Arsenal. The hint is clear. In both cases, according to the conviction of English fans, there were effective errors by the referees in favor of the Blaugrana. In Barcelona, ​​of course, there is a different opinion on this matter. However, Jose is not interested in it.

Guardiola I also didn’t bother to speak. “In this room, he’s the damn boss, the damn master,” the visiting coach said irritably in the press center of the Santiago Bernabeu stadium. “And I’m not going to compete with him on this.” But as long as he allows himself to address me familiarly, well, I will do the same.”

Cristiano Ronaldo and Marcelo are preparing for the battle with Barcelona

It was obvious from the Catalan’s nervous state that Mourinho’s remarks had achieved their goal. Perhaps this is what the cunning Jose wanted - to sow nervousness in the enemy camp. We already know: in war all means are good...

Although, to be honest, I doubt that Barça’s leaders can be enraged by such things - tea, this is not the first time in the Clasico. Much more guests are concerned about personnel problems. The Blaugrana ones have them that are really big. Guardiola must have already forgotten those blessed times when he had no problems in defense. Now they are literally on his heels. Didn't have time to recover Carles Puyol how a tumor was discovered in the liver Eric Abidal. The long-suffering man has recovered Gabriel Milito- broke down Adriano. Remains out of the game Maxwell. This means that in Madrid the Barça coach will again have to fashion a defense “from what was.” He doesn't have much. Puyol will likely move to the left, with a nominal midfielder taking his place in the center Javier Mascherano.

Guardiola is even more worried about injury Iniesta. Damage to the calf muscle will apparently prevent Andres from entering the Bernabeu turf. Consequently, Pep will also have to rebuild the attack group. This is more serious.

Mourinho also has losses - moreover, approximately equivalent to the Catalan ones. Disqualification left the stopper out of work Ricardo Carvalho, injury – central midfielder Sami Khedira. But Jose, unlike the enemy, also has significant reinforcements. The championship game with Valencia was essentially “made” by two people - Kaka And Gonzalo Higuain. The Brazilian scored four points using the goal+pass system, the Argentinean five! And this extravaganza ended with a score of 6:3 in favor of Real. Meanwhile, neither one nor the other has played with Barcelona this year. With such a gold reserve, Mourinho can look to the future with optimism. And even make jokes about your opponent...

Statistics also speak in favor of the hosts. The Spanish giants faced off in the European semi-finals twice, in 1960 and 2002, and both clashes ended in Madrid's favour. “Real” eventually got their hands on the main trophy: in the first case, the Champions Cup, in the second, the Champions League.

If modern Real Madrid do the same, Mourinho will become the first manager in the world to win the Champions League with three different teams. Guardiola, as you understand, will try to prevent this. Will try very hard...

"In war, all means are good."

Based on the works of F.M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment" and Vasil Bykov "Sotnikov".

Direction "Goals and means".

Often, when discussing the permissibility of any methods, people utter the phrase: “In war, all means are good.” But is it possible to say that?

The question immediately arises, what kind of war is meant? War in its usual understanding is an armed confrontation between states? But war can also be bloodless.

Our experts can check your essay according to the Unified State Exam criteria

Experts from the site Kritika24.ru
Teachers of leading schools and current experts of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation.

We know from history that there was a “cold war” - a stubborn struggle of ideologies. Consequently, war is a confrontation, a brutal struggle between opponents. That is, all means are good for victory, in other words, the end justifies the means.

Let's imagine that we ask this question to famous writers, one of the smartest and most educated representatives of society. Of course, they are no longer alive, but they speak to us through their books. F.M. Dostoevsky in his novel “Crime and Punishment” speaks of the fallacy of such statements. He shows the image of a man who believed that the end justifies the means. Rodion Raskolnikov claims that he has the right to kill, since great people stop at nothing to achieve their goals, and he without any doubt considers himself one of such great people. But having committed a crime, he retreats from his goal - he hides the stolen goods on the street without touching a penny. He almost hates his mother and sister, formerly dearly loved ones, for whose sake (as he believes) he even goes to the extent of murder. In fact, he barely wants to prove to himself that he is not “a trembling creature, but I have the right.” Why does he change so much after the murder? In my opinion, his psyche, his soul, was damaged. Rodion, crying in his sleep because a horse was killed in his presence, cold-bloodedly kills the old money-lender in order to achieve his goal; moreover, he kills her sister simply as a witness. By the end of the novel, Raskolnikov already understands the immorality of his goal and turns to God to atone for his sins.

The writer Vasil Bykov in the story "Sotnikov" says the same thing as Dostoevsky. The fisherman, the main character of the story, passionately wants to survive. He uses any means for this, and does not stop at betrayal, or even at knocking the bench out from under the hanged Sotnikov. So what? After everything he has done, he wants to go back and fix everything, but there is no going back. Realizing that everyone has turned their backs on him, Rybak, who committed all the crimes for the sake of his own life, wants to interrupt it - to hang himself.

Thus, the general thought of the writers can be expressed in the words of Ivan Karamazov: “No human happiness is worth one tear of a child.” That is, many writers considered the phrase: “In war, all means are good” to be incorrect.”

From my small life experience I know that people who use unworthy means often do not achieve their goal, or, having achieved it, are tormented by their conscience. For example, young women who persuade their loved one to destroy their family or betray them are unhappy in love. I find confirmation of my thoughts in literature. Katerina, “Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk,” in order to ensure complete and undisturbed happiness with her beloved, kills innocent people, but her lover leaves for another woman. Katerina from the drama A.N. Ostrovsky's "Thunderstorm" cheated on her husband for the sake of forbidden love, but abandoned by the cowardly Boris, she drowned herself. This series can be continued for a long time, but I will generalize: neither those who were betrayed nor those for whom they betrayed love traitors. The end does not justify the means.

Consequently, the expression “in war, all means are fair” is immoral, and it is used in an attempt to justify unseemly actions.

Updated: 2017-11-29

Attention!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.

During this war, clan rivalry became especially acute. The emergence of fighting clans, their prestige, and, especially, their control over territories led to the fact that the clans were ready to snatch victory from each other at great cost. But at what cost?

Some take advantage of organization and coherence, intra-clan work and strengthening of morale. And someone...

Today, members of the Elphius and Titan clans will be subject to our own investigation!

At the beginning of the war, the battle for leadership in the clan standings was fought by the Far Away Kingdom and the Horde. But then the Titans clan unexpectedly caught up and overtook everyone, and are now increasing their advantage. And Elfius is not far behind. What is the secret of their success? In coordinated work? But with equal numbers, it is extremely difficult to win back 10 million from the Horde and Far Away in a few days, and in the same Far Away and the Horde the organization is also not lame. Both Elfius and the Titans found a way out - to circumvent the rules established for bookmakers. Why fight on equal terms when these conditions can be improved for yourself!

The principle is simple - “mercenaries” are accepted. After 7 battles, on the same day, the “mercenaries” are immediately expelled and others are accepted, and so on. That is, while the size of the clan at any given time is still the same 250 people, up to 300 people can fight for the clan per day!

That is, the overlap over other clans is about 10-20%. (In the last 2.5 days, the titans have had 27 “receptions and deductions”, and the elf has about 130!). And sometimes this advantage is enough to snatch victory for a sector at the flag, on each of which all clans throw their best forces!

I know people who did not sleep at night, sitting in the world or Skype, wasting energy on organizing in order to capture and hold sectors in an incredible struggle. And sometimes they lacked just a little!

Yes, in other clans there is also a process of expelling old clans and accepting new ones, but this is a work turnover, and not a planned, purposeful policy. And they try to take it on a permanent basis, for a long time - and not for one day.

And others simply throw away a lot of money, creating an advantage of a different kind! Why do you feel sorry for other people’s money? Are you jealous? - they will say in these clans. We have found a way that is not prohibited by anyone to achieve an advantage over others - and perhaps they will be right in their own way.

Perhaps this is not a violation at all in letter, but in spirit? Is this in keeping with the spirit of fair fight? We don’t know - and let readers express their opinions with their comments!

When fighting clans appeared, the administration clearly stated the condition - 250 people in a fighting clan. For what? Obviously - to create equal conditions for clans in the struggle for the palm, so that the most organized and friendly clan can win this struggle. That clan where each person could show their best qualities in the team.

But, apparently, many, having found a loophole, decided to take advantage of it. And many said - no, we want to fight honestly. And they didn’t force “pseudo-mercenaries” into the clan to achieve an advantage over others, which essentially shouldn’t exist!

Is this a violation? From a fair play point of view - absolutely! From the point of view of the laws of the GVD, this is debatable, since the regulations on fighting clans only contain a final limit on the size of a clan. And what principles of playing the game to adhere to is a matter for each clan and its head personally.

What do the members and heads of other fighting clans think about this problem? In your opinion, does the strategy of inviting a clan of “mercenaries” for a few hours have any right to life? I would like to emphasize once again that the editors expressed their opinion based on the ethics of the GVD world, and after talking with the heads and members of several clans. The editors do not pretend to be a judge or the ultimate truth, and certainly do not want to pass a guilty verdict!

Dear players - members and heads of other fighting clans, do not stand aside, speak out on the pages of our newspaper!

One of the members of the Elphius clan (Skilord) decided to express his opinion on the above. We also present the opinion of the Titans clan.

Skilord's opinion (Elphius).

In my response to the article “In war, all means are fair,” I would like to show arguments in opposition to what was said in it.

Let me say right away that I am for banning rotation, because this is not correct in principle. But…

I was confused by calling the victory of the clans that did the rotation dishonest. The rules of war were set by the administrators:

1. Limit of 250 people at a time.

2. 4500 - for accepting a new clan member.

3. 7 battles of one clan member.

4. Points are awarded for battles held under the sign of the clan!

Not a single rule was violated during the war, rotations were not prohibited. Some clans decided to take this opportunity to achieve their goals. After all, the end justifies the means. And this technique is no worse than the method of gathering people of 13+ lvl into a clan, for example.

Saying that rotation is a bug. A priori false. We are not having a battle of psychics, and we don’t know what the admins are up to. Yes, rotation is an oversight of this war, but to say that it is not fair is not correct. Everything was within the rules and assumptions.

I'll also add. Rotation was and is available to all clans. If you don’t like the method, then there is no need to talk about its dishonesty. This is the same as saying that we don’t like to gather crowds of high-level people, let’s limit the number of highs in clans.

Titans clan opinion.

In the last few days, there have been a lot of admissions into the Titans clan and a lot of expulsions from the clan. I'll explain what this is connected with.

It's simple - people were excluded based on their activity and level, so that in their place they would be replaced by those who could bring more points to the clan. Regarding the "rotations" there were 4 entrances and exits according to at will and initiative, the rest, excuse me, is far-fetched.