Two Crows 1

Aja Two Crows

Mr. Acornley
Honors British Literature (Period 3)
19 October 2016
An Unexamined Hero: Moral Relativism in the Vietnam War
Every war has two sides with different perspectives and one universal goal: to win. This
applies to every conflict, but what separates the two sides is ethics. Both sides see each other as
antagonists because they live by different codes. Another thing also happens: the two belligerents
usually fail to see the others perspective. The Vietnam War embodies the Americans failure to
see the other perspective on the part of the Americans. This failure also shows the deeply relative
nature of heroism and the ethics that determine who or what are heroes. The motives of the
United States and North Vietnamese government in the Vietnam War show the intensely
subjective nature of heroism and morality, and the over-application of the term hero to
American military pursuits at the time.
Morality motivated the Northern Vietnamese and the Americans in the Vietnam War. On
the American side, there was the ever present threat of communism. Domino Theory rattled the
nation when President Dwight D. Eisenhower gave his Domino Theory Speech. He said You
have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one
is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. . . Asia, after all, has already lost some 450
million of its peoples to the Communist dictatorship, and we simply can't afford greater losses
(Eisenhower). Americans were scared that they would lose their way of life to communism as
much of Eastern Europe had fallen, as well as China. They could not morally stand by while

Two Crows 2

Southeast Asia fell to communism. For the North Vietnamese Viet Minh, the communist front
that controlled North Vietnam (Viet Minh Take Control in the North), they embraced
communism and fought for control of their land. Ho Chi Minh, the leader of the Viet Minh, saw
himself as a bringer of light to a land that was dominated for years by the French and then the
Japanese (Karnow). Objectively, these desires were both very similar. Both wanted to protect
their home and stop external threats. North Vietnam and the United States fought based on their
morality.
Though the Americans and the Vietnamese were fighting for what they believed in, the
morality that motivated the two was subjective. There is a principle in ethics called Metaethical
Moral Relativism (MMR). It means, The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their
justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices
of a group of persons (Gowans). By this principle, neither the Americans nor the North
Vietnamese is more right. The values of their society shaped their desires. But that does not
mean that their causes were not important or relevant. It means that both assumed they were
right, but did not consider the others motive. This is mostly important to America, as they failed
to recognize the Vietnams need for freedom, which was ultimately their downfall. The
Americans morality had a historical emphasis on equality, dignity, and self-determination
(Borgmann). This pushed them to intervene when they believed democracy was at risk. The
Vietnamese morality shared many values with Communist ethics that emphasized the individual
only as parts of the collective society (Geys). This presents two very different, conflicting
ideologies that both thought they were correct, even though that could not be true because of

Two Crows 3

MMR. This discrepancy between the two value systems was the basis of the backlash against this
war and the redefining of the American hero.
Each side in the Vietnam War thought of themselves as heroes of their cause, but their
definition of hero illuminates the relativity of heroism to morality. The definition of a hero is
A person, typically a man, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements,
or noble qualities. If this definition is applied to each of both sides of the Vietnam War, then
both are true. The Americans were heroes as the North Vietnamese were villains, and vice versa.
Both nations fought for the ideals of their culture, which is noble. Both countries put men's lives
at risk for the values of the nation, which makes them courageous. But the simplicity of this
definition gave issue to the Americans when the advent of live war reporting disrupted their
tradition expectations of a hero.
American participation in the Vietnam War shows the over branding of American
military pursuits as heroic. America has always prided itself on being a valiant society. Whether
riding down San Juan Hill with Teddy Roosevelts Rough Riders or fighting against British
oppression in the Battle of Saratoga, America has always been the hero in its narrative. But this
changed during Vietnam. This was the first televised war and new reports displayed horrific
images of American boys maimed on the battlefield against an elusive enemy (The War in
Vietnam). The American people and their government did not anticipate the North Vietnamese
will to be free. Moreover, the news showed the Vietnamese winning; the American people were
not used to losing (The War in Vietnam). Americans barely knew why the country was at war
with Vietnam (The War in Vietnam). For centuries, Americans saw themselves as the
righteous protector of others from external threats. This began with the Monroe Doctrine and led

Two Crows 4

all the way to Truman Doctrine, the doctrine that pledged to support any government resisting
communist threats (Walling). People started to see themselves as the antagonist and vehemently
opposed the government that inserted their children in a proxy war (The War in Vietnam).
Many also stopped seeing soldiers as heroes and lambasted them when they came home, despite
the fact that they were only following orders (The War in Vietnam). This was the price of
always believing there was a righteous cause. Americans were faced with their shortcomings and
their presumptive nature. Suddenly, Americans were questioning their longest-lasting hero: the
American soldier. Though top-ranking American officials pushed for the war, American soldiers
faced the backlash.
Without an analysis of morals and empathy, people can not understand that ones enemy
is anothers hero. When this happened in America, the term hero was devalued by its overuse.
This era represented one of confusion because the public lost their faith in the governments
pledge to protect them and their American values. Americans never had to question their
relationship with their government until this war (The War in Vietnam). When one man was
asked how he expected to be protected without people fighting for him, he responded by saying
that they were not fighting for him (The War in Vietnam). This represents overall discontent
with the American people. Only Hero can only be rightly applied if people understand that
heroism is relative to morality, which is subjective. Americans did not know this, and, moreover,
they did not consider the possibility that they might be wrong. Heroism is relative to ethics, but
just because they are relative does not mean they are useless. Morality is important, but people
must examine their morality, always.

Two Crows 5

The war in Vietnam embodies the err in assuming righteousness. In this war, two sides
opposed each other, but the American side did not consider. This war is one of the greatest
dissappointments in American history, and it devalued one of the greatest American heroes: the
soldier. This war illustrated the subjectivity of ethics and heroism while giving a rude awakening
to the American people who had never confronted the subjectivity of morality before. When
people do not reevaluate their ethics, they allow the subjectivity of morality define their lives and
everyone else's.

Two Crows 6

Works Cited
Borgmann, Albert. "Real American Ethics: Taking Responsibility for Our Country." The
University of Chicago Press. The University of Chicago, 2006. Web. 19 Oct. 2016.
Eisenhower, Dwight D. "Domino Theory Principle, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1954." Domino
Theory Principle, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1954. Michigan State University, n.d. Web. 19
Oct. 2016.
Gecys, Kazys. "Communist Ethics." Lituanus. Lituanus, July 1955. Web. 19 Oct. 2016.
Gowans, Chris. "Moral Relativism." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University,
19 Feb. 2004. Web. 19 Oct. 2016.
Karnow, Stanley. "Ho Chi Minh." Time. Time Inc., 13 Apr. 1998. Web. 19 Oct. 2016.
"Viet Minh Take Control in the North." History.com. A&E Television Networks, 11 Oct. 2009.
Web. 19 Oct. 2016.
Walling, Karl. "The Use and Abuse of American Foreign Policy Doctrines - Online Library of
Law & Liberty." Online Library of Law Liberty. Online Library of Law Liberty, 12 Jan.
2016. Web. 19 Oct. 2016.
The War in Vietnam. The Sixties, CNN, 2014