Is war ever justified? (1 Viewer)

[loquasagacious]

The issue of whether war could ever be justified started to come up in the Hiroshima thread and I thought it deservered it's own topic.

Quite simply is war ever justified? And why?

Some example arguments are:

Pro:
- Sometimes it is necessary to fight evil
- Self defence
- Moral utilitarianism
- Moral relativism

Con:
- The taking of human life can never be justified
- Moral absolutism + moral universalism
​

Personally I think that war can be justified and is both a legitimate and important component of statecraft. We must be prepared to fight to defend ourselves, our interests and our allies. We must also be prepared to recognise evil and oppose it with force if necessary.

Note: by evil I mean a state which is intentionally and widely violating core human rights. Genocide is the prime example evil act; Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Rwanda, etc are prime examples of evil states.

 

[Serius]

I could probably argue in both directions for this one. I do tend to lean towards thinking it is justified in many situations, but it really depends on the situation i guess. Will be interesting to see what others post.

 

[ekoolish]

Lmao, wow my threads are even more facetious than this.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

i'm a utilitarian in every sense of the word, like pretty much everyone, but i voted no for practicle reasons. so far as i can tell it's never been justified (though it might have been as time went on), and i doubt it ever will. is it ever justified? practically, no.

quick example: according to wiki: 73,000,000 dead as a result of WWII. A total approaching that number would need to be killed before war would be justified, and even then, it's really only acceptable if that course of action is the only course of action that can settle the situation - preservation of a life is always preferable.

Personally I think that war can be justified and is both a legitimate and important component of statecraft. We must be prepared to fight to defend ourselves, our interests and our allies. We must also be prepared to recognise evil and oppose it with force if necessary.

Come on comrade - you know you can't be saying that here without expanding upon it.

 

[Lukybear]

I would guess it is. Some life are not worthy of survival.

 

[Lukybear]

i'm a utilitarian in every sense of the word, like pretty much everyone, but i voted no for practicle reasons. so far as i can tell it's never been justified (though it might have been as time went on), and i doubt it ever will. is it ever justified? practically, no.

quick example: according to wiki: 73,000,000 dead as a result of WWII. A total approaching that number would need to be killed before war would be justified, and even then, it's really only acceptable if that course of action is the only course of action that can settle the situation - preservation of a life is always preferable.



Come on comrade - you know you can't be saying that here without expanding upon it.

Not neccessarily. From the utilitarian perspective, if considering the events that the allies did not war, or lost the war; one would perhaps find that larger catastrophes would exist. Namely the extermination of certain race. This might of gone global and so on....

I would suggest in certain cases, where uncontrolled and inmoral dictators, would aim to destroy humanity, war would be justified. But that would be taking it too far I guess.

 

[kevinx2]

The international system is anarchic. War is necessary for the preservation of the state

 

[Tangent]

Bah, you're cruel. I was in a state of depression in the other thread, now you have to make this one Y-Y (my fault for posting on here though)

War is stupid but not pointless, in the sense that there is always some reason for going to war. However the act of war and of all the killings demeans the justification through the act of killing a hell of a lot of people, until the deaths far outway the justification.

So no, i believe that you cannot justify war, because as a human race as a whole, it gets us no where, causes a lot of pain, death and destruction. How can anything justify that?

 

[Nicholas727]

Even if you cannot justify it, others can and will.

So its a bit of a moot point because its always going to be around.

 

[jules.09]

Unlike Ben Netanyahu, I wouldn't use the utilitarian argument. I think that argument would fail because, the ultimate result is that the majority of people are alive, while a considerable (yet lesser quantity) of people are killed via warfare. To plainly put it, I am a pacifist and by corollary, I would advocate a peaceful resistance movement in the event of a war.

My dad has been conscripted for war before, and there he has seen, first hand the horrors of war: his friends dying and exploding by tripping over unseen mines, others being shot down etc.

Aside from the people whose livelihoods are to voluntarily 'protect the country', people who are conscripted especially, are caught up in a crossfire of casualities, fighting a war they do not support nor believe in. Furthermore, the concept of nationalism/patriotism is just petty. You are fighting for a country; a mere social construct. The only reason it's a damn country is because of an unnatural, generally intangible border that has been imposed on an expanse of land, by some preceding legislative authority.

The Soviets retreating from Afghanistan, the US in Iraq and Vietnam. The effects of war still resound many decades after it has ceased, due to the biological warfare that has been used (e.g. napalm, agent orange leading to congenital defects, mass amputees and cancer) and a severely undermined social infrastructure. The victims of war, who remain alive, are physically and psychologically scarred, are dislocated, swept of their livelihoods and are largely condemned to poverty.

I suppose the argument would go somewhat along the lines of, 'we're protecting the innocent masses', but in war, no one ever wins. There will be many, many civilian casualties, innocent as the rest of us would like to think of ourselves. The superpowers deem it as collateral damage, but if warfare is to be a trend continued into future centuries, it is a testament to society's regression.

It's ironic that in killing your fellow humans abroad, you have shiny accolades pinned on you in return and are nationally glorified, but if a soldier 'at home' dies, by voluntarily committing to a hollow war effort in Iraq, you're grieved about and eulogised tenfold.

 

[Iron]

Many in this thread misunderstand war. The justified wars are almost always defensive ones in which one innocent nation is attacked by an ambitious and violent one. To say no to 'any' war is to admit that our way of life and system of government is not worth defending and to invite such aggression.
Is that what youre all proposing? That we run scared at the first sign of any growling enemy? Surrender everything and anything to save our pathetic life?
Fucking weak and corrupted gay-arse spoiled pansy motherfuckers

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

Not neccessarily. From the utilitarian perspective, if considering the events that the allies did not war, or lost the war; one would perhaps find that larger catastrophes would exist. Namely the extermination of certain race. This might of gone global and so on....

Guy, did you even my post? I made a mention of almost exactly what you said.

And what you're saying is unfeasable, and dumb, and in some cases not morally equivilent. Who cares if 50 million Jews were wiped out, when 73 million others lost their lives to defend them. Not good enough, imo.

Unlike Ben Netanyahu, I wouldn't use the utilitarian argument. I think that argument would fail because, the ultimate result is that the majority of people are alive, while a considerable (yet lesser quantity) of people are killed via warfare. To plainly put it, I am a pacifist and by corollary, I would advocate a peaceful resistance movement in the event of a war.

You assume that we're all alive because of wars. That is dumb.

 

[Silver Persian]

Utalitarian argument (according to my philosophy book) = maximise utility (happiness or whatever)

best way = no war

But surely you can imagine a situation in whcih war is the better solution. I'll stay away from real live historical examples, but suppose New Zealand declared war on the rest of the planet and attempted to kill all non-citizens. In this situation, surely going to war with New Zealand and ensuring that their plan did not happen would be the utility maximising option?

 

[kevinx2]

Inevitably, some crazy guy will always start some kind of war/violence, and everything fails.

So yeah, war is bad, but can't be helped at this stage...

Not at any stage. The drive for power and the will to dominate are held to be fundamental aspects of human behaviour. The state and those who make up the state are all self-seeking egoist.
another reason why pacifism won't work well on the level where wars are waged

 

[lolokay]

only if they started it

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

But surely you can imagine a situation in whcih war is the better solution. I'll stay away from real live historical examples, but suppose New Zealand declared war on the rest of the planet and attempted to kill all non-citizens. In this situation, surely going to war with New Zealand and ensuring that their plan did not happen would be the utility maximising option?

It only becomes justified in the following pseudocode!

New Zealand caused deaths (NZCD) = x
If Defensive deaths (DC) > x then
war =/= justfieid
Elseif DC < x then
war = justified
end if
end sub
u smell!

Killing someone cannot be justified unless it is an equal, or lesser evil than the evil one is responding to. Accept it. Do not treat war as a special example. Killing people in hordes under orders is not a special case. Cunts.

 

[jules.09]

You assume that we're all alive because of wars. That is dumb.

No, that was your assumption. I said the utilitarian argument doesn't work to your advantage, because you don't believe war is justified. Sikhman has already outlined the fault in your argument. (If you're pro war, it works fine)

I only stated what I believe in. War is not justified, because history has shown that it's mainly superpowers dominating smaller nations, for exploitative purposes.

For purposes of 'self defence' I suppose, theoretically it would be alright. How do superpowers go about justifying this?

Firstly, you justify it on the fact that you and your country are threatened.

Secondly, you must project an evil image of the other. i.e. They are threatening us.

Thirdly, after a very evil image of the enemy is depicted, you can justify going into war, and essentially massacring the place. No doubt, the enemy has conjured a very similar projection of you. This is where the need for government propaganda comes in. e.g. the WAR ON TERRORISM. Or a trip back down memory lane (Vietnam War), the domino theory foreign policy:

(What I'm getting at is, projecting a base image of the enemy, is like talking about the faceless evil of transnationals exploiting third world country persons - our perception of evil has materialised via propaganda, when it's a mixture of paranoia and xenophobia. Problems do exist I will concede, but it's not the neat picture the media portrays and what we've been brought up to think. It's not good versus evil. It's humans killing humans.)

So yes, all of this was 'at the time', justified. Propaganda dictated that we had to protect ourselves, or we were going to lose our way of life. Now that can't happen! because we are superior.

All of this works on the basis of projection, which provides psychological immunity to the horrors of war. It's only when you're really there, having to 'fight the enemy', that you can see the visceral, graphic nature of war first hand. They too, have families of their own, and share your mundane concerns.

It's terrible.

 

[katie tully]

Yes going to war war is justified.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

No, that was your assumption. I said the utilitarian argument doesn't work to your advantage, because you don't believe war is justified. Sikhman has already outlined the fault in your argument. (If you're pro war, it works fine)

jules, read your own post.

the ultimate result is that the majority of people are alive, while a considerable (yet lesser quantity) of people are killed via warfare.

hence utility is maximised thanks to war. because more people are still alive thanks to war, it is ok. i'm reading exactly what you posted.

 

[jules.09]

i'm a utilitarian in every sense of the word, like pretty much everyone, but i voted no for practicle reasons. so far as i can tell it's never been justified (though it might have been as time went on), and i doubt it ever will. is it ever justified? practically, no.

Read your own post. You contradicted yourself and had to negative rep me in the process ..