Just war theory?

[JohnLocke]

Anybody got a decent argument justifying war? My mind has drawn a blank and I can't think of any.

 

[TwinCrier]

War only makes sense if you feel passionate enough about something to die for it. Otherwise, you can't understand.

 

[tocis]

Anybody got a decent argument justifying war? My mind has drawn a blank and I can't think of any.

Self-defense on a nationwide level. In other words, I won't blame someone who goes to war to defend his people against an unjust and unprovoked attack.

 

[Mandrake]

War only makes sense if you feel passionate enough about something to die for it. Otherwise, you can't understand.

It also only makes sense if you feel passionate enough about something to kill for it. Otherwise it's not really much of a war, now is it?

While I have some fairly strong tendencies towards pacifism, I think that sometimes it's impossible to simply roll over and play dead. Take the Holocaust as an example. Ought we to have allowed Hitler free reign or was it better to have confronted him?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Anybody got a decent argument justifying war? My mind has drawn a blank and I can't think of any.

Bad people do bad things and good people don't stand idle when injustice is done.
The Holocaust would be a well-known example.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Self-defense on a nationwide level. In other words, I won't blame someone who goes to war to defend his people against an unjust and unprovoked attack.

I agree with you here tocis.

I also add that those who are blessed with the strength and riches are obligated to defending the helpless, feed the hungry, and cloth the poor.

 

[RedAndy]

Anybody got a decent argument justifying war? My mind has drawn a blank and I can't think of any.

How about jus ad bellum? Or are you looking for something more specific?

 

[Robinsegg]

Self defense, as described above
To defend the helpless, as described above

When the strong prey upon the weak, someone needs to take action, else there is no civility nor true civilization.

Rachel

 

[Shadowsun]

Self defense, as described above
To defend the helpless, as described above

When the strong prey upon the weak, someone needs to take action, else there is no civility nor true civilization.

Rachel

Indeed, and you don't need to be religious to accept this. Its common sense. (no attack, just pointing out that protceting the weak is not strictly religion bound.)

 

[Robinsegg]

Indeed, and you don't need to be religious to accept this. Its common sense. (no attack, just pointing out that protceting the weak is not strictly religion bound.)

I absolutely agree. Civilization need not be built upon religion. Allowing others to be bullied when we have the ability to take action is morally wrong, not just in a religious sense.

Rachel

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Indeed, and you don't need to be religious to accept this. Its common sense. (no attack, just pointing out that protceting the weak is not strictly religion bound.)

No, you don't need to accept a religion to accept a principle or a part of a religion. I don't know if you knew this or not, but even the 'lack of religion' is blessed by an Authority on what man may know to be good or bad. The deciding factor would be, of course, whether man's verdict matches God's.

Romans 1:18-20
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

But as far as doing evil, that too could be done by a religion or a lack of one.

 

[sister_maynard]

I agree that defending one's country or acting to stop the murder of innocent people are legitimate reasons to go to war. Sometimes stepping in to help an ally might be justified too; if a smaller country with which your country has been closely tied for a long time is attacked by a much larger and more powerful country, aiding your ally might be justified. This is particularly true if the attacking country attacked without any cause or mistreats the civilians in the attacked country. I suppose the last addendum slides it into "defending the innocent" again.

 

[RedAndy]

I think it is justified to go to war in response to an attack on your country, but only if that response is proportionate to the initial aggression.

For example, I do not think it was justified for Israel to embark on its widespread bombing campaign on southern Lebanon last October, because that response was totally disproportionate to what had provoked the "self-defence" (the kidnapping of two soldiers).

I do not think it is enough to say "it is justified to go to war in self-defence." You have to qualify that by stating whether you would take into account the proportionality of the response.

 

[quatona]

War only makes sense if you feel passionate enough about something to die for it.

Isn´t it more like "..if you are passionate enough about something to kill for it."?

 

[Blackmarch]

Anybody got a decent argument justifying war? My mind has drawn a blank and I can't think of any.

For starting one? no.
Going to war to defend yourself or allies is justifiable.

 

[JohnLocke]

Sorry let me clarify:

I can see a moral argument for defending one's self and one's family against armed invaders. But that's not so much what war is about these days. It is largely proactive,wherever possible. Even if you don't subscribe to the George Bush "Pre-Emptive War Doctrine" war fighters still lay ambushes, surprise attacks, flanking maneuvers etc. The net effect of it is that a lot of war as it is fought is against unsuspecting targets that are not, in the main, presenting any immediate threat to the unit firing upon them.

In the States that have self defense justifications for homicide, you generally are not entitled to "self defense to death" someone unless they present an immediate, deadly threat. So even if your spouse has abused you, threatened to kill you etc. you still aren't entitled to "self defense them to death" in their sleep.

Thoughts?

 

[KomissarSteve]

[/size][/color][/font]Take the Holocaust as an example. Ought we to have allowed Hitler free reign or was it better to have confronted him?

I think a better question is, "WOULD we have confronted Hitler if the Holocaust had been the reason we entered World War II?"

 

[Mling]

War only makes sense if you feel passionate enough about something to die for it. Otherwise, you can't understand.

War has much more to do with the willingness to kill for something, then the willingness to die for it. Two extremely different questions.
I will die for a cause or a belief, but I will not kill for it.

I would kill for a friend.

Under what conditions would I kill for a friend?
If she asks me to? No.
If her current situation or problem would be improved by it? No.
If it would immediately save her life? Yes.

The crucial question underlying all of those is: What effect will the killing have? Will the act of killing bring about a change significant enough to warrant the act in the first place?

Does one soldier killing another bring about a change? Does 100 soldiers killing an entire village bring about a change?

Could these changes have been brought about by diplomacy, if not for the stubbernness of the people who are directing the war from the comfort of their palaces?

 

[Jammaster007]

Wars, from the lowly peasant point of view, is often about what's in the heart. You may have two soldiers across the field shooting at each other, both Christians, and neither one judged by God for killing the enemy, if each believes they are acting in accordance to God's will. I do believe leaders will be held to a higher standard when standing before God.

 

[quatona]

War has much more to do with the willingness to kill for something, then the willingness to die for it. Two extremely different questions.
I will die for a cause or a belief, but I will not kill for it.

Well spoken!

I would kill for a friend.

I suspect that there are quite a few beliefs involved in this decision.

Under what conditions would I kill for a friend?
If she asks me to? No.
If her current situation or problem would be improved by it? No.
If it would immediately save her life? Yes.

Out of curiosity: Is there a reason you distinguish between a friend and others?
I am asking because I suspect that such distinctions are the underlying cause for every use of violence, and that in the end it always comes down to "because I prefer this person to live over that person to live". Not that I necessarily criticize this (in fact, I am struggling with finding a rational approach in this question myself), but I think it´s worth pointing out that no matter how reasonable we succeed in making our arguments sound - they are still nothing but rationalizations of our preferences.

The crucial question underlying all of those is: What effect will the killing have? Will the act of killing bring about a change significant enough to warrant the act in the first place?

Yes, but the crucial problem is that
- (apart from the immediate effect "one person is killed") there is not "the effect" of such an action. There are countless effects in the short and long run. Determining something as "the effect" is already based on selective perception.
On top, the majority of those effects are by no means predictable. Even highly probable short term effects are just that: probabilities.

On another note, it seems to me that literally everyone who kills follows the approach you outline in the above quote. They expect their killing to have a desirable effect. Rationalizing preferences.

Does one soldier killing another bring about a change? Does 100 soldiers killing an entire village bring about a change?

Yes to both. The questions, however, are whether the nature of these changes is predictable, and whether I find those changes desirable. Or alternatively: undesirable but justifiable in view of an expected supposedly greater good.