As a child, I had many toys that I believe served as agents of socialization and helped me to explore relationships and prepare for new ones. From an early age, my parents encouraged imaginative play with dolls, action figures, stuffed animals, casinosetsand other figurines. These toys allowed me to immerse myself in pretend play scenarios where I could apply real-world scenarios such as role playing conversations or exploring boundaries in relationships. For instance, when playing with dolls or action figures I would create stories about them based on my own perceived experiences or observations which further enabled me to form a greater understanding of how people interacted (Thomson et al., 2016). Using these same toys to interact with friends also provided valuable insight into how different opinions and perspectives can be discussed while still maintaining respect for one another’s feelings (Sturge-Apple et al., 2019).
Aside from providing opportunities to practice relational dynamics through pretend play games, I also used these toys as pieces of self expression; particularly in the case of stuffed animals. As someone who has always been introverted by nature it was often difficult for me to express complex emotions; however having a soft physical item that was close at hand allowed me some additional comfort during times when words simply failed me (McGrath & Woodmansee., 2019). By having this outlet available it felt easier for me to talk about my issues without fear of judgementor misunderstanding. Having these tangible items around also made it easier for others–such as family members or teachers–to better understand howIwas feeling and provide appropriate help if necessary (Thompson et al., 2016).
First, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by “non-combatant immunity” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, showing immorality in their actions. Thus, it depends again on proportionality as Thomson argues (Frowe (2011), Page 141).
This leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’
In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportiona
