Thread: Can a civilization put their own ethics aside if its the only guarantee of victory...

...against an unethical foe? Is it better to do ONE unethical thing in order to have victory,and let morality prosper for a long time,or is it better to die heroically without breaking any of your values,and letting immorality succeed for a long time?

This is for a school essay,I already know what I'm putting down,I just need to see how everyone else expresses their thoughts on the matter,and express mine more effectively.

To disavow a civilization's own ethics is to disavow the very basis of their existance. The ultimate goal of victory is not enough to overide fundamental ethical standards.

For instance, for a civilization to allow torture or illegal seizure of persons without trial, would be unethical, immoral and would damage the civilzation both iside and as seen from without. The temporary benefit of victory is not sufficient to overcome that loss.

My thoughts....