Is war fundamentally wrong? (2 Viewers)

[Rorix]

transcedent: talks of what is ethical and what is unethical raise the question of 'what is ethics?', 'what makes something ethical?', 'why should I do something that is ethical?' and so on, until eventually you must answer the question as what is ethical is right or good or whatever other word you use for morally correct.

There is, I believe, a philosophical school of thought that no war can be just.

 

[Benny_]

Whether one judges anything as right or wrong depends on the code of ethics they follow. I don't think there exists such a well thought out code that simply states: 'war is wrong.' I believe as well as the consequences, the motives behind going to each war also factor into whether it's right or wrong.

Having said that, I do believe that going to war should always be the last resort because of its tremendous costs.

Edit: Oh really? I guess my researc for my one first year philosophy subject didn't cover wars very thoroughly.

 

[~*HSC 4 life*~]

how can war not be fundamentally wrong

resolving your problems by sending one group of people to try and kill as many of another group of people as possible

considering that states are simply made up of people who happen to have been born or live inside an artificially drawn legal boundary and therefore fall under the jurisdiction of a certain government

exactly

we can solve our problems in other ways, why choose war?

 

[Benny_]

Yeah.. the sig does give it away a bit doesn't it.

 

[Korn]

I keep hearing around the forum cries of "war is wrong" , "war is stupid".
I'd like to hear how exactly people justify this to themselves?

I have absolutely NO problem with war, when it is necessary

 

[paper cup]

I keep hearing around the forum cries of "war is wrong" , "war is stupid".
I'd like to hear how exactly people justify this to themselves?

well war is terrible, no one's going to dispute that, but like asqy said, sometimes it is necessary. a last resort.

 

[Korn]

...so when is war neccessary? War is neccessary in instances of self defence.

Self-defence, ending tyranny (ie WW2 to stop Hitler, overthrowing Saddam {which I assumed to be the US reason for invading Iraq from day 1}, etc) and other reasons

 

[Generator]

...so when is war neccessary? War is neccessary in instances of self defence.

I don't think that it is that simple given that not all invasions are necessarily militaristic in nature.

I sound like a bit of a loon, don't I? I'm only trying to point out that the idea of a war being necessary is far more complex than the idea of self defence suggests at face value.

 

[Benny_]

Self-defence, ending tyranny (ie WW2 to stop Hitler, overthrowing Saddam {which I assumed to be the US reason for invading Iraq from day 1}, etc)

'Ending tyranny'.. apparently someone's let Bush's speeches get to his head.

 

[Korn]

'Ending tyranny'.. apparently someone's let Bush's speeches get to his head.

What from when Dubya got into power and went to war in Afghanastan, i was almost certain he would go to Iraq to get Saddam, mainly cause Iraq has been a thorn in the side of the US for so long and because George Snr didnt get Saddam when he had the chance

 

[LadyBec]

I kinda agree that war is wrong, im a big believer in not shooting a few million people just cos "your" god is better then "theirs". Ot becasue you want a chunk of land. etc.
But at the same time, sometimes there is no real choice, I think everyine would agree that if it was an "us or them" situation we would say "us".
I think it all comes down to the qestion "was it worth it?" was it worth all the millions of lives lost in world war one? do the ends justify the means?

 

[Korn]

I kinda agree that war is wrong, im a big believer in not shooting a few million people just cos "your" god is better then "theirs". Ot becasue you want a chunk of land. etc.
But at the same time, sometimes there is no real choice, I think everyine would agree that if it was an "us or them" situation we would say "us".
I think it all comes down to the qestion "was it worth it?" was it worth all the millions of lives lost in world war one? do the ends justify the means?

I would say that WW1 may not have been worth it cause it started over an assination of some prince, but WW2 was surely worth it

 

[paper cup]

I don't think that it is that simple given that not all invasions are necessarily militaristic in nature.

I sound like a bit of a loon, don't I? I'm only trying to point out that the idea of a war being necessary is far more complex than the idea of self defence suggests at face value.

you're not a loon Generator.

 

[AsyLum]

242/05/13/CT
PHIL 242 LECTURE THIRTEEN:
INTRODUCTION TO JUST WAR THEORY
1. War and violence
• Violence involves damage or harm to persons or property. Violence and killing
are prima facie wrong, wrong on the face of it, but in some cases some violence
can (arguably) be justified eg self defence.
• State force and coercion underlie the maintenance of law and order within a
political community, so (arguably) the use of force by state is justified
• War is a form of violence , specifically a deliberate and widespread armed
conflict between political communities or states
Can war (violence conducted by states against other states) be justified in moral or ethical
terms?
Consider 3 answers:
• war is sometimes justified, sometimes unjustified (just war theory),
• war is never justified (pacifism),
• moral concepts don’t apply to war (sceptical or realist position)
2. Sceptical or realist position
A state is not a moral agent like a person. In international affairs, states have fundamental
interests in power and security, and should do whatever it takes to maximise their
interests. A state should resort to war if doing so is in its national self interest, and then
should do whatever it takes to win. This amounts to an amoral policy of self regard, that
sets no limit to international aggression. (There might be prudential limits to undertaking
war, but such a decision is not about justice.)
Descriptive version: states do behave in this way
Prescriptive version: states should behave in this way
Realism applies to war at least two levels – first, regarding a decision to go to war,
second, regarding the things people are prepared to do in order to win a war
But contemporary and past practices do not support an ‘anything goes’ view of war –
conduct of war is up for moral scrutiny. There is serious public debate and discussion
about whether a country should go to war, and international law includes the Hague and
Geneva Conventions that concern armed conflict. (Walzer)
3. Just war theory
Jus ad bellum Justice in going to war
Jus in bello Justice in the conduct of war
Jus post bellum Justice after a war
Jus ad bellum – six criteria for a just war. All six requirements must be fulfilled if a
political community is to wage war legitimately.
(1) Just cause principle – to use force against another nation, there must be a
serious reason such as self defense, the protection of innocents, or resistance
to aggression
Question: are pre-emptive strikes justified?
(2) Right intention to resolve the conflicting issue and eventually gain peace
have to be the motivations. Not revenge, not cruelty, not greed.
Question: what about mixed intentions?
(3) Proper authority and public declaration the decision needs to be made by a
proper process and the citizens and the enemy state need to be aware of the
reasons for war.
(4) Last resort a military intervention should not be the first option on the list
(5) Reasonable chance of success – you probably aren’t justified in waging a
war you will inevitably lose.
(6) (Macro-) Proportionality We know that a war will produce some evil, and
even fighting for a good cause might not be worth the destruction that results.
Cynthia Townley
13/4/05

242/05/14/CT
PHIL 242 LECTURE FOURTEEN:
INTRODUCTION TO JUST WAR THEORY (2)
1. Can war be justified?
No (pacifism)
Yes, under certain conditions (just war theory)
Not applicable (realism or scepticism)
Just war theory
Jus ad bellum Justice in going to war
Jus in bello Justice in the conduct of war
Jus post bellum Justice after a war
Doctrine of double effect (DDE)
(see Elizabeth Anscombe ‘War and Murder’ in Reader part 2)
When an action has both good and bad consequences (double effect), DDE offers a way
to judge its permissibility.
DDE: such an act is morally allowable only when the following conditions are
fulfilled:
the action is morally permissible (good or at least neutral);
the good effect and not the evil effect is intended;
the good effect is not produced by means of the evil effect;
the goodness of the good effect outweighs the evil of the evil effect.
In war, there will inevitably be civilian costs – for example, casualties when weapons
factories are bombed. This happens not only when civilians are directly targeted, as
when the cities of Hiroshima, Nagasaki or Dresden were bombed, but also when civilian
deaths are a side-effect of legitimate targets.
Question: is DDE helpful in thinking about just war?
2. Jus in bello 3 criteria for just war conduct
(1) discrimination avoiding non military targets and avoiding noncombatant
injuries.
Give your own example of
a) a clearly legitimate target
b) a clearly illegitimate target
c) a controversial target
(2) (Micro-)proportionality force used is proportional to the importance of the
objective in relation to the cause as a whole.
(3) No means Mala in Se no means that are bad in themselves eg rape, torture,
genocide, chemical or biological weapons
4. Jus post bellum 5 criteria for justice after the war
(1) Just cause for termination it is just to end the war when those rights whose
violation lead to the war in the first place have been vindicated, the aggressor
is prepared to accept terms of surrender that include renouncing the gains of
its aggression. Continuing the war past this point (eg to destroy the enemy)
is unjust.
(2) Right intention war termination must be carried out according to other post
bellum principles, not motivated by revenge and with symmetrical attention to
the investigation of the conduct of the victorious force and the vanquished.
(3) Public declaration and legitimate authority the terms of the peace need to
be made public either by the national governments involved or by an
international body
(4) Discrimination the leaders of the military are to be distinguished from the
soldiers, as far as responsibility and prosecution are concerned, and the
civilian (non-combatant) population is not to be subjected to undue or unfair
hardship. Issues of compensation and punishment are to be compatible with
justice.
(5) Proportionality the conditions are to be proportional to the end or purpose of
reasonable rights vindication, and under surrender conditions the defeated
people retain human rights (surrender is not unconditional).
5. Things to consider.
• Note the references to legitimate authority in the declaration, and termination of
war. What makes an authority legitimate?
• Are both leaders and soldiers responsible when jus in bello standards are violated?
6. Reading for next class
Anscombe ‘War and Murder’ and Held ‘Terrorism, Rights and Political Goals’ (both in
Reader part 2)
Cynthia Townley
14 April 2005

Thought that might interest some of you.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

War in certain circumstances is wrong, those circumstances being many and frequent. But you cannot simply say that 'war is wrong' without consideration of the consequences and situation.

If you take a very basic example to illustrate the utilitarian point - white lies. Sometimes you might lie. You might even say that to lie is wrong. But if you had to lie to save someone's life, you would. The direct wrong (the lie) is superceded by the overarching good (saving a life). If you say that there are two choices - to lie or not to lie, what is the correct path? To lie. If this is the morally correct path, you cannot be at fault in carrying out the direct wrong.

Looking at war in an analagous situation, if the direct wrong is superceded by the overarching good, the doing of the direct wrong cannot be a wrongful act. This is due to an incapacity to both (a) not do the direct wrong and (b) do the overarching good. The only fault or wrongfulness involved would be not to mitigate the damage caused in doing the wrongful act.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I think the starter of this thread seems to think war is quite good in solving problems.

Evidenced by his sig pic...as such war should be aspired to and people should never question the success of wars if the overall result was a 'win'...

the logic goes 'The fact that war resulted in the end of Nazism makes war good'

Of course all it represents is a failure of humanity to solve their problems without getting into a punch up...or by using force to get what they want.

No Asquithian...
The point of my sig, is to fight a simplistic "WAR IS WRONG" slogan with the simplistic slogan "WAR IS SOMETIMES RIGHT".

It has nothing to do with the idea that war is a great way to solve problems, I'm just rather sick of the anti-war in any situation ignorance... and I thought it was rather amusing.

 

[loquasagacious]

NTB you persist in making a mistake common among many (and drilled into us by pop-culture). The US did NOT save europe. If America had not gone to war hitler would have been defeated.

80% of the german army was killed or captured on the eastern front. In the west the allies faced a comparitively weak german army.

----------------------------------------------------------------

No war is not intrinsically wrong. War is often wrong. War is rarely worth it. War leaves people, lands and countries in ruin (and not just the 'loosers').

Eiensenhower from memory said: "there are no winners in war only those that did not loose as badly".

War (or rather hitting your neighbour on the head with a rock and stealing his cave/wife/spear/mammoth steak) is a basic part of human nature. War may cause inhumane things to be done but it is nonsensical to argue that it is inhumane in itself.

To engage in warfare in self-defence has less grey areas than to be the agressor however a defender can equally wage war in an 'unsuitable' way.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

NTB you persist in making a mistake common among many (and drilled into us by pop-culture). The US did NOT save europe. If America had not gone to war hitler would have been defeated.

80% of the german army was killed or captured on the eastern front. In the west the allies faced a comparitively weak german army.

----------------------------------------------------------------

No war is not intrinsically wrong. War is often wrong. War is rarely worth it. War leaves people, lands and countries in ruin (and not just the 'loosers').

Eiensenhower from memory said: "there are no winners in war only those that did not loose as badly".

War (or rather hitting your neighbour on the head with a rock and stealing his cave/wife/spear/mammoth steak) is a basic part of human nature. War may cause inhumane things to be done but it is nonsensical to argue that it is inhumane in itself.

To engage in warfare in self-defence has less grey areas than to be the agressor however a defender can equally wage war in an 'unsuitable' way.

Addymac, I believe you'll find that while the heaviest damage was done to the germans on the eastern front, they would of at least been able to hold off against the soviets in a bit of a stalemate if the americans didn't get involved, forcing hitler to fight on two fronts.

Hitler also would of had a chance if he stopped marching his armies into russia and waded out the russian winter.

It is true that there is little respect given towards how well the soviets fought off the nazi's, but i stand by my claim that without american intervention the nazi's would still be in control of much of europe today.

 

[Korn]

Addymac, I believe you'll find that while the heaviest damage was done to the germans on the eastern front, they would of at least been able to hold off against the soviets in a bit of a stalemate if the americans didn't get involved, forcing hitler to fight on two fronts.

Hitler also would of had a chance if he stopped marching his armies into russia and waded out the russian winter.

It is true that there is little respect given towards how well the soviets fought off the nazi's, but i stand by my claim that without american intervention the nazi's would still be in control of much of europe today.

True alot of German soldiers died due to the winter not necessarily the Russian Army

 

[Benny_]

I would say that WW1 may not have been worth it cause it started over an assination of some prince, but WW2 was surely worth it

Clearly you lack even the most basic knowledge of WWI (or WII for that matter) that all Modern History students have. Stop referring to events that you have little or no knowledge of, it's embarrassing.