When is war justified?

[Angst]

I need to misuse morality's monopoly of the concepts of good and bad in this thread, simply because I know no better words for joy and pain etc.

Originally Posted by SiLL

@lord_joakim
Alright, so I thought that by internal you basically just meant a kind of "natural" use of morality, of basic ideas of right and wrong as every group of humans will inevitable possess, if this group intends to be functional that is.
But how you now frame it (or how I just now understand you), it seems with internal you mean a consensus which is void of any kind of judgment, of any kind of sense of right or wrong - which in deed would not be something we could call morality.

Yes, but I'm feeling a wrong vibe from you; to you, right now, do I sound like a moralistic preacher?

But without a sense of right and wrong, such a consensus could depend on self-interest alone.

Bloody old self-interest. I don't buy it. It feels good to be nice, from a purely natural, biological standpoint; it has nothing to do, to me, with moralistic philosophical development and civilization. I sometimes actually feel rushes of hormones when I do something awesome.

Do you seriously believe humans are inherently more egoistic than social in their behavior? Let's play with fire; say all humans prioritize self-interest over everything else, even things like families, love, etc. I think that, because humans are biologically social creatures with intricate developed empathical systems and pleasure upon recieval of good things, intelligent humans acting in self-interest would let everybody prosper. Solidary actions can root in self-interest, simply because "If everybody takes care of everybody, everybody will feel nice". The thing is that society has to work somewhat like that; if you think self-interest trumps solidarity in human behavior, you can kinda see how it worked out in the free world; we are pretty effin jolly and taking care of each other; at least in these Western societies where dogma are actually attempted to be held at bay. And if you don't think self-interest trumps solidarity, the problem isn't even there.

And that makes me wonder about two things:

- First I thought your original position was that it is enough to just be nice. That however necessitates a sense of right and wrong, but now you say this can only be created by the external. However, you at least initially rejected the external.
Hugh?

The Good Morals have to come from somewhere natural in ourselves and have to have been a consensus at some point to even work as morals. If going by the assumption that good can come from biological drives, it can root in instinct. And therefore:

- Secondly, why would the drivers allow the one crossing the road to pass. They seemingly have nothing to gain but just loose time. To find this worthwhile, I would claim those drivers would already need a sense of right and wrong and hence some kind of moral orientation.

Either I still don't get it or you are missing some serious coherence.

I think you're assuming that humans are natural bastards more than I do.

Stupid point: Think of ants. They're acting extremely self-sacrificing for their hive. Do you think they have any idea what morals are? Now, we're obviously much more complex, but if good is inside us I don't see the need of some estranged moral code to bring it out magically.

Also; I'd hold for other cars. It's simply in the interest of myself. Much like the murderer guy. I don't put him behind bars for moral reasons. I do it because I don't like getting killed. Much like I don't like holding forever in line, waiting for cars to cross.

[SiLL]

Originally Posted by lord_joakim

Bloody old self-interest. I don't buy it. It feels good to be nice, from a purely natural, biological standpoint;

I don't see how that contradicts my statement. If it feels good, you are being rewarded, right? If you are nice because it feels good, you are nice to get a reward. Hence you act out of your own self-interest. This admittedly is a relatively encompassing use of self-interests, but I see no reason to differentiate between wanting say whatever object for yourself or to feel good, because said object in the end also just is a tool to make you feel good.

Originally Posted by lord_joakim

Do you seriously believe humans are inherently more egoistic than social in their behavior?

No, I believe individuals can more inherently egoistic or social though. But also that this can change over time.

Originally Posted by lord_joakim

Let's play with fire; say all humans prioritize self-interest over everything else, even things like families, love, etc.

In the sense I use self-interest, that sounds logically to me. Just that solidarity is IMO a part of self-interest, but collectively exercised. Not something that necessarily trumps it. And I would not make an exception for morality here, too. It too is supposed to in the end serf self-interests. Otherwise humans had simply no reason to care for it.

And I base this actually on what you write, that humans are emphatic and all. The assumption is that a society guided by morality will create a reward for its individuals big enough to be worth the trouble. Which would be to feel good, to feel loved and supported and so on. Which I think is an environment where humans can gain the best of living qualities. Hence, it is in our own rational self-interest to push for a moral society. The trouble just is, that this only works on the collective level. If you are the only one doing it, you'll get little emotional reward, rather, you will likely feel frustrated and exploited. So, for this to succeed, people need to be brave and make the first step, and for that one needs faith, endurance and commitment. And of course one needs an idea about what is supposed to be moral.

To be nice is a crucial ingredient to that, I don't want to debate that. I debate that this suffices. I debate that doing what you feel like doing suffices to achieve what I just laid out. In fact, I think this does not suffice in the slightest. Especially because there are many people out there who for whatever reasons don't feel like being nice, or if, then in quit superficial ways that don't cause much discomfort. I want people to be more. I want me to be more. Most of all, I want our societies to be more.

And going with that, yes, I agree that good roots - well I wouldn't say in our instincts, but in our nature. But I contest that achieving good in a collective sense wouldn't require the the kind of rational how to get there as I just laid out. On what morals grounds to get there.

Originally Posted by lord_joakim

Also; I'd hold for other cars. It's simply in the interest of myself. Much like the murderer guy. I don't put him behind bars for moral reasons. I do it because I don't like getting killed. Much like I don't like holding forever in line, waiting for cars to cross.

Fair point. I withdraw my second question but need to ask another which relates to the first one of my last post. We talked a lot about you being nice. If you are, do you not think of being it because it is, well, right? Is that not something you expect from others? I am trying to figure out if you being nice really is an exercise of morality or not.

edit: I guess this means that in the end morality is for me merely an ideological tool to create utopia. Don't know what an established philosopher would say about that.

[Akkon888]

Originally Posted by Flying Pig

I think 1918 rather proved otherwise, at least for the men at the front.

Western-German tensions were building long before the war. A whole host of defensive pacts made war inevitable. If Ferdinand wasn't shot, I'm sure the war would have commenced on any other day. 1918, the closing moments of the war, prove my statement correct; Wilson began to tempt German forces with ideas of equality listed in his Fourteen Points, sapping morale from them. What more was there left to fight for?

Originally Posted by Dachs

Item: "justifiable" usually implies that one side wronged another and therefore a military response was warranted. An "economic justification" would be something like a ridiculously restrictive tariff imposed by one state on the other, or perhaps an embargo - you know, an actual grievance. "We want their stuff so we can be richer" does not count as "economically justifiable".

Doing anything for the purpose of wealth is what I would call "economically justifiable" and while Polk may have had other ideological reasons for starting the war, economic prosperity was one of them. This logic is similar to saying that Hitler's idea of liebenstraum was not economic--it clearly attempted to bolster the German economy by providing materials. This isn't to say it isn't socially based as well--many Germans sought a stronger and larger empire from a morale standard. These ideas aren't mutually exclusive.

[Leoreth]

Originally Posted by Akkon888

Western-German tensions were building long before the war. A whole host of defensive pacts made war inevitable. If Ferdinand wasn't shot, I'm sure the war would have commenced on any other day.

That's too much of an argument from hindsight to me.

[Dachs]

Originally Posted by Akkon888

Western-German tensions were building long before the war. A whole host of defensive pacts made war inevitable. If Ferdinand wasn't shot, I'm sure the war would have commenced on any other day.

Defensive pacts and alliances don't make war inevitable, otherwise the Cold War would've turned into World War III, or the Holy Alliance would've fought with the quadruple powers.

I believe that a major conflict would probably have happened in Europe at some point in the decade of the 1910s even had the July Crisis not occurred, although I would say that the participants in such a conflict and the manner of its initiation are impossible to describe with any certainty (the prewar alliances did not fight the First World War against each other, and there is no particular reason to suppose they would have fought an alternative conflict against each other as well, especially given the ways in which such a conflict might have occurred), and I certainly wouldn't call it inevitable.

This is not because of the alliances or whatever, it's not because of some mythical German imperialism, and it's certainly not because the European Great Powers' capitalist-imperialist world system was supposedly doomed to turn against itself with few places in the world left to conquer. It is simply because virtually all statesman in charge of the diplomacy of all of the countries in Europe had ceased to believe that a Continental war was something that had to be avoided at all costs.

Originally Posted by Akkon888

Doing anything for the purpose of wealth is what I would call "economically justifiable" and while Polk may have had other ideological reasons for starting the war, economic prosperity was one of them. This logic is similar to saying that Hitler's idea of liebenstraum was not economic--it clearly attempted to bolster the German economy by providing materials. This isn't to say it isn't socially based as well--many Germans sought a stronger and larger empire from a morale standard. These ideas aren't mutually exclusive.

Your definition of the notion of economic justifiability is so idiosyncratic that it can be safely ignored. The fact that you're getting basic facts like what Lebensraum was wrong does not improve the situation.

Originally Posted by Leoreth

That's too much of an argument from hindsight to me.

Yes, it is important to compensate for hindsight when discussing historical events. Inevitability is, fortunately, becoming rather passe among the ranks of academic historians. Long live contingency!

[Angst]

Again, thanks for the answer SiLL; I won't repeat myself when retorting, so once again, answering the points that I feel need expanding: First off, I did point out self-interest was possible, but I did also point out that whether it was there or not, solidarity was still there, often independent of it. Also, I need to get back to the core of my argument:

Originally Posted by SiLL

{...} So, for this to succeed, people need to be brave and make the first step, and for that one needs faith, endurance and commitment. And of course one needs an idea about what is supposed to be moral.

Currently, in Denmark, society's laws and institutions hinder people from being really bad. If one goes on a crazed rampage, police shoots one down. Etc. Why would it be necessary to incorporate morals into that? When somebody passes a law taking care of the elderly and legitimizing it with "It's the morally good thing", I retort "Why the heck do you need an excuse for this? Wouldn't you have done it regardless of it being morally good?" Do I need a moral excuse to save a baby from drowning? Do I need to know what good and evil is before doing it? Is it impossible for me to do something moralists would rightly consider good without me knowing morals existed?

And then, to continue talking:

Fair point. I withdraw my second question but need to ask another which relates to the first one of my last post. We talked a lot about you being nice. If you are, do you not think of being it because it is, well, right? Is that not something you expect from others? I am trying to figure out if you being nice really is an exercise of morality or not.

Honestly, I don't know. And I don't want to know. I'm not antimoral right now, I'm amoral. I've attempted to argue for the unnecessity of the thing rather than the necessity to throw it away; because, really, in the end, morality isn't that bad. It's not an evil to be abolished; it's not my religious enemy. To me, it's merely superfluous and otherworldly, created by great thinkers in attempt to build a perfect world. It just crashes and burns every time. So I kinda just try to move on quietly in my own little world. That's also why I talk like this in here; I'm not trying to convert you to be against morals; I'm mostly explaining myself and why I think the things I do.

... Although to the whole point of the thread; morals never really legitimize anything. These foundations of wars are all shaky.

I think I'm attempting to assume indifference of morality and just do things I think work better for my community. I think that would be pragmatism. And for me being a moral standard; God no. I don't expect others to be nice when I am; but that's why it's only really meaningful when they are. Meaningful to me, not to some kind of moral system. I'm not a moral system, I'm me.

Also, I surprisingly know some social mechanics of humans, and social reciprocity is one of them (It's a term in Danish sociology, I don't know what it's called in English); when you give a present, people give you a present back. It's actually very according to human nature. It's more that it often works rather than it should be like that.

edit: I guess this means that in the end morality is for me merely an ideological tool to create utopia. Don't know what an established philosopher would say about that.

I have no idea either. Kant attempted it. He belivied that his categorical imperative was enough for a world to function. No laws, only that. And perhaps three other rules. Dunno, don't remember it correctly.

[SiLL]

Originally Posted by lord_joakim

Currently, in Denmark, society's laws and institutions hinder people from being really bad. If one goes on a crazed rampage, police shoots one down. Etc. Why would it be necessary to incorporate morals into that? When somebody passes a law taking care of the elderly and legitimizing it with "It's the morally good thing", I retort "Why the heck do you need an excuse for this? Wouldn't you have done it regardless of it being morally good?" Do I need a moral excuse to save a baby from drowning? Do I need to know what good and evil is before doing it? Is it impossible for me to do something moralists would rightly consider good without me knowing morals existed?

Dude, what do you think laws are partially based on? Morality! What do you think it is when you agree with someone that the elderly should be taking care of? An agreement on morality! Seriously, we have been over this. I feel now like I have been blabbering in vain and have lost interest in continuing to do so.
You have no interest in thinking about moral concepts, I'll get it. But then I wonder why you felt the need to claim that wars were never justified to begin with. Is for you a debate about justifications just an exchange of instinctive reactions?
Morality being the idea it is, it will continue to significantly influence your life, as it always has and always will. You don't think that is something worth thinking about, fine. Well I do and have made an effort to explain why.

[Angst]

I answered the question of justification of war because the thread asked for my opinion. For the rest, I have made my answer.

[Akkon888]

Originally Posted by Dachs

Defensive pacts and alliances don't make war inevitable, otherwise the Cold War would've turned into World War III, or the Holy Alliance would've fought with the quadruple powers.

World War III had already occurred; the only capable belligerents were the Soviet Union and the United States. Conventional war was obsolete.

I believe that a major conflict would probably have happened in Europe at some point in the decade of the 1910s even had the July Crisis not occurred, although I would say that the participants in such a conflict and the manner of its initiation are impossible to describe with any certainty (the prewar alliances did not fight the First World War against each other, and there is no particular reason to suppose they would have fought an alternative conflict against each other as well, especially given the ways in which such a conflict might have occurred), and I certainly wouldn't call it inevitable.

War is always inevitable unless the nations that would be involved negotiate for peace. Don't naturally assume that peace will pervade over war.

This is not because of the alliances or whatever, it's not because of some mythical German imperialism, and it's certainly not because the European Great Powers' capitalist-imperialist world system was supposedly doomed to turn against itself with few places in the world left to conquer. It is simply because virtually all statesman in charge of the diplomacy of all of the countries in Europe had ceased to believe that a Continental war was something that had to be avoided at all costs.

I never defined in my argument that Europe wasn't growing apathetic about continental war, but to say that the web of alliances created beforehand had no effect on transforming WWI into the behemoth it was...I'm lost for words.

Your definition of the notion of economic justifiability is so idiosyncratic that it can be safely ignored. The fact that you're getting basic facts like what Lebensraum was wrong does not improve the situation.

What's wrong about my definition of Lebensraum? Hitler wanted land and the raw materials coming from the land (i.e., agricultural products). Is land =/= wealth? Is the acquisition of wealth not economically important?

If you want to disagree with my definition of economic justifiability, well--that's a fundamental disagreement that can't be argued well by either side.

Yes, it is important to compensate for hindsight when discussing historical events. Inevitability is, fortunately, becoming rather passe among the ranks of academic historians. Long live contingency!

It doesn't matter if I use hindsight or not. I've made my point about WWI, regardless of how fumbled my logic may appear to you; it's your job to either oppose my point or let it stand. If you think that WWI wouldn't happen had Ferdinand been shot, be my guest to argue that point. Otherwise, there's really little point to continue the debate; the lines have been drawn, and neither of us would move an inch.

[Leoreth]

Originally Posted by Akkon888

World War III had already occurred; the only capable belligerents were the Soviet Union and the United States. Conventional war was obsolete.

That's a really odd definition of world war.

[Akkon888]

Originally Posted by Leoreth

That's a really odd definition of world war.

Well, the only real capable belligerents in WWI were U.S, France, Britain, Germany, and Russia (and maybe Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, and maybe Bulgaria, if you consider them capable).

For the Cold War, if you want, you could include all of the Soviet bloc countries, China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam on the Soviet side. You could include France and Britain on the American side due to their nuclear capability. It really becomes a talk of semantics when definition of "world" is argued.

I stand by my claim in that the war that is known as the "Cold War" was in fact a global war fought by two sides for the purpose of political influence. Just like to some, economic war may result in tariffs etc., political war would often result in alliances such as NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and in some cases, conventional war for political reasons (such as USSR aid in overthrowing of the Chinese Nationalist Government ruled by Chiang-Kei-Shek, in favor of a communistic form of government, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War).

The Cold War was global in scale. The highest cards were held by a few, but everyone played the game.

[Flying Pig]

Last I checked, wars actually involved fighting each other.

[Leoreth]

And here I thought he was referring to client wars ... apparently not.

[SiLL]

@Akkon888
If the Cold War was WWIII, is the modern-day global economy the battlefield of WWIV?
I think what you are saying follows a certain logic. But I am not sure it is really useful to define war that broad.

[r16]

there has been a discussion about the inevitability of WW1 . Must be just the thing ı would like to rant upon , considering ı have subscribed heavily on the line that the world ended and the Great Powers had to fight to expand . ı wonder whether the rejection of the notion depends much on something like "God, the old guys couldn't possibly lack that much character." It is indeed possible to find clues the expansion for its own was not economically productive , but saying ergo expanding to expand can not explain this or that would be wrong , a mistake derived from the idea that states are run by logic . They can be , and indeed succeed wildly if so but it ignores the intoxicating splendour of scheming . A bright idea , a spark to grandeur can cloud all the risks , hurdles , barriers and troubles ahead . Far more dangerous if the luck holds and the scheme pays off , even for a duration .

not that ı could do justice to explaining it but the expansion theory held sway for millenia , was the thing that guided countless generations . ı should find a post of mine , or rather a draft or something as it was eaten by the forum on account of splendid garbledness - in which ı unfortunately excel . The centerpiece was an aviation magazine editorial written in 1914 on why America had to arm fast and vast -without any enemy mentioned- only because it was the way nature worked ... You ate and grew , until something barred your way , which you would naturally eat . Or it would eat you .

to return to real life for a moment one sees sometime in 1890s it is officially declared the Frontier is no more to be followed by liberation of Cuba . The Philippinnes on the other hand lacks the institutions to govern itself , not just because it was a stepping stone into China , though in fairness Americans had agreed to leave even before the WW2 . That America would be in the mood for further expansion once it was done with the backyard happens to be a major reason of the events that overtook the planet , incidentally . England had done massively good with a Navy protected , kinda invulnerable homeland , yet North America dwarfed the British Isles ... Or , reshaping the map in case the Great Game involved the US in a hostile position is a prime reason . The Reason the UK abandoned the Splendid Isolation , agreed with their longtime arch-enemy France and so on . Sean Connery is a guy whom ı like in the movies and checking his Rasuli character in the Wikipedia , ı have seen the Morocco was where the Entente Cordiale was riveted for good and President Roosevelt steered his country out of London's path , though there is no such intent or even info in the Wiki . It would take another Roosevelt to get things even .

there is a totally valid argument that Europeans forgot that they could hurt each other pretty bad . And rushed into the battle with full intent . Correct , indeed correct , but the reason for it might well be that it was inevitable with the mindset , the instinct to expand , the call of the wild . Even if the Archiduke survived on a fluke , after he was driven into the shooting gallery once again , and he had made it to Vienna , it wouldn't have mattered one bit . A week at most . Say me what , and maybe , just maybe , ı will rant about a dusty road in Palestine on a cold 1920 morning .

don't mark me as some Anglosaxon basher , ı can dislike the Europeans with equal facility .

splendid mindgames , masterpieces of brilliant thinking can easily fool the people who originate them , leading them to their doom ? Fabulous foolishness on my part , though maybe ı should drop the fab thing , me being so drab , an anorak if you must use the Politically Correct form . Am pretty sure that there are people in the Anglosphere that their domination of the present day world is a product of their masterpiece back in the day , quaintly forgetting that what they call their unerring planning was just ... well , you can call anything you want to call it . Barely hanging there at the edge of the cliff , by undeniable grit , a certain amount of luck and already controlling some one of the third of the world by 1910s is not majestic foresight .

what then follows is a typical r16 rant , barely relevant to the thread , even to this post .

Spoiler:

being great becomes unsatisfying as time goes by . One must be even greater . By repeating the same thing , maybe ? Why not ? Do you know how foolish it will be for schoolchildren of the next century to discover that Costa Concordia was too driven onto stuff ? It would tax darth sixteenous himself to explain the glee in the guys , one or two in this country , who discussed NATO's glorious operations in Libya last year , considering we too were driven mad by air power back in 1911 . This year , we have a split army officers wise and non-coms are in practical rebellion over rights and pay . Meanwhile the drone incident when we got smugglers instead of seperatists are working wonders among to village guards in the East . Now that they fought for the country , though in return for rights to safe smuggling and got State bombing in the end , they will be very amenable to end the blood feud thing with the seperatists . This country's potential to fight is being eroded . By this going ı expect big countries especially the US will be guaranteeing our territorial integrity in the summer and forget it all by the newyear . Sounds familiar , if you have skimped through any history of the Balkan Wars . Must be the best proof that ı am the top idiot in this CFC for ı still take the Greeks seriously . Financial crisis ? Oh why , we were expected to win in 1912 , too .

inevitably people will come across them hills , behind which lie line upon line of the Bosche . With fixed bayonets ...

and maybe it is not in their traditions this Kindermort thing , eh ? For the smarties will find them hills on 100 year old - totally correct , awesome , unfallible maps .