On wars
-
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
On wars
The war in Vietnam has been called an unjust war. What wars have been just? Why so?
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6335
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: On wars
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.
-
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: On wars
Are you saying that both sides are required to be in the right or that both must believe or claim to be right?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.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6335
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: On wars
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.commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:54 pmAre you saying that both sides are required to be in the right or that both must believe or claim to be right?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.
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.
-
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: On wars
Thanks for clarifying. I think you have the subject well in hand.
Re: On wars
I think that is the wrong question, somewhat. I would phrase it differently; when is violence just?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?
A war is same in nature to the question of the use of violence in general.
-
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: On wars
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.KLewchuk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:12 amI think that is the wrong question, somewhat. I would phrase it differently; when is violence just?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?
A war is same in nature to the question of the use of violence in general.
But what’s your answer to the question of your choosing?
Last edited by commonsense on Wed Sep 16, 2020 2:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: On wars
the American Revolution?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?
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: On wars
this one's easy: in defense of self or anotherKLewchuk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:12 amI think that is the wrong question, somewhat. I would phrase it differently; when is violence just?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?
A war is same in nature to the question of the use of violence in general.
Re: On wars
This is a dissertation. I am a consequentialist, which makes ethics both relevant and challenging.commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:55 amMany 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.KLewchuk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:12 amI think that is the wrong question, somewhat. I would phrase it differently; when is violence just?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?
A war is same in nature to the question of the use of violence in general.
But what’s your answer to the question of your choosing?
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.
-
- Posts: 4368
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: On wars
the victor decides what is just
-Imp
-Imp
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: On wars
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)
the hell you say!
I value my tv more than I value the thief's life (and, apparently, so does the thief)
-
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: On wars
So true.
Re: On wars
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?
-
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: On wars
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?KLewchuk wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 12:43 amOMG, 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?