Philosophy Now Forum

The war in Vietnam has been called an unjust war. What wars have been just? Why so?

Does this whole war have to be just, or simply the motives and behaviour of one of the contestants? If the latter, then there are lots of options, but the former seems unrealistic as it would require both sides to be in the right, which I reckon is somewhat at odds with the agressor vs defender thing that is usually used to justify any war. I can think of any number of historical conflicts where both sides have claimed to be the defenders, but none off the top of my head where it was technically true.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 9:44 pm Does this whole war have to be just, or simply the motives and behaviour of one of the contestants? If the latter, then there are lots of options, but the former seems unrealistic as it would require both sides to be in the right, which I reckon is somewhat at odds with the agressor vs defender thing that is usually used to justify any war.

Are you saying that both sides are required to be in the right or that both must believe or claim to be right?

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:54 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 9:44 pm Does this whole war have to be just, or simply the motives and behaviour of one of the contestants? If the latter, then there are lots of options, but the former seems unrealistic as it would require both sides to be in the right, which I reckon is somewhat at odds with the agressor vs defender thing that is usually used to justify any war.

Are you saying that both sides are required to be in the right or that both must believe or claim to be right?

Tricky one. I mean for the war itself to be just, then all parties involved would need to be engaged in some just cause, which I imagine would paradoxically require them to resolve their dispute by other means.

But if we are only looking for any war in which any of the combatants was justified, we probably need only look for wars started for the worst reasons, and then the other guys were probably on fairly strong moral ground. Thus in the third Punic War for instance, the Romans were being total dicks, and the Carthaginians were fighting for their very survival as a civilisation, as well as to not all be sold into slavery. Even if they did some pretty spicy stuff that we would normally dissaprove of in that fight, and even though they definitely had form for being dirty war-bastards themselves anyway, they were probably justified in fighting to the last, because when they lost anyway, they got very badly genocided upon.

Thanks for clarifying. I think you have the subject well in hand.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:53 pm The war in Vietnam has been called an unjust war. What wars have been just? Why so?

I think that is the wrong question, somewhat. I would phrase it differently; when is violence just?

A war is same in nature to the question of the use of violence in general.

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:12 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:53 pm The war in Vietnam has been called an unjust war. What wars have been just? Why so?

I think that is the wrong question, somewhat. I would phrase it differently; when is violence just?

A war is same in nature to the question of the use of violence in general.

Many would say that preventing harm to another may be a justified use of force. Yet I doubt there’s been a war to prevent a person from murdering another person. War is not merely a specific case of violence, it’s a special, and perhaps unique, case of violence.

But what’s your answer to the question of your choosing?

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:53 pm The war in Vietnam has been called an unjust war. What wars have been just? Why so?

the American Revolution?

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:12 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:53 pm The war in Vietnam has been called an unjust war. What wars have been just? Why so?

I think that is the wrong question, somewhat. I would phrase it differently; when is violence just?

A war is same in nature to the question of the use of violence in general.

this one's easy: in defense of self or another

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:55 am

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:12 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:53 pm The war in Vietnam has been called an unjust war. What wars have been just? Why so?

I think that is the wrong question, somewhat. I would phrase it differently; when is violence just?

A war is same in nature to the question of the use of violence in general.

Many would say that preventing harm to another may be a justified use of force. Yet I doubt there’s been a war to prevent a person from murdering another person. War is not merely a specific case of violence, it’s a special, and perhaps unique, case of violence.

But what’s your answer to the question of your choosing?

This is a dissertation. I am a consequentialist, which makes ethics both relevant and challenging.

I think a situation of personal defense is clear. Someone stealing my TV? Probably not. However, stealing a TV is different from "terrorism" (i.e. looters are as much terrorists as thieves).

Of course, as violence goes exponential it gets more difficult to understand consequences. Hence, situations of a "just war" would be very rare.

the victor decides what is just

-Imp

Someone stealing my TV? Probably not.

the hell you say!

I value my tv more than I value the thief's life (and, apparently, so does the thief)

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:56 pm the victor decides what is just

-Imp

So true.

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 12:05 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:56 pm the victor decides what is just

-Imp

So true.

OMG, this gets so tiresome.

Would you sell your wife or child for a TV? If so, you are unhealthy and don't know what brings well being. Would you sell your TV for someone else's life? Well, you have no empathy. Does empathy ultimately, in balance, contribute to well being more than a TV? Yes. So, you have no idea of what brings well being.

Is this really that complicated?

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 12:43 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 12:05 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:56 pm the victor decides what is just

-Imp

So true.

OMG, this gets so tiresome.

Would you sell your wife or child for a TV? If so, you are unhealthy and don't know what brings well being. Would you sell your TV for someone else's life? Well, you have no empathy. Does empathy ultimately, in balance, contribute to well being more than a TV? Yes. So, you have no idea of what brings well being.

Is this really that complicated?

Are you suggesting that because I have the belief that a war’s victor decides how history will view the war and its causes and how each side’s methods will be judged, I have no empathy?