When is war justified?
- Thread starter Tahuti
- Start date
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
I like that.
Mise
isle of lucy
War is justified whenever a government violates the democratic rights and freedoms of a group of people. Any nation is then justified in going to war with that government for the purpose of defending the rights and freedoms of those people.
That doesn't mean that every situation in which war is justified is also a situation in which war is prudent, so for the love of god, don't tell me that we should be going to war with, say, North Korea or the USA or something. There's a difference between an action that we should take and an action that we would be justified in taking.
And yes I'm also skirting around the issue of how bad the rights violation needs to be before we are really justified in going to war. You should take the above as a framework for analysis, which to me seems like a better framework than "self defense" or "other-defense". But I haven't given it that much thought, so feel free to poke holes that I already haven't.
That doesn't mean that every situation in which war is justified is also a situation in which war is prudent, so for the love of god, don't tell me that we should be going to war with, say, North Korea or the USA or something. There's a difference between an action that we should take and an action that we would be justified in taking.
And yes I'm also skirting around the issue of how bad the rights violation needs to be before we are really justified in going to war. You should take the above as a framework for analysis, which to me seems like a better framework than "self defense" or "other-defense". But I haven't given it that much thought, so feel free to poke holes that I already haven't.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
@Borachio
Well to be vague and encompassing: Because the consequences of not waging it are intolerable. So why not call it justified then? I think the word "justified" is troublesome because the practice of war has all in all nothing to do with justice but is outright evil. After all, those that suffer, get killed, have their lifes and minds destroyed etc. are rarely actually responsible for the necessity of a war. Hence, war always is a great tragedy and far removed from any kind of justice.
On the other hand, you have the romanticizing of war, which is disgusting, but "inspiring" and most of all deception. A deception which may start with calling a war justified, just like all the evil consequences of war would be washed away by some holy justification.
Well to be vague and encompassing: Because the consequences of not waging it are intolerable. So why not call it justified then? I think the word "justified" is troublesome because the practice of war has all in all nothing to do with justice but is outright evil. After all, those that suffer, get killed, have their lifes and minds destroyed etc. are rarely actually responsible for the necessity of a war. Hence, war always is a great tragedy and far removed from any kind of justice.
On the other hand, you have the romanticizing of war, which is disgusting, but "inspiring" and most of all deception. A deception which may start with calling a war justified, just like all the evil consequences of war would be washed away by some holy justification.
civver_764
Deity
I really can't stand discussions like this. War is such a horrible thing, and you guys are talking about it like the world is a game of Civ.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
War is never justified. Punishment is amoral. It assumes authoritative judgment lies in the hands of one group whilst holding absolute disdain for another's opinion. Supressing people in any way isn't a moral action, even if it's retort, it's still suppression.
You are free to wage it regardless. Morality does, in many cases, not matter.
You are free to wage it regardless. Morality does, in many cases, not matter.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
I did not intend to suggest so. And I am not going to try to produce a universal guide when war should be waged. But I do think that there are cases were you are given a choice between pest and cholera and when waging war may be the superior - while usually still terrible - alternative. Cases of genocide in Africa are good examples for that.
That to me seems like an awful narrow understanding of morality. An understanding that doesn't know the circumstantial complexities of our world.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
I was going into this thread with an "it depends" mentality. But I can't fault this reasoning so, seconded.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Which complexities are you referring to? It's no good appealing to "complexities" without some suggestion of they might actually be. You may as well say that "your wrong because reasons".
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
Well I think it has a little more merit than "reasons", but point taken.I am referring to the numerous situations where punishment and a disdain of other's opinions will yield an overall improved well-being of people. To pick something particular obvious: To punish murderers and disdain their opinion that say murdering is a worthwhile thrill.
To generally not make use of punishment and disdain of other's opinions would IMO beyond a doubt alleviate human suffering to great extends and lead the original moral justification ad absurdum. This moral code simply is - in an absolute form and from a moral perspective itself - incompatible with the complexities of human interaction.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Well, you clearly care what you think or you would not have decided that you have a just cause. If opinions are irrelevant then why should yours hold more weight? I agree with much of what you say, but this point is somewhat irrational.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
War does not seem to mean what it used to. Since WWII the developed nations have in the main only fought wars of choice or proxy wars (what luxury!) We get to make cost-benefit analyses and weigh up deaths against economic or political gains and expediency - unlike the good old days where you invaded, looted and pillaged and were almost always better off (if you won). The domestic political fallout from such barbaric behaviour would be terminal in this more enlightened age.
The arguments for war are more complex: In Afghanistan there was a clear international mandate for getting rid of the Taliban and support for the capture of the leaders of Al'Quaida. Regime change was clearly a desirable objective from the point of view of most of the world (even the Iranians despised the Taliban) and at least one half of the population of Afghanistan itself - its savagely repressed female half. But in hindsight, have things changed for the better? A decade on our troops are still being blown up and the Taliban seems increasingly and paradoxically resurgent, don't these people understand that they are better off without religious extremists for leaders? The policy at present seems to be to get out and blame the Afghans if things go pear shaped.
Personally I am sceptical that a democratic revolution is one that can be forced on a population. historically, do revolutions show that change can be instantaneous and lasting? Well, the French had a revolution that was hijacked by a wannabe Emperor of Europe; almost every communist revolution worldwide was hijacked by one megalomaniac or other; nascent Italian and German democracies were hijacked by the Fascists and we all know what happened next. Democracies throughout history have been formed through lengthy periods of internal change. The British changed their minds when they chopped off Charles the 1st's head and tried being a republic, it was centuries of internal reformation that led to our modern democratic system. The idea that you can essentially march into a country and install a democratic government and everyone will be happy with it is a very recent one that just does not seem to be bearing fruit.
The case of Iraq is an even a more divisive one than that of Afghanistan. There is still general disagreement over whether or not we should have gone in all guns blazing in the first place. Much of the reluctance on the part of those of us who were opposed (quite aside from the fact that we did not believe the arguments regarding WMD or links to Osama Bin Laden) was that we were sceptical that invading a country could do more good than harm. Again, here we are ten years later and the jury is still out, there are a couple of million Iraqi refugees in the world and hundreds of thousands of deaths have resulted.
In Libya we assisted certain emements of the population in toppling an undesirable dictator - is this any guarantee that Libya will join the ranks of the democratic free world? Who knows. The Egyptian revolution might yet be hijacked by Islamist factions, who knows what would happen in Syria if Assad falls?
I think the lessons of the last decade is that countries get the government they vote for, and countries frequently vote for the wrong people. Forcing the vote on a people who did not make this decision for themselves does not seem necessarily to give them better options and it certainly does not make them better informed about what is in their best interests. Afghanistan is still fundamentally tribal and Iraq is still split by deep religious divides.
The lines are even becoming blurred in the case of defensive war. If an army physically invades you are you at war? Pretty obviously, yes. Ok, what if they fly military aircraft over what international law regards as exclusively your airspace and attacks you when you respond. Well if they have a seat on the UN Security Council it's called a no-fly zone. Are you at war with China if you think their hackers are routinely testing your cyber-security? If country A declares that country B is developing certain weapons and will use them as soon as it has them, is a pre-emptive strike justified?
On the bright side, look at what was achieved (eventually) in Bosnia and Kosovo, as well as in Sierra Leone. I think that we are right to decide matters on a case by case basis, generalisations are a poor basis for bloodshed and as Mise rightly points out, we also have to contimue to be pragmatic about our decisions and weigh up the benefits of what we want to achieve with a realistic understanding of what we are capable of. Not thinking very carefully about the consequences of what we do and not committing to the aftermath is precisely why we are in the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Why does an ethical systems have to justify itself in reference to utilitarianism, rather than on its own grounds? A reciprocal deontologist might equally say that your ethics, in failing to remain coherent with the principal of universal love, are also reduced to ad absurdum- does he have any less right to make that claim than you do?
I am referring to the numerous situations where punishment and a disdain of other's opinions will yield an overall improved well-being of people. To pick something particular obvious: To punish murderers and disdain their opinion that say murdering is a worthwhile thrill.
To generally not make use of punishment and disdain of other's opinions would IMO beyond a doubt alleviate human suffering to great extends and lead the original moral justification ad absurdum. This moral code simply is - in an absolute form and from a moral perspective itself - incompatible with the complexities of human interaction.
mayor
Heart & Mind
Time to Gowdin?
*checks if we're indeed in 'The Tavern'*
When you need Lebensraum
but in all seriousness, I came here to say this.
*checks if we're indeed in 'The Tavern'*
When you need Lebensraum
but in all seriousness, I came here to say this.
War is a horrible thing, that's why you need to prepare to defend against it if it comes after you.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
If we accept that morality is technically not more than people arbitrarily deciding what in principle is right and wrong within some of kind (preferably) coherent framework, we need an anchor morality is attached to unless we want to make circular arguments all day. This anchor can only be morality's actual use for the well-being of people.
Really, a concept of morality that isn't concerned with its actual effects is not only arbitrary, it is plain superfluous and stupid - in my opinion anyway.
And sure, you have every "right" to disagree with me here. Everybody is invited to do so. Just expect a response.
