What are the general conditions under which a war is just?

[MobBoss]

Where did Formaldehyde go? Heh.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Some northern neighbor of yours got wind of an alliance to destroy him back in, oh, 1756, so he attacked Saxony.

I did not know that this served as an exceptional example of preemptive strikes. But more power to the glorious history of Saxony
Anyway, nothing just about trying to defend annexed territory.

Oh yes, I completely agree. But that situation wouldn't fit my definition, because firstly, there is no way you can kill 10k people without created other negative impacts, secondly, when I say that the consequences of not going to war needs to be a fair bit worse than the consequences of not going to war, ' a fair bit' would disqualify this situation, thirdly, the moral impact of simply killing 10k people is a large factor that weighs on the side of not going to war, and fourthly, I qualified my definition has bearing in mind time, and how long until worse consequences would occur. Obviously killing 10k now to save 100k in a century is a lot different to killing 10k now to save 100k tomorrow (not of course saying that either is right).

Very well. I still disapprove because the uncertain character of your theory is very prone to be misused. But if you are looking at it this way from a moral point of view I find it to be acceptable

I believe it would be both just and moral.

Killing innocent people is moral?

 

[Camikaze]

Very well. I still disapprove because the uncertain character of your theory is very prone to be misused. But if you are looking at it this way from a moral point of view I find it to be acceptable

Oh yes, of course, my definition is open to abuse depending on what subjective opinions are applied to it, but as a general definition, assuming it's perfect application, I think it works.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

What?! The Philippines was not a threat and was not necessary for acquiring petroleum resources. They had refueling stations all up and down east Asia. They had no reason to take the Philippines.

They had to take the Philippines because they had to go through the Philippines to get to the Indies. This had been understood by not only the Japanese but also the Americans and British since before the First World War. The pressing concern that Britain could be drawn into a war on Japan's side against the US due to a Philippine incident was a major reason the Brits allowed their defense pact with Japan to expire in 1920.

 

[joycem10]

The Philipines and American forces based at Cavite and Clark were a threat to Japanese lines of communications to Singapore, Indonesia, Borneo and French Indochina. Late in the war after the reconquest of the Phillipines Japanese commerce and resupply to the Southwest Pacific was basically over (of course so was the IJN and the Japanese merchant marine). The Japanese could not contemplate offensive operations in this area with a potential hostile power in position to cut those lines.

That being said, not embarking on an aggressive imperialistic war also would have obviated the need to take out the Phillipines. That was not an option for Japanese leadership after 1936.

Still waiting for an explanation of how the Chinese provoked the Rape of Nanking or the Marco Polo Bridge incident.

 

[vesley1987]

The standard example is the one where the defending nation clearly has zero chance of effectively resisting the attacking nation, in which case any deaths caused by war would be pointless and unjust. For instance, Denmark's immediate surrender to the Wehrmacht.

So if Denmark resisted against Nazi Germany, it's unjust?

Sure I did! But since the only parts of my post you quoted are the relatively meatless ones...

First off, the characterization of the Japanese as "desperate" is only partially true. Sure, the government and military were "desperate", but they were only "desperate" because they believed their effort to conquer a lot of territory and people was under threat. It's extremely misleading to use that wording to describe a nation that is in the process of conducting an imperialistic war, replete with mass-scale atrocities, and which has, to put the cherry on the sundae, ignored international legal norms in so doing.
......
I fail to see how giving the Japanese a choice between "continuing an imperialistic war" and "not continuing an imperialistic war" is a death sentence for Japan. (Your "two choices" dichotomy is false: in order to attack the place with oil, they needed to attack the United States as well. The critical part of the quote is bolded.) The embargo was the kind of peaceful tool that statesmen usually get praised for using in place of force, especially since it took them four years to even use it at all. It was accompanied by negotiations that were repeatedly scuttled by the Japanese by their own failure to recognize that the entire situation pivoted around their imperialism in China, and their military elites' refusal to compromise that in favor of peace.

You're my hero.

 

[Flying Pig]

For the British it's just common sense . The Falklands War - justified, since it was done against an aggressive enemy and in accordance with the wishes of the people affected. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait - an act of aggression motivated by greed, so not justified.

 

[MobBoss]

For the British it's just common sense . The Falklands War - justified, since it was done against an aggressive enemy and in accordance with the wishes of the people affected. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait - an act of aggression motivated by greed, so not justified.

So you dont believe the Iraqi claims that Kuwait was stealing their oil via slant drilling?

 

[GoodGame]

Think carefully about your answer!!!

Seems like most people think that wars can sometimes be justified, but its not clear under what conditions most people consider wars to be justified.

Please do not make joke options, and especially don't make joke options just because I asked not to make joke options!

Also, do realize that I'm not asking "under what conditions can a nation wage war", so no "might is right" responses are allowed.

Also, no moral relativists please.

Still you need to define what justice is. Even if you ding moral relativists, there's still cultural relativists. I mean it's ludicrous to suggest that there is only one true legal system that determines what is just. In history, it's clear that cultural values determine what is to be protected by law, which would figure into any calculation of whether or not a war is just.

 

[innonimatu]

For the British it's just common sense . The Falklands War - justified, since it was done against an aggressive enemy and in accordance with the wishes of the people affected. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait - an act of aggression motivated by greed, so not justified.

Actually, the modern existence of Kuwait as an independent stare was also due to several acts of aggression motivated by greed - by the (now gone) British Empire!

 

[aelf]

I have a question:
If one is a card-carrying moral realist and believes in objective moral truths, is that person in principle obligated to explaining what the conditions are in any given case for a moral truth, say, about what a "just war" is in general, or can they say with a straight face that we might not be able to arrive at any certainty outside of specific cases? I'm thinking of a computational analogy, that maybe in some cases we can't do the moral "computing" to get an output (even though we are committed to the problem's having a solution in theory), or that maybe the facts are in question to the extent that we get a fuzzy range of estimated output values. At what point does it become relativism?

How about, if not laying out precise rules, at least coming up with some principles by which we can judge?

Generally speaking, from an American point of view, I believe that all military action whose aim is to save or prevent the loss of American lives is justified. There are varying sets of circumstances that can change the situation, but this is almost always the case. This would also include pre-emptive strikes upon nations that are playing the role of 'annihilator'. We should not wait until those nations get around to taking us out. So...

...

Vietnam War, just

Ignoring the fact that a few of your examples might also be questionable, I think this one does not follow from your reasoning. No intervention = no American lives lost (or at least much much fewer). And there's nothing really to preempt there, unless you buy into the domino effect hypothesis. So what gives?

Even if you ding moral relativists, there's still cultural relativists. I mean it's ludicrous to suggest that there is only one true legal system that determines what is just. In history, it's clear that cultural values determine what is to be protected by law, which would figure into any calculation of whether or not a war is just.

What's the difference?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Would you mind sharing?

I'm in a bit of a rush, but to start with an example, theres Brian Boru's invasion of Lienster. The King of Lienster broke a diplomatic agreement over a personal insult by Brian's son, knowing this would cause war. Brian invades, the King of Orkney sends help to his allies, and a bunch of people on all sides die because Mac Murdha wanted his pride to be appeased.

I'll probably post some more modern examples later.

 

[Souron]

Still you need to define what justice is. Even if you ding moral relativists, there's still cultural relativists. I mean it's ludicrous to suggest that there is only one true legal system that determines what is just. In history, it's clear that cultural values determine what is to be protected by law, which would figure into any calculation of whether or not a war is just.

You seem to be saying that war can only be considered just if the culture of both sides agrees that principles of the war are just.

And the natural conclusion is that only true human rights abuses are reasons for wars across cultural spheres. (Human rights may or may not exist in this scenario)

 

[Flying Pig]

So you dont believe the Iraqi claims that Kuwait was stealing their oil via slant drilling?

Even if they were - if someone stole your wallet, would you go and beat him up and then get angry when the police tried to arrest you for it?