Question

1. Which is best to control the actions of humans interacting in a society? A government that has all its law created by the supreme authority, whether it is a single individual that is the law giver, or a group of person united because of religion, power, or other source, or a group of individuals united by a common idea, where this individuals are elected by their fellow citizens, or one that allows for Courts to fill the void when there is no specific law that address a public or private dispute.

2. Soldiers in war are called upon to do certain acts as part of the command process. At times we consider some of those acts as being against humanity. Should soldiers be permitted to argue that they are not responsible because they were following orders and had no say in the process. Also, consider whether we as a society should accept such a defense? How far down in the chain of command should we impose the crimes against “humanity?” Which is more important: what rank a person holds or the specific acts that the person may have done? What about the loyalty that a person shows or owes his family, friend or country, does that matter, and is it as important, as the more general loyalty to your fellow human being?

Answer 1

****Please please please LIKE THIS ANSWER, so that I can get a small benefit, Please****

1.

After careful consideration, I believe having a group of individuals united by a common idea, where these individuals are elected by their fellow citizens would be the best for controlling the actions of humans in society. Several reasons include there being the fairness factor; these individuals were elected by one another therefore there aren’t any predisposed factors or biases towards them by anyone higher than them, there’s the common interest factor; these individuals who got elected by the majority surely had an idea or an agenda to follow out, and the majority of the select other individuals also agree in carrying out that idea, which would prove to be best for that group of voters-- which would more often than not be the majority - and the overall welfare of society. There’s the happiness factor, which I think is a nice addition, which is essentially from humans who love to be part of something, whether it’s just a simple meeting to discuss the most trivial of things, to being part of a large group of sports fans, but regardless we like being part of something. So, in the happiness factor, we get that supplemental happiness from being part of the voting process when we vote for our desired individual, and bond with others from the same predisposed group of voters.

2.

As far as soldiers are concerned, they are not so strong as to what to do. I also believe that they need to be included in the forum to argue. I do not accept the fact that all soldiers' deeds are compassionate and, often, barbaric, if I remain intact. Some soldiers also use the situation and orders and act for their violent motives. However, they are qualified to obey orders when it comes to the army and the taking of soldiers in particular. Such troops have been trained for years and are told regularly to obey the instructions of their officers or subalterns. Even if you feel morally wrong to do so, you have to go through punishment or even suspension often. The people who put the orders are the true people. You will fairly consider whether you are doing things correctly or not. Their decisions are often difficult on people and they do not impress the public. When we tell that life is fine in the chains or orders or feelings. We should take into consideration a issue.

As far as confidentiality is concerned, the military was one of the agencies with so many concealed, secret agendas. The directives may not often be seen by the public, but they may have something secret positive for the whole community. All these issues should also be taken into account before arguing. Often, therefore, ranking often plays a vital role in giving commands since only the top generals know the highest secrets. As far as the soldier's loyalty is concerned, before they start their services, they swore to protect their families and the land. That's why even with their lives they'd defend them. Not all the troops are perfect, I'm saying, but they're all fine. They mostly base their actions on the commands they receive. We will also look at all these issues before we make a decision.