Henry V: Act I

20 Apr

The Church of England in act I of Henry V acts very much like a modern day corporation. Corporations lobby, just as the church does, to those in power and plead their cases. Although most of the time when corporations lobby, they will offer incentives to politicians to sweeten the deal. A politician may retire from office, to serve as an executive for a company whose interests they once served in the political process. This brings up the question of whether it is right to do? Is it acceptable for politicians to serve the interests of a specific group rather than the constituents they represent?

The reasons for going to war in Henry V are not just. The Church of England throwing out a red-herring to distract the bill that would take their land is corrupt. The fact that Henry then goes to war with France, to serve his own interests (not the Church’s), combined with the Church’s incentive to have England goto war will in turn result in loss of life by innocent people, whose only interest is to live in a government which serves their interests, namely, to live in peace, illustrates how this is an unjust war.

When a country decides to war with another country, it should not even be a decision, but a must. Some may argue that a war may promote well-being of its citizens by allowing financial growth, and a good way to grow financially as a nation is to capitalize on other countries resources. The easiest way to capitalize on resources that do not belong to one nation is by take-over. A government is then able to establish leaders in the newly acquired property that will best serve their interests. A new question arises, is it ethical to exploit other country’s resources for gain if it costs the lives of innocent people in both governments, and in turn adversely affects the people in the newly acquired land?

Realpolitik. It is justified.

However, if one truly cares about people and has a firm grasp of right and wrong, AND chooses to uphold right, then it cannot possibly be justified. Even if one could argue that the people in the newly acquired government are better off, who are they to make that claim?

Leave a comment

Posted by on April 20, 2011 in Uncategorized


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: