In military operations, whether a few innocent people should be sacrificed to achieve overall victory is an extremely complex and full of moral dilemmas. Different cultures, historical backgrounds, and values may lead to different answers. The following is an analysis from multiple angles： ### 1. **Ethics and ethics perspective** -**Humanitarian principles**: According to international humanitarian law, acts in war should minimize harm to civilians. The lives of innocent people are sacred and cannot be easily sacrificed because of the so-called “overall situation”. Morally, everyone should be regarded as an equal individual and cannot sacrifice the lives of a few people for the benefit of the collective. -**Consequentialism and utilitarianism**: From the perspective of utilitarianism, it may be considered reasonable if the sacrifice of a few people can save more lives or achieve greater benefits. However, this view can easily raise the question of “legitimacy of purpose”, that is, whether any purpose can be achieved by sacrificing innocent people. ### 2. **Legal and international law perspective** -**International humanitarian law**: According to international law such as the Geneva Conventions, it is necessary to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants in military operations to minimize harm to civilians. Deliberately sacrificing innocent people may constitute a war crime. -**Domestic laws**: The laws of many countries also expressly prohibit harm to innocent civilians, even in war or emergencies. ### 3. **Strategy and long-term impact** -**Morality and trust**: Sacrificing innocent people may gain a strategic advantage in the short term, but in the long run, this behavior will damage the moral image of the army, weaken the support of the international community, and may even trigger stronger resistance. -**Historical lessons**: In history, many acts of sacrificing innocent people in the name of the ”overall situation" have eventually led to greater tragedies and moral condemnations. For example, some strategic bombing operations in World War II, although they had military effects in the short term, were widely criticized in the long run. ### 4. **Philosophy and Human Nature** -**Kantian Ethics**: Kant believes that man cannot be regarded only as a means to achieve an end, everyone should be regarded as the end itself. Therefore, sacrificing innocent people to achieve a certain purpose fundamentally violates this principle. -**Human nature and empathy**: From the perspective of human nature, sacrificing innocent people can cause deep moral pain and guilt, and may even cause long-term damage to the psychology of the executor. ### 5. **Religious and cultural perspectives** -**Religious teachings**: Many religions emphasize the inviolability of life and oppose harming innocent people for any reason. For example, religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism emphasize compassion and peace. -**Cultural values**: In some cultures, collective interests may be placed above personal interests, but this does not mean that innocent people can be easily sacrificed. Many cultures also emphasize the protection of the weak. ### Conclusion Sacrificing a few innocent people to achieve the overall victory, although in extreme cases it may be regarded as a “necessary evil” by some people, but from the perspective of morality, law, strategy and humanity, this behavior is usually unacceptable. True victory should not come at the expense of innocent lives, but should be achieved in a more humane and intelligent way. History has proved many times that respect for life and compliance with moral and legal principles are the key to ultimate victory. In the face of such dilemmas, leaders should always put humanitarian principles first, and strive to find solutions that can achieve strategic goals while minimizing the harm of innocent people.