Society has, from its very beginning, relied on the complexities of the struggles of man. These struggles arise from his environment, no doubt, but also intrinsically from his nature. From the “brutish” age of the Celts to the height of civilisation in Archimedes’ Greece, from the golden age of imperial Britain to the trenches of Germany and France – the corridors of history have echoed the exact words – all is fair in love and war.
Seemingly an archaic justification for questionable actions, a closer examination of the phrase challenges the very foundations of morality, resonating with both the pages of history and the contemporary world.

On closer inspection, the use of “love” and “war” seem antithetic – how can two words opposite in every sense of their meaning have any equivalence? Their contrast may be evident as night and day, but the phrase implies an aspect common to both, arguably integral – ambiguity. A value or behaviour, in one case perfectly acceptable, might be, in another situation, perfectly deplorable.

The phrase makes apparent two conflicting views – Are some values inherently right or wrong, regardless of the context? Or, in the pursuit of a greater good, can such moral restraints be set aside? The use of this phrase, therefore, to justify actions otherwise morally reprehensible presents a complication. Every action carries weight but inherently changes with the context and situation. Thus, the dichotomy between pragmatism and morality, that is, thinking of actions realistically or thinking of actions morally, must depend on the situation. However, can there exist such situations which demand a reversal of morals?