The world is weird but not wonderful. The level of people’s ablitity to do a job is catergorised by classification of ethnicity, gender, sexuality, or, age; whether or not you are married, pregnant, or have a criminal past.
There is even a test, seeing if people comply or take orders whilst working in certain jobs, like a proficiency test, or, emotional aptitude test.
Have you noticed, certain cultures around the world pay more for certain job fields? Maybe because of the responsibilities perhaps? Or is it risk? Or harm?
I feel, certain occupations in the world are not only hazardous to the person because of their responsibilities; but the amount of harm they can potentially, cause to other individuals. These are known as risks and harm factors.
You see, this is not going to be easy to explain – I will try for those whom are just learning about occupational hazards and occupational risks.
For example – A Doctor: huge responsibilities regarding the life and death of several individuals at any given moment. Can prescribe drugs which can harm individuals, may operate and the chances of causing harm become greater.
A Nurse: not as many responsibilities giving out prescriptions of drugs, however, very responsible for the lives of individuals. They sterilise equipment which means patients are at risk of an outbreak, if, the procedure is not completed correctly.
Why would that be? Has the nurse seen more patients than the doctor?
Yes, he or she has seen more patients than the doctor and has to observe the life of a patient. They also, liase with family when things go wrong more than a doctor. A nurse does actually inject drugs or treatments into patients and they are responsible for monitoring the patients vitals.
When it comes to both of those roles in certain countries they must ask the families and friends, for consent, before they press the button of a life support machine; before they take someone’s life away. Not only do they ask for consent – it is a legal document stating consent is authorised, through legal contracts and has to be signed by family, or, next of kin. Even operations are legally binding. So the responsibility of ending a life in some aspects are considered of as more greater in some countries.
Now, let’s make your toes curl!!! What if your responsibility was to destroy human life; you were aware of the person being there, but, all you had to do is press a button to take their life away? You could do this with just an order. You could do this by being told:
“You must press the button; it is a direct order!”
Do you feel a cold chill on the back of your spine yet? You should!
Do you know of anyone who is willing to take the life of an individual without thinking about their order….. how does it make you feel?
Doctors and nurses have time to ethically discuss and decide the condition of a patient. They discuss whether or not the after care of the patient on a life support machine will be beneficial, or, cause more harm to a patient.
Imagine if you took the decision time away and the chance of seeing a relative, or, a friend one last time?
According to, Brandon Bryant A former US Drone Operator: his job was to observe people in the middle east using a drone carrier; an unmanned operated aircraft which flies over and drops a bomb. He killed 1,465 people in the middle east.
I am not condoning he is correct for having responsibility for taking innocent lives. I am stating the facts. He was given an order to kill people who carried weapons.
Now try and imagine yourself in a war torn country. How would you protect you and your family from being harmed by rebel forces or even looters? Would you arm yourself for protection? Would you try to protect your family?
Children were killed because of these drones because family memebers had given them guns to protect themselves. It is numbing to think the responsibility of shadowing a weapon of mass destruction or genocide is in the hands of people whom have to follow orders – 10,000 miles away from the location they attacking. They do this without ethical consideration for lives, or, consent.
This is not like a computer game, this is like, your whole house being bombed because – you carry a weapon, or, you are seen playing the computer game and they kill you.
So, the responsibilities and risks are very, very, very dangerous. Think about it. You have innocent people who die and their families never consented to this action. A doctor receives consent for the care of an individual whose life is on a support machine. The doctor has to follow orders also, he cares about the families.
How do you feel thinking about the chance to see your loved ones happy and healthy? So why hand the responsibility of other people’s lives without consent? Does that seem fair?
No, it doesn’t mean it is fair. So, when you hand the responsibility over to certain individuals your lives are also put at risk – because the people who are being attacked by drones: want revenge for being attacked.
Who do they attack? Innocent people?
Correct, because innocent people have been attacked. An Eye for an Eye and a tooth for a tooth!! It does not matter what culture you are from around the world: revenge is revenge.
It is possible for leaders to not feel attached to the people they harm. Equally, it is possible for the obedience in certain individuals to be so strong, they automatically carry out a direct order. There was a study which was carried out by Milligram (1974) : he made “one learner” and “one teacher” – the teacher administered the shocks everytime the learner got things wrong and was allowed to turn up the voltage. His study then found the following conclusion:
“Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being. Obedience to authority is ingrained in us all from the way we are brought up.
People tend to obey orders from other people if they recognize their authority as morally right and / or legally based. This response to legitimate authority is learned in a variety of situations, for example in the family, school and workplace.”
If you think this is ethically wrong, then consider how it was in WWII. These experiments by Milligram (1974) were carried out post – WWII: so you would think they would be less inclined to cause harm to individuals. It is not the case.
So, why do we have drones and trident?
Trident are basically a collection of nuclear weapons. So, someone could press the button from a direct order and end the world without consulting other’s about the lives and saftey of individuals. It is weird, but, not wonderful!
Imagine that button being pressed.
Could you be the one to press the button?
They did just that in 1945 to Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945)
Yes, I realise these images are a little disturbing but 140,000 people died in one day. Several more were injured. The important thing to note about such devastation is not anything to do with the loss of lives. It is the land after a nuclear bomb attack. You cannot cultivate on the land for 60 years or more – according to scientists.
J. Robert Oppenheimer (1904 – 1966) was the creator of the atom bomb and at this he also felt responsible for his actions. He and Bryant share a similar thought process of philosophical and psychological aspects regarding their roles and responsibilities during war. Oppenheimer, also had his atomical physicists formulae replicated in Russia; The cold war began (1945) due to the creation of the atom bomb and you could say over half a century later the tension is still there.
Could you press the button?
They had the ability to press the button in 1945 and cause such devastation. Yet they still have these dirty fat bombs in countries which – well, I feel part way, it is just an excuse to carry on acting like children. You press a button and think nothing of it.
According to icanw (2015): 15,800 weapons of mass destruction are in nine countries; both the US and Russia have 1,800 missiles that could potentially end the world. Why? We are having so much fun here! Earth is great… I really do not want radioactive marshmallows.
Could you press the button?
It is that easy to follow out a direct order. Why end lives over it? I mean, Russia and the US can kiss and make – up now. India and Pakistan have made families together and crossed borders, then leave little North Korea to up rise Against their government. Let’s move on already!
Have they actually ever thought, maybe these weapons are a threat to the wellbeing of everyone else in other sorrounding countries?
This frightened me a little, just because the discovery of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs had fall out. This meant the aftermath of the bomb was felt with a larger radius than the centre of the bomb. Really strange example is Chenynobl (1986) and was considered of as so close to Europe it affected millions of people from all types of cancers because of the dust cloud which reached over to England, Wales and Scotland. However, Hiroshima and Nagasaki where uranium bombs as Today I found out (2015) states:
“Since then, approximately 1,900 people, or about 0.5% of the post-bombing population, are believed to have died from cancers attributable to Little Boy’s radiation release.”
So, the aftermath of a nuclear bomb has more devastating effects whereas drones do not. Stop right there…..
Brandon Bryant makes a good point about his concerns of the lack of respect for human life. The scariest thing about this is – people are unaware of whom purchases these weapons of mass destruction. Yes, reality speaks for itself and no one is going to deny it.
Certain countries are aware these weapons exist. I do not doubt enemies exist. I am not a complete peace loving individual – I believe in the potential risk involved in war, however, consequences far out weigh the risks to potential harm for civilians.
Even, if we all argue about terrorism in the most basic form from discussing hatred or tension… it still has consequences.
(weird and wonderful, 2015)
Could you press the button?
The potential harm is not weighed up enough for people to value the cost of a human life; the moral implications are not hands on.
I feel, the best way to explain is like, I am all the way in Greenland and I decide that I don’t like the way people in Antarctica behave. So, I bomb it. Does that seem rational?
Could you Press the Button?
Think about it – I made an enemy out of a country…. I will fight you with an army. These are country folk becoming rebels. Where would they get weapons of mass destruction from?
Why do we need all these weapons?
Who is going to stop them from making more problems?
If one country fires surely someone else at the other end is going to follow orders and press a button?
Why do we need these people to create barriers?
Yes, I know – terrorist’s exist but please watch Brandon Bryant state to Hard Talk BBC that he was actually carrying out orders on civilians.
Weird part is that we all obedient in some way shape or form. Please, feel free to take a test: 10 ways to test your obedience (2015) .
Could you press the button?
I feel in an irrational state a person can feel: patriotic, emotional, depressed, anxious, and even hate. These things a human – but to end a life over feelings even – wow! Makes me wonder if I am allowed to cry or smile. This is why people prefer to negotiate during war. All these emotions are flying around and causes people to seek revenge after being attacked.
For heavens sake, for the people of Paris to go through another attack because Syria was bombed to rubble – wow! Humanity on the brink! It is weird how we are all willing to obey and comply over something as monstrous as this which causes such terrorist attacks. No, one is happy and no one feels as though they are able to even gain some degree of happiness, or, even pleasure for living because of the moral implications involved.
But, despite all the evidence….Could you press the button?
To conclude, the wonderful thing would be for the world to have a break from all the bombing or invading. Think about the consequences and try to repair things, so, in turn we do not end up being attacked again. I do not think this is possible because not everyone has good intentions. Not everyone would want to seek the consent of other’s before reacting so irrationally. This is why treaty ‘s have been formed around the world and why we have the UN. It feels as though the UN has no representation from the countries being bombed to shreds. I have no idea what to say apart from good luck finding the rationale behind it all. The ethical implications should include risks and potential harm. I also feel, if a country bombs it’s neighbours or has the power to bomb countries from a distance then they are not to be trusted. So, I agree with all these refugees at the moment.
Posted from WordPress for Android