Is war fundamentally wrong? (1 Viewer)

[Rafy]

It may seem wrong, but by nature humans are quintessentially flawed. We cannot solve all problems through peaceful means due to our very nature. This has to be acknowleged.

In some cases (of absolute last resort) war may be nessecary to bring about, admittially ironically, a peaceful situation. Of course war as an act of agression is morally wrong based on the societal mores of OUR society.

"We make war that we may live in peace."
-- Aristotle, 384 BC

 

[thejosiekiller]

Besides, war doesn't determine who is right. War determines who is left.

haha i imagine lefties using that line in war

oh wait...

 

[transcendent]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH
*cough*
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

What ?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

What ?

You said that what is ethical and unethical is universal. I'm laughing at that obsurd notion.
No further explanation i feel is needed.

 

[transcendent]

You said that what is ethical and unethical is universal. I'm laughing at that obsurd notion.
No further explanation i feel is needed.

Meh, it's what they taught us in our course. The lecturer was a former Arts student and heavily left-wing. She was very dramatic and entertaining in comparison to the dull head-lecturer for that course.

 

[Rafy]

Except for ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism, and communism, War has never solved anything.

my thoughts precisely!

 

[Xayma]

What ?

Humans are the one's that set ethics, humans are prone to failure.

Hence ethics are not universal.

Examples where ambiguity occurs:

An ethics committee has recently granted approval to grow human brain cells in rats (to comprise their full brain of human cells) on the condition that if any show signs of human qualities and sentience they are to be killed. Is it ethical to kill a sentient being? (Granted the chances of achieving sentience with the size and shape of the brain is near impossible)

Euthenasia is another example where ambiguity occurs.

In nursing you will get a set of ethical guidelines to follow, however, outside of professions it is a set of principles.

 

[thejosiekiller]

No, I meant war doesn't determine if you're right, it determines if you're left. Because if you're not left over at the end of it, you're dead.

lol i know what you meant argo

im just saying you have a right and left wing forces fighting each other- i would find that little setence funny...

ah forget it - wasnt that funny..kind of reminds me of a right wing and left wing man are in a bar...blah blah

 

[Slidey]

What happens to war when all countries are sufficiently advanced/civilised?

 

[thejosiekiller]

that wont happen for a long while, if it ever does

nothing is ever equal and fair

 

[transcendent]

Unfortunately for some it seems it's the first resort to take.

 

[withoutaface]

War is a result of the inability of people to work things out without resorting to violence.

On a micro scale it is like saying you disagree with someone and resolving it with a fight to the death. Sure you get a winner and a result but its not always the best way.

As such it represents more a failure of humanity and always shoud be a last resort...

A fight to the death would more represent launching nukes in this analogy methinks.

 

[Iron]

Except for ending 1.Slavery, 2.Fascism, Nazism, and 3.communism, War has never solved anything.

This statement irks me plenty.

1. Obviously refering to the US Civil War. However most other wars created slaves as 'booty' and prostitutes. Not to mention the fact that abolishing slavery was not the primary concern of this war and that civil rights for african-americans was only achieved in the 60s, with still some way to go.

2. Fascism and Nazism created a war that they lost. They instigated military action, and it solved nothing for them. I think we would've settled for an assasination of Hitler.

3. Communism? The "Cold War" was not a war. The USSR collapsed becasue it ran out of dosh. And Vietnam, Cuba, Korea, etc were CLEARLY instances in which Communism succeeded. Dir.

The elephant in the room is that all these things could've just as easily been solved without war (as 3. was), unless you believe that mass culling of people is necessary to keep the population explosion in check.

This ignorance is nauseating. NTB, I demand you remove the picture and publically recant.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Asquithian, are u telling me that there aren't people out there that are convinced that ALL wars are wrong?
Please....

 

[Iron]

Freaking hell Asqth. Always two clicks ahead!

 

[Slidey]

that wont happen for a long while, if it ever does

nothing is ever equal and fair

Take a look at history, especially the last 200 years.

Either I'm stupid, or there's a definite trend in both the reasons for war, who goes to war, how much war there is and how damaging the war is. Overall, the trend appears to be that the world is settling into an equillibrium.

 

[thejosiekiller]

Take a look at history, especially the last 200 years.

Either I'm stupid, or there's a definite trend in both the reasons for war, who goes to war, how much war there is and how damaging the war is. Overall, the trend appears to be that the world is settling into an equillibrium.

im just saying its in a nation's self interest (well maybe not every nation) for them to be more advanced/civilised

there is too much history to ignore when looking at your neighbour within the world and that people will always strive to compete with one another

however, this is not really linked to whether war will become a thing of the past or not because people are all equal and therefore afraid of each other

ah im tired, im off to do some work

 

[Not-That-Bright]

This statement irks me plenty.

1. Obviously refering to the US Civil War. However most other wars created slaves as 'booty' and prostitutes. Not to mention the fact that abolishing slavery was not the primary concern of this war and that civil rights for african-americans was only achieved in the 60s, with still some way to go.

2. Fascism and Nazism created a war that they lost. They instigated military action, and it solved nothing for them. I think we would've settled for an assasination of Hitler.

3. Communism? The "Cold War" was not a war. The USSR collapsed becasue it ran out of dosh. And Vietnam, Cuba, Korea, etc were CLEARLY instances in which Communism succeeded. Dir.

The elephant in the room is that all these things could've just as easily been solved without war (as 3. was), unless you believe that mass culling of people is necessary to keep the population explosion in check.

This ignorance is nauseating. NTB, I demand you remove the picture and publically recant.

1. Who cares if it wasn't the primary concern?
2. Yes, they started the war, but the war (that they lost) solved the problem of nazism and fascism. Don't act like if america hadn't gone to war (which they didn't HAVE TO) the nazi's wouldn't still be in power today .
3. It was a war, just not an all-out war.

 

[Iron]

1. Who cares if it wasn't the primary concern?
2. Yes, they started the war, but the war (that they lost) solved the problem of nazism and fascism. Don't act like if america hadn't gone to war (which they didn't HAVE TO) the nazi's wouldn't still be in power today .
3. It was a war, just not an all-out war.

1. Slavery is alive and well and war is it's best friend.
2. 50million lives lost due to, lets face it, the ambition and will of one man (or 2 if you include Musso.) isnt justified.
3. If you support a war of words, then fine. We partially agree.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I think people might be confused as to what is meant by the question posited by NTB. By "fundamentally wrong" he does not mean "it has bad effects." What is meant is that war per se - that is, war in and of itself - is intrinsically wrong.

But of course war is not fundamentally wrong because nothing is 'fundamentally wrong'. It depends on the consequences as to whether something is wrong.