Is war ever justified? (2 Viewers)

[jules.09]

i didnt contradict myself you imbecile. i said i voted no because practically, it's not justified. what are you on about? and i neg repped you because you're a fool.

ALL PRAISE B 2 THE TREMENDOUS ANTI-ISRAEL LEAGUE! FOLLOW MY LEAD!

Please, stop your ad hominem attacks. You're just morally conflicted, tis all.

War is a practical solution to keep the greater number of people alive. Which is what you're advocating. So it is 'practically justified'.

 

[Tangent]

The act of war is stupid and is justified by an excuse covering up a want for more power and control. Of course we have to defend ourselves if they are going to kill us. Its silly if we don't, we have a right to protect our friends and family.
But the concept of it depressing, as Jules pointed out.

 

[Kujah]

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

Realist perspective.

I voted yes.

 

[Empyrean444]

Essentially I would follow the standard 'just war' concept (viz. in defence of people, the country and against tyrrany / oppression etc). My problem with modern warfare is that there is an increasing no. of Civilian casualties to which I am morally opposed. As such, I revile not only terrorism but even acts like the 'strategic bombing' doctrine of ww2, and wherever possible far more effort should be done to minimise/avoid these civilian casualties (for example, bombing Bahgdad during the Iraq war was despicable).

That said, I would not say that war is in any way desirable; moreover, I think a few of the Pacifists in this thread used wars to support their arguments which I would classify as 'unjust' rather than just. I find that there can also be much semantic confusion in defining a 'just war' (eg Vietnam - on the one hand, many people in the south did not want to be integrated into a large communist state, and in that sense the war was 'justified'; on the other, the Aust govt decided to join of their own accord (ie 'send us a message imploring us to join') and then intro'd conscription, which I find revolting.)

I think the focus, once we have differentiated b/w 'just' and 'unjust' wars should be on the conduct thereof, because I find this to often be unnecessarily cruel and therefore 'unjust' even though the war is inherently 'just' (eg some of the villager-soldier dynamics b/w US troops in Vietnam etc etc). But these points do not mean in anyway that we should glorify war.

 

[jules.09]

That said, I would not say that war is in any way desirable; moreover, I think a few of the Pacifists in this thread used wars to support their arguments which I would classify as 'unjust' rather than just.

Great post overall. With regards to the particular section I have quoted above, the problem is that we subjectively distinguish between 'just' and 'unjust' wars. (also a problem of semantics) Even though I am a pacifist, I will openly admit that I don't advocate appeasement either.

"It is often necessary to take a strong stand to counter unjust aggression. For instance, it is plain to all of us that the Second World War was entirely justified. It "saved civilization" from the tyranny of Nazi Germany, as Winston Churchill so aptly put it. In my view, the Korean War was also just, since it gave South Korea the chance of gradually developing democracy." - Dalai Lama. Visit --> The Reality of War

With the Vietnam War, the US perceived the 'communist threat' and essentially occupied the country, setting off biological weapons which have resulted in generational defects etc. In hindsight, we all agree that this was wrong.

But ultimately the problem is that we can only ever assess whether it is just/unjust in hindsight.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

War is a practical solution to keep the greater number of people alive. Which is what you're advocating. So it is 'practically justified'.

YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT YOU DUMB SPED

War could be justified, as I said
But it never has been, via the utilitarian argument
Nor, realistically, will it ever
Hence, not practically reasonable.
Theoretically yes, practically no.

Christ almighty

 

[jules.09]

YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT YOU DUMB SPED

War could be justified, as I said
But it never has been, via the utilitarian argument
Nor, realistically, will it ever
Hence, not practically reasonable.
Theoretically yes, practically no.

Christ almighty

.

It is really futile to point out the logical flaw of your reasoning. I will thus desist from responding to your ad hominem attacks from this point.

At any rate I hold the non-interventionism stance according to the political compass.

 

[BBJames]

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.

Fucking lol coming from you.

 

[yoddle]

Modern wars, and presumably most wars, tend not to be based on noble principles but conflated self-interest.

I suppose it is justified if one calls the preservation of national borders, perceived national integrity, profit, resources and the embedded mindsets of the elite as noble. This, of course, applies to the aggressors, not the victimised state.

I personally feel that killing in the name of the above is unjustifiable.

I haven't studied philosophy but the whole thing is relative and has a lot to do with the fact that the winners of the wars write the history, and we are all skewered in a Western worldview.

E.g., if the U.S. had, in response to 9/11, engaged in productive and developmental activities on the ground in Afghanistan that had helped marginalise and alienate Al Qa'ida and the Taliban, would they be receiving the support they do now, and would there be such intense anti-Americanism in Western/Central Asia? Obviously it has a lot to do with the Israel-Palestine conflict and previous U.S. involvement in the ME, but yeah...

 

[BlueCatBulletCD]

I'd like to say no, but yes they can be.

 

[Serius]

It is naive to say that war is never acceptable; your neighbour invades you, are you going to sit there and let them have you like a drunk girl at a party? simply because you are a pacifist nation? I think not. Similarly, it is necessary to help defend smaller allies in situations where they have been unjustly attacked (think 1st Gulf War).

Well what would be the more ethical choice? Whilst i dont think i would ever be prepared to take this stance because i value my own life and my own country, pacifists do have a very strong moral position.

Basically how they stand is that it is ethically wrong to murder. In any situation, for whatever reason. Even if you do it to defend yourself, life is sacred and it is wrong to kill somebody. Its better to die knowing you kept the high ground rather than live a murderer.

If you subscribe to this belief, then its easy to extend that to wars and believe that it is never justified to murder on a large scale like that, even if your country is being invaded.


Personally though, I believe there have been very very few wars, if any that couldnt have been prevented using other means. Diplomacy is usually pretty effective, trade sanctions if they do something you dont like, then theres always assassinations, special ops, spies [basically what Israel and Australia do best]. Most wars are hardly a situation of one aggressor simply wanting the land of the other country without any instigation or cause, both parties are guilty of creating a situation where war is inevitable.

TLDR: whilst I guess its possible for war to be justified by one participant or another, I havent ever heard of war like this. Most wars are caused by two greedy leaders unwilling to compromise and far too willing to spend the lives of young men for land, power and wealth.

 

[David Spade]

yes

too much importance is placed on the value of human life imo

 

[yoddle]

It is naive to say that war is never acceptable; your neighbour invades you, are you going to sit there and let them have you like a drunk girl at a party? simply because you are a pacifist nation? I think not. Similarly, it is necessary to help defend smaller allies in situations where they have been unjustly attacked (think 1st Gulf War).

Yes but then the attacked nation isn't really the one in the wrong are they? Surely it's the aggressors of wars that the question needs to be asked of?

 

[Big Boss]

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.

From the dawn of time, all creatures fight one another for their existence and survival.

War should be a way of life for all human beings and creatures and unfortunately the weak metrosexual people are defying this.
A person's right to live should be defined by their fighting abilities.
A human life is taken because they are too weak to survive, unfortunately society has allowed the human population to flourish to unprecedented levels.

People must fight for their own rights, rights should not be given, it must be earned.
Imagine being captured and/or held hostage by terrorists, they do not acknowledge the Geneva convention's definition of human rights.
It is useless to speak of such rights, you must fight and survive your way through.

 

[AlleyCat]

this is a very interesting question.

i voted no, because i choose to believe (however naive it may be) that violence is never the solution, but the world as it is now has chosen to abandon many diplomatic avenues that could have been highly effective.

 

[Omie Jay]

there should always be a way to work something out by talking (note: SHOULD), but then u come across people who think their acts of terrorism is actually for the better good.

these type of people who REALLY BELIEVE they're doing something good are the dangerous ones, and need to be eradicated to stop them from spreading influence.

 

[Garygaz]

this is a very interesting question.

i voted no, because i choose to believe (however naive it may be) that violence is never the solution, but the world as it is now has chosen to abandon many diplomatic avenues that could have been highly effective.

To all you nay sayers, WWII. Imagine if the allies had chosen 'not' to go and defend Europe because it was against their morals. War is a sad yet inevitable part of our world.

 

[AlleyCat]

To all you nay sayers, WWII. Imagine if the allies had chosen 'not' to go and defend Europe because it was against their morals. War is a sad yet inevitable part of our world.

i am jewish, i havent forgotten about ww2, and i realise that the decision to enter ww2 was one that was taken for altruistic benefit, but i am also saying that in a perfect world, avenues of diplomacy would always be exhausted before the idea of going to war would even be considered.

i totally understand the opposing view, mainly because ww2 makes such a convincing case. you cant argue that subsequent wars fought for seemingly altruistic reasons have in hindsight proven not to be so.

i am 100% pacifist, what can i say.

 

[Serius]

To all you nay sayers, WWII. Imagine if the allies had chosen 'not' to go and defend Europe because it was against their morals. War is a sad yet inevitable part of our world.

Imagine if hilter was assasinated.

Imagine if trade sactions were applied, and diplomacy was used. Imagine if subterfuge and spying was used to work out what they are doing, then shit got sabotagued so they couldnt do it.

Imagine if parts of poland or france were just given up and concessions were made instead of all of Europe being overrun. We would have saved 70 million lives.

Good luck naming a war that prevented more deaths than what occured fighting it. Also have fun naming a war where diplomacy was used and totally exausted before the killing began.

 

[Iron]

imagine if no concessions like austria or czechoslovakia we given and we whooped his arse as soon as troops reoccupied the Rhineland?

You cant possibly believe that Hitler couldve been bought off and peace in our time wouldve endured as a result
Coward