Is there such a thing as a just war? And is it ever ok to do harm to prevent harm?

[freddy47]

Do the ends ever justify the means? If so why and when is such action appropriate? If not why is it not ok to kill/hurt someone to prevent him/her from killing/hurting somebody else? I don't necessarily mean preemptive attacks against people you suspect of being dangerous as that more often than not proves to be pointless. Iraq comes to mind as an example. Nor am I for the death the penalty which IMO is wrong as the prisoner is no longer capable of doing harm.

What I mean is Rwanda or Somalia type situations where hundreds of thousands of people were killed. Or even WWII and Nazi Germany. Was it ultimately right or wrong to have gone to war with Nazi Germany or to intervene in Somalia? War is terrible there is no doubt about that. But sometimes I think war/military action is necessary to prevent further destruction. For example I think the United States was totally justified in going into Somalia in the early 1990s. And I think not intervening during the Rwanda genocide was a big mistake. And I don't think many people would disagree with me when I say that WWII was a necessary and just war.

To use an example on a more personal level. Is it all right for example to punch out an abusive drunk who you know beyond any doubt is going to go home and beat his wife and kids? Sure you could call the cops but they can't arrest someone for what they are going to do. So whats so wrong with knocking the guy out so his family can have at least a nights peace?

If you haven't noticed by now I am clearly not a pacifist. Don't get me wrong I'm not totally against it I think pacifism is great and can work sometimes. Gandhi for example made it work.

But for me there is a time to fight and then there are times to be peaceful no matter what comes at you.

 

[Jabberwocky]

this is interesting, i'm quite set in my views on this topic, but think it deserves a little bump.

firstly: WWII was not a just war at the time, post hoc, when we learned the atrocities committed by the nazis, it was justified (if my history is wrong, please correct me). Our ruling elite wanted to keep the status quo, i.e. stay in power, so they, and some other ruling elites around Europe, grouped together to maintain that. not to protect us. btw i think that all states are illegitimate so protecting one is absurd to me.

with hindsight, i think we did need to defend ourselves against the nazis, so from a historical perspective, it can be argued to have been a just war.

i guess what i'm saying is that things done for the wrong reasons could turn out to be the right thing.

the only non-contrived, just, reasons for war i can think of are: a) a people, stripped of dignity and the basic needs for life, rebelling against a government, with international help if they want it; b) defense against invaders who we have reason to believe will commit genocide.

imo any invasion which could, if we don't fight back, take place without bloodshed shouldn't be defended against unless we have reason to believe the invading party will strip us of our rights, dignity, etc, which historically we do, so its a tough one. but it should be done with the interests of the people as a whole, not those in power, in mind, and i'm not sure if i could ever imagine those in power taking any decision but the one that benefits them.

 

[DeathDomokun]

I am too lazy to read all of this right now but war IS harm. Using harm to prevent harm is like fucking for virginity.
Morality is subjective, and if you think killing is wrong, you must think war is wrong. If you think killing people is wrong, you must think war is wrong. Opinion doesn't always dictate action, though. More so, your opinion on wrong and right, doesn't dictate action.
2 wrongs don't make a right, so if somebody kills another, and he is then found guilty in a court of law, and sentenced to a death penalty, it is just as wrong as his action. Killing is killing, whether you justify it with law, money, discrimination, etc. Chances are some of this is way off topic but eh

 

[freddy47]

firstly: WWII was not a just war at the time, post hoc, when we learned the atrocities committed by the nazis, it was justified (if my history is wrong, please correct me). Our ruling elite wanted to keep the status quo, i.e. stay in power, so they, and some other ruling elites around Europe, grouped together to maintain that. not to protect us. btw i think that all states are illegitimate so protecting one is absurd to me.

Well I would partially agree with you there. There is no doubt that some western leaders agreed to go to war to maintain the status quo. But there were people on the allied side that firmly and sincerely believed that Nazi Germany was an evil state that needed to be destroyed and who also knew of the atrocities being committed under Nazi rule. There were many Jewish and other European refugees that escaped in time to tell the rest of the world what was happening although they probably didn't think it was on the scale that it actually was.

But keep in mind the allies were initially reluctant to declare war on Germany. Great Britain and France both took on the policy of appeasement to avoid another World War so IMO I think it kind of contradicts your idea that the war was fought to maintain the status quo. World War one was for sure fought for those reasons no doubt. Bunch of rich elitist pigs trying to make money off industrial warfare. But WWII was truly a war of ideologies. Between Fascism and Democracy.

with hindsight, i think we did need to defend ourselves against the nazis, so from a historical perspective, it can be argued to have been a just war.

I don't think there were many people back then who didn't take one side or the other and who didn't believe that their side was just and that the war had to be fought. For example in the entire United States Congress only one person voted against a declaration of war against the Axis. Her name was Jeannette Pickering Rankin and although I admire her decision to stick with her principles I think she was ultimately wrong. Even Bertrand Russell who was a pacifistic changed his views in 1940 that Germany had to be defeated.

i guess what i'm saying is that things done for the wrong reasons could turn out to be the right thing.

Motivations aside I think ultimately war (especially in this instant) is sometimes sadly necessary. Yes horrible things were done by both sides but in the end a greater good was achieved.

the only non-contrived, just, reasons for war i can think of are: a) a people, stripped of dignity and the basic needs for life, rebelling against a government, with international help if they want it; b) defense against invaders who we have reason to believe will commit genocide.

That is why I mentioned Rwanda and Somalia. In both cases it was a civil conflict that resulted in the deaths of HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of innocent people. In instances were genocide is being carried out can you really say that it is morally wrong for a foreign power to take military action to intervene in a Civil conflict?

imo any invasion which could, if we don't fight back, take place without bloodshed shouldn't be defended against unless we have reason to believe the invading party will strip us of our rights, dignity, etc, which historically we do, so its a tough one. but it should be done with the interests of the people as a whole, not those in power, in mind, and i'm not sure if i could ever imagine those in power taking any decision but the one that benefits them.

That is a good point although I question the practicality of pacifism in the face of an invading army. Historically invading armies do what they want and if you don't fight back they'll continue doing what they want.

I am too lazy to read all of this right now but war IS harm. Using harm to prevent harm is like fucking for virginity.

Interesting point but I'd like to use an analogy I've used before on another thread. Imagine a doctor with a cancer patient. Whether you decide to treat the cancer with Chemotherapy or high risk surgery either way you are doing harm. My Grandma is in the middle of fighting lung cancer right now and she often tells me that she thinks the cure is worst than the disease which I hear is a common thing that cancer patients say. And yet is it not part of the Hippocratic oath to not do harm? So what is the doctor is doing? He is essentially doing harm to prevent harm. IMO people like Hitler and other Genocidal leaders are cancers upon humanity that need to be removed forcibly if need be. If in the end it takes a war to rid the world of these sick evil fucks then so be it.

 

[B9]

War is a social extension of the survival of the fittest thing.
It is inherent & self propagating.
I could buy into the idea of a just war in some circumstances.
On a spiritual level it's clearly a ridiculous concept yet we live in a ridiculous world.
I mean it only takes one bad apple to set the whole shit train in motion tit for tat followed by use increased force from one side then the other side develops new techniques & the culture of enemies becomes established.
The question is one of choosing war or slavery.

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

Do the ends ever justify the means?

Today rarely, practically never.

This question deserves far more response than it's achieving.

 

[hiphophippy]

Morality is subjective, and if you think killing is wrong, you must think war is wrong.

you need to think a little harder there chap. Morality is subjective(that is true), therefor I could say touching a duck with your forehead is wrong but fucking it in the ass is a moral decision. same way I could say killing individuals is wrong but genocidal whole groups is okay.

 

[DeathDomokun]

How do I need to think harder? We agree that morality is subjective. Okay, cool. Now, if you believe killing is wrong, it's impossible for you to think war isn't wrong too, as the objective of war is to kill.
You gave a horrid example because genocide is usually done by killing. If you were to be okay with preventing everyone in the country from reproducing, it is understandable as you're not killing anyone, you're just preventing procreation BUT if you're to go in there and shoot everyone, it's still killing people. It's killing individuals, just lots of them, on a massive scale. A big group of individuals.
You gave really bad examples there man, I can sort of see where you're coming from, but in this instance, there's nothing more to take into consideration. War is killing. If you're against killing, you're against war. Of course, you don't have to be against killing to be against war, but that's another story.
Also, if you thought touching a duck with your forehead is wrong, which is a moral decision, where the fuck does fucking it in the ass come from and how is that a question of morality?

 

[hiphophippy]

How do I need to think harder? We agree that morality is subjective. Okay, cool. Now, if you believe killing is wrong, it's impossible for you to think war isn't wrong too, as the objective of war is to kill.
You gave a horrid example because genocide is usually done by killing. If you were to be okay with preventing everyone in the country from reproducing, it is understandable as you're not killing anyone, you're just preventing procreation BUT if you're to go in there and shoot everyone, it's still killing people. It's killing individuals, just lots of them, on a massive scale. A big group of individuals.
You gave really bad examples there man, I can sort of see where you're coming from, but in this instance, there's nothing more to take into consideration. War is killing. If you're against killing, you're against war. Of course, you don't have to be against killing to be against war, but that's another story.
Also, if you thought touching a duck with your forehead is wrong, which is a moral decision, where the fuck does fucking it in the ass come from and how is that a question of morality?

when morality is subjective you can establish anything as anything. You can say killing one person is immoral and say killing 10 people in succession is morally correct.

There is a difference between murder and killing.
There is a difference between war, exercising military might and having an immature militaristic spat.

If I was attacked by more than one person, I'm going to instantly use my lethal moves, if they die it's their fault. I would never use lethal moves in a 1 on 1 fist fight.
that's killing.
If I were to track you down and kill you because you disagreed with me once about whether or not grape or strawberry jelly was better that is murder.

as far as touching a duck, a relative in real life is in SE asian cultures it is extreamly taboo/disrespectful to touch the top of a child's (or anyone's) head, but perfectly okay to pick them up.
Or think of pretty woman you can attach moral values to anything abstracted as much as you want.
for example you could say it's appropriate to bomb orphanages as long as you do it with a combination napalm dynamite bomb, on the 23 Sunday of the year while wearing corduroy overalls.

or enslaving black people is okay because they are another race.
denying same sex marriages.

South Africa, rape (used to be) okay as long as you raped a lesbian to correct her behavior.

It's not considered as morally deviant to molest a child if you are a woman by courts jurors. ect.

point being you can not extrapolate killing to war because they are different.

 

[DeathDomokun]

Yes, you can. You can even do things you find wrong, but what you can't do is say keying a car is wrong but scratching it with a machete is okay. You can't differentiate the same fundamental action's morality. You can act in spite of your morality, but you can't be like "drinking bourbon is wrong, but drinking scotch is fine"
How can you say killing 1 person is wrong but killing multiple people isn't? If you believe the action of killing itself is wrong, you can't justify it because of different circumstances. It's still killing. If you're okay with killing multiple people, you have no right to complain about individual deaths.
Please tell me the difference between murder and killing. I've always believed that murder is killing, and killing is murder.
Morality is logical. Bringing in dates, and clothing, isn't morality. It's down right stupid superstitious, illogical traditions, and has no relation to real morality.
Just because society, or many people believe something is okay, it doesn't mean it is. Morality isn't about laws, or other people, it's about your relation to things, and logic.
I'm just not following, can you please explain the fundamental difference between war and killing?

Also, an example I have for you that seems more appropriate. Today, a baby mouse fell out of the cupboard because it ate the rack sack in there. There is was, moving ever so slightly, obviously in pain. I figured it'd been in pain for long enough, so instead of the suggestion of merely throwing it in the bin and waiting for it to just die, I put it in a bag and smashed it with a mallet. I believed that it was better to put it out of it's misery than leave it to suffer in the bottom of a stanky bin. I still killed it, but the circumstances were such that it seemed apt.

 

[B9]

The fundamental difference between war & killing is one of proximity by the instigators.

 

[freddy47]

You gave a horrid example because genocide is usually done by killing. If you were to be okay with preventing everyone in the country from reproducing, it is understandable as you're not killing anyone, you're just preventing procreation BUT if you're to go in there and shoot everyone, it's still killing people. It's killing individuals, just lots of them, on a massive scale. A big group of individuals.
You gave really bad examples there man, I can sort of see where you're coming from, but in this instance, there's nothing more to take into consideration. War is killing. If you're against killing, you're against war. Of course, you don't have to be against killing to be against war, but that's another story.

I don't think I gave horrid examples at all. If the only way genocide can be prevented is by going to war and killing the genocidal party I see nothing wrong with that as you are defending innocent and defenseless people from armed and arguably evil people.

There is ultimately a difference between killing just for the fuck of it (murder) and killing to defend yourself or others.

Also I don't get that whole procreation bit? What is that all about?

 

[freddy47]

There is a difference between murder and killing.
There is a difference between war, exercising military might and having an immature militaristic spat.

If I was attacked by more than one person, I'm going to instantly use my lethal moves, if they die it's their fault. I would never use lethal moves in a 1 on 1 fist fight.
that's killing.
If I were to track you down and kill you because you disagreed with me once about whether or not grape or strawberry jelly was better that is murder.

This. If I was attacked my multiple opponents I'd do the same thing as well. And if I killed any of them I would not feel the slightest attack of guilt as they were trying to kill me.

Also yes there is a huge difference between murder and and war. Wars can be fought to protect ones own nation or other nations. Its not always necessarily wrong or immoral to go to war.

That is why I used the examples of WWII and Somalia. Because clearly those were times were war was necessary and just.

 

[freddy47]

Here is basically what I am saying.

If the killing of 100 genocidal soldiers prevents the deaths 1,000 innocent civilians did the ends justify the means?

The soldiers chose to join an army and chose to obey orders that would result in the deaths of a 1,000 innocent people. Those 1,000 people have no weapons with which to defend themselves. Your country and military does. Why is it wrong to kill those 100 soldiers?

Wouldn't it be more morally reprehensible to sit back and do nothing?

 

[-=SS=-]

To answer the original question, no, i don't believe so. We can goto war as nations or we can kill individuals ourselves, but in the end it is always selfishly motivated behaviour. That doesn't make it wrong.. as animals we are entitled to kill for our survival, that's just how life operates for the most part (eat or be eaten). But lets not kid ourselves by coming up with a justification for our behaviour.. i don't care how convincing your political b.s story is, if you want to goto war for oil so you the status quo can stay in power just bloody well say so! At least the Nazi's were honest about what they wanted to achieve, they didn't hide behind UN security council approval with evidence any noob could produce with photoshop.

 

[freddy47]

But lets not kid ourselves by coming up with a justification for our behaviour.. i don't care how convincing your political b.s story is, if you want to goto war for oil so you the status quo can stay in power just bloody well say so! At least the Nazi's were honest about what they wanted to achieve, they didn't hide behind UN security council approval with evidence any noob could produce with photoshop.

If you read my original post in its entirety you will notice that I said that I think Iraq was a mistake and unjust. Going to war for material resources is not what I am talking about.

This is the problem I find most pacifists have. They tend to avoid the issue when it comes to the defense of innocent people and distort the issue with irrelevant political attacks.

I am talking about taking military action to prevent genocide. Not to take a countries oil but to protect people. Why can't people wrap their heads around this?

 

[hiphophippy]

Yes, you can. You can even do things you find wrong, but what you can't do is say keying a car is wrong but scratching it with a machete is okay. You can't differentiate the same fundamental action's morality. You can act in spite of your morality, but you can't be like "drinking bourbon is wrong, but drinking scotch is fine"
How can you say killing 1 person is wrong but killing multiple people isn't? If you believe the action of killing itself is wrong, you can't justify it because of different circumstances. It's still killing. If you're okay with killing multiple people, you have no right to complain about individual deaths.
Please tell me the difference between murder and killing. I've always believed that murder is killing, and killing is murder.
Morality is logical. Bringing in dates, and clothing, isn't morality. It's down right stupid superstitious, illogical traditions, and has no relation to real morality.
Just because society, or many people believe something is okay, it doesn't mean it is. Morality isn't about laws, or other people, it's about your relation to things, and logic.
I'm just not following, can you please explain the fundamental difference between war and killing?

Also, an example I have for you that seems more appropriate. Today, a baby mouse fell out of the cupboard because it ate the rack sack in there. There is was, moving ever so slightly, obviously in pain. I figured it'd been in pain for long enough, so instead of the suggestion of merely throwing it in the bin and waiting for it to just die, I put it in a bag and smashed it with a mallet. I believed that it was better to put it out of it's misery than leave it to suffer in the bottom of a stanky bin. I still killed it, but the circumstances were such that it seemed apt.

Yes, you can. It's like the rule of thumb, spousal rape, corrective rape ect. You can abstract anything as much as you want. You keep mixing objectivity and subjectivity

 

[DeathDomokun]

The act of killing itself is objective, your views on it and the circumstances are subjective. You can be against murdering someone for revenge, but okay with killing them so you can rape their dead body and/or eat it. You can't be against killing, and then be okay with killing for some reason. You can be against a certain circumstance of killing and okay with another, but you can't be against killing itself and then be okay with killing in another circumstance. You could change your views on morality and be okay with it, but you can't keep the opinion that killing is wrong and then be okay with another form of killing because of different circumstances.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I'm with Chinup on this one. The only indisputable justification for war is defense against an aggressor whose aggression can be reasonably be expected to continue until/unless it is violently repelled. It's exactly analogous to an individual who is being bullied. One cannot kill a bully with kindness -- what any true bully wants is domination, and the only way to stop him from bullying you is to make it not worth his while to bully you. Likewise at the level of nations, I think a strong self-defense force is a perfectly acceptable investment, for showing other nations that the populace wishes to govern themselves, act in their own best interests rather than someone else's, and determine their own collective destiny. Should another nation attempt to force the country to do something against its will, I think it is within ethical bounds to threaten military retaliation, and if pushed, carry it out. That said, I think the show of retaliatory force should be:

1) JUST sufficient to dissuade continued unwanted pressure
2) Aimed at military targets, not civilian ones

If the retaliatory force is excessively brutal, I find it hard not to conclude that the provoked nation has taken on the role of an aggressor, and has no moral high ground over the nation that provoked it. You don't need to kill or maim most bullies to get them to stop bullying you -- in most cases, one quick scrap with a couple strategically aimed painful blows will do the trick.

Of course, this is all very academic, since in today's world sovereign nations seldom have it in their mutual best interest to go to war with each other. Most wars that happen now are civil wars involving paramilitary factions. These forces claim to represent certain civilian interests, but it's often impossible to tell if any given civilian truly does support them in their fight, or if civilians just cheer them on out of fear for their own safety, or if civilians who could care less just happen to fall into demographic that the paramilitary claims to speak and fight for. Usually the real issue in modern civil wars is too many people and too few resources, with a marked discrepancy in who has access to these resources and who doesn't. But those who fight and live in these warzones are typically blind to this. All they see is rhetoric and revenge for wrongs done against their faction's people. They fail to see that if they could set up a system whereby everyone had enough, there'd be no need to resort to warfare to settle disputes.

 

[hiphophippy]

The act of killing itself is objective, your views on it and the circumstances are subjective. You can be against murdering someone for revenge, but okay with killing them so you can rape their dead body and/or eat it. You can't be against killing, and then be okay with killing for some reason. You can be against a certain circumstance of killing and okay with another, but you can't be against killing itself and then be okay with killing in another circumstance. You could change your views on morality and be okay with it, but you can't keep the opinion that killing is wrong and then be okay with another form of killing because of different circumstances.

( y.-)