Justifying War

[The Persnickety Platypus]

1. Under what circumstances should the brutal killing of fellow human beings be ethically tolerable? In other words, if there were a universal law dictating the specific reasons for which to declare war, what might it say?


2. Which past and present wars would you deem unjustified? Perhaps this will allow us to put such rules into context.

[MagusYanam]

Why does god take revenge?You said not having revenge is a noble quality.Why doesnt god follow it?

Who says God takes revenge? I remember God saying only that vengeance belonged to him (and not to human beings), not that he would take vengeance. Jesus told us to be perfect even as our Father in Heaven is perfect, by doing what? By turning the other cheek. By giving someone one's shirt when s/he steals your cloak. If that's what our Father does and the example our Father sets, that is what we must also do.

War is started by original act of agressor.Revenge is just retaliation.

Someone had better take high school sophomore European History again. World War I was caused by an act of vengeance. A Serbian nationalist guns down Austria's Archduke and Austria demands that it be allowed full authority in the investigation. Serbia refuses, and Austria takes revenge by declaring war. War started by an act of retaliation. You can't get much more blatant than that.

Revenge accomplishes nothing and proves nothing, as World War I shows. (It is also arguable that World War II was caused in the long term by the Treaty of Versailles, which was itself an act of retaliation against Germany.) It only heals people and brings people peace in bad Hollywood thrillers, which as we all know have nothing at all to do with real life.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Our courts are willing to take that risk.The chances of an innocent being hung are very rare even though they arent ruled out.But our society adn courts are willing to take that chance.

I am not willing to take that chance. There is absolutely no justification for carrying out the death sentence on innocents. What are we? Medeival Europe? Have we lost all sense of reason?

If somebody hits me and I hit him back,it is not me who started the fight.It was him.

There would have been no fight if you had not retaliated. You are to blame as well.

Now I realize the need for self defense. If you are continuously attacked, you have no choice but to defend yourself. In most situations however, there IS a better solution.

War is started by original act of agressor.Revenge is just retaliation.

Revenge, retaliation, call it what you want, it is still serves no beneficial purpose.

If the government of that country doesnt mind why should we care?

Why on earth would a any government want dangerous citizens in their midst?

No sane government would.

Revenge heals the wounds of the victim.So it serves a purpose.

I will remain unconvinced of this until you give me ample reason to believe otherwise.

Revenge heals nothing. Revenge solves nothing. Revenge, as shown by history, only carries NEGATIVE effects. And even if revenge somehow comforts the victim, is that really worth the re-hashing of hate, violence, and further retaliations of revenge?

Why does god take revenge?You said not having revenge is a noble quality.Why doesnt god follow it?

God, being omnipresent and all powerful, has the right to do anything he wants.

But think about it. God knows the effects of everything. Only he truly knows where punishment is due. He is all knowing.
Humans on the other hand, are restricted in our perception. We cannot see every situation in it's entirety, therefore are unable to deem fair punishment. We have no right to take revenge, because we have no way of knowing whether that revenge would be justified or serve the greater good. God does. He is a fair god, and will grant justice to all.

Wars are caused by aggression and not revenge.Revenge is retaliation.

There would be no wars if one side did not take revenge for that aggression. You can apply this to absolutely every single war in human history. War cannot exist without revenge.

Ever wondered why canada was not called as liberator of europe from Hitler?QUOTE]
Because Canada lacks an armed force big enough to do such a thing?
Canadians fought alongside the Allies in Europe. They contributed to the defeat of Axis forces as much as anyone. I don't quite see your point here.

Regarding current war on terrorism we can start a seperate thread if you want.

Lets talk about it here. This is a thread about what justifies war. Wouldn't a discussion concerning the justification of the current war qualify?

So tell me, why do you think revenge is the key to obliterating terrorists?





Sin, all I want is world peace. I believe that this can be accomplished. Do you want peace? I would assume you do... we can all benefit from a more peaceful society. So tell me, how do you see this accomplished through means of revenge? Revenge has been a part of society since the beginning of time. So when will it start working its wonders? When will we begin to find peace by agression?

Doesen't seem to be working, does it? About time to try something else, you think?

I believe that deep down, all human beings are reasonable creatures. Let us exploit that reason, and find a way to better co-exist. Let us make better use of forgiveness and attempt some form of harmony. Is that really so much to ask? Beyond our ability? I don't think so.

[sin_is_fun]

I am not willing to take that chance. There is absolutely no justification for carrying out the death sentence on innocents. What are we? Medeival Europe? Have we lost all sense of reason?

You are not willing.But majority of people and government are willing.There is no justification for carrying out death sentence on innocents.But similiarly there is no justification for any punishment on innocents.An innocent has more chances of being punished in other types of punishments also.So can we withdraw all types of punishments?

]quote]If somebody hits me and I hit him back,it is not me who started the fight.It was him.

There would have been no fight if you had not retaliated. You are to blame as well.[/quote]

If I dont hit back,he will hit me again some other time.Why should I give him that opportunity?

Revenge, retaliation, call it what you want, it is still serves no beneficial purpose.

I disagree

Why on earth would a any government want dangerous citizens in their midst?No sane government would.

Argentina sheltered Eichmann and many other nazi war criminals.

Revenge heals nothing. Revenge solves nothing. Revenge, as shown by history, only carries NEGATIVE effects. And even if revenge somehow comforts the victim, is that really worth the re-hashing of hate, violence, and further retaliations of revenge?

who will console the victims heart?who will satisfy his need for justice?Its entirely upto the victim

God, being omnipresent and all powerful, has the right to do anything he wants.

But think about it. God knows the effects of everything. Only he truly knows where punishment is due. He is all knowing.
Humans on the other hand, are restricted in our perception. We cannot see every situation in it's entirety, therefore are unable to deem fair punishment. We have no right to take revenge, because we have no way of knowing whether that revenge would be justified or serve the greater good. God does. He is a fair god, and will grant justice to all.

So god can punish and have revenge.You said "Revenge heals nothing. Revenge solves nothing. Revenge, as shown by history, only carries NEGATIVE effects." So why does god follow this negative habit?

There would be no wars if one side did not take revenge for that aggression. You can apply this to absolutely every single war in human history. War cannot exist without revenge.

If the other side doesnt hit back,it will be taken for granted and will be destroyed totally.

Wars are created by offense and retaliation.If retaliation isnt there,the non-retaliating side will be swallowed.There wont be any war,there will be only massacre instead.

So tell me, why do you think revenge is the key to obliterating terrorists?

Terrorists understand only the language of war.They dont understand love.So our american army speaks with terrorists in the language of war.Our army winning this war is crucial for democracy's truimph.

Sin, all I want is world peace. I believe that this can be accomplished. Do you want peace? I would assume you do... we can all benefit from a more peaceful society. So tell me, how do you see this accomplished through means of revenge? Revenge has been a part of society since the beginning of time. So when will it start working its wonders? When will we begin to find peace by agression?

I too want world peace.But total peace is an utopia.It isnt possible.Some Peace will come with power and strength.World now doesnt have total peace,but without the good being strong there wont be any peace at all

I believe that deep down, all human beings are reasonable creatures. Let us exploit that reason, and find a way to better co-exist. Let us make better use of forgiveness and attempt some form of harmony. Is that really so much to ask? Beyond our ability? I don't think so.

Its an utopian dream.I wish it comes true,but I understand the reality that it will never come true.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

You are not willing.But majority of people and government are willing.There is no justification for carrying out death sentence on innocents.But similiarly there is no justification for any punishment on innocents.An innocent has more chances of being punished in other types of punishments also.So can we withdraw all types of punishments?

A death sentence is a big difference between a prison sentence. At least with a prison sentence there is time to uncover the truth and eventually set the innocent free. There is no such opportunity in a death sentence. The innocent person is gone forever.

If I dont hit back,he will hit me again some other time.Why should I give him that opportunity?

He will not hit you back if you make peace. We should always seek peace instead of confrontation whenever possible.

And besides, by retaliating he will hit you back some other time anyway. Violence does not solve problems. Occasionally it can stop them temporarily, but the hate will always be there, and another fight is bound to break out.

Argentina sheltered Eichmann and many other nazi war criminals.

Of course they did. Argentina had ties to the axis powers.

who will console the victims heart?who will satisfy his need for justice?Its entirely upto the victim

Violence solves no argument, and in the same way, consoles no victim. Whether "justice" is done or not, the victim has still lost someone or something near and dear to them. They must overcome this loss themselves, no act of violence will fill the gap.

So god can punish and have revenge.You said "Revenge heals nothing. Revenge solves nothing. Revenge, as shown by history, only carries NEGATIVE effects." So why does god follow this negative habit?

I just answered that.
God, being all knowing, has the ability to grant fair and justified revenge. He will punish where punishment is due.

Humans are unable to do this. We cannot see all sides of the issue as God does.

Wars are created by offense and retaliation.If retaliation isnt there,the non-retaliating side will be swallowed.There wont be any war,there will be only massacre instead.

What if peace is made? No killing at all, massacre or otherwise, need take place. If peace cannot come about, war is unfortunately inevitable.

All I am saying is, warring sides rarely take advantage of such peaceful negotiations. For some reason, they find it much more suitable to rush to war. And war, as you know, rarely solves anything.

Terrorists understand only the language of war.They dont understand love.So our american army speaks with terrorists in the language of war.Our army winning this war is crucial for democracy's truimph.

Who are you to speak for the terrorists? Who says they don't understand love? By meddling in their lives and asserting our ideas on them, we can see clearly that they have great love for their way of life. Only love could drive them to give their lives for their cause.

We have backed the would-be terrorists into a corner. And what does a threatened animal do? Attack, of course. But instead of backing of and leaving the animal be, we fight back, and thus, it keeps fighting as well. It is a never ending cycle. Each terrorist we kill creates yet another. Unless you suggest that we kill off the entire middle east, the only solution to this problem is to discover the root of the conflict, and make peace in accordance.

I too want world peace.But total peace is an utopia.It isnt possible.Some Peace will come with power and strength.World now doesnt have total peace,but without the good being strong there wont be any peace at all

Its an utopian dream.I wish it comes true,but I understand the reality that it will never come true.

Oh ye of little faith. You say it is impossible, what, just because you have never seen it happen? If every person of every nation embraced the idea it would become reality. But instead, we are left with people such as yourself, who are either too closed minded or too complacent to accept the possibility.

We will probably never be able to get every person on Earth to embrace such ideas, true. But by embracing it ourselves and encouraging others to do likewise, we will be one step closer. Total peace may be beyond reach, but more peace is defiantly attainable. But it cannot come about by power and violence as you suggest. The current and past effects are proof of that. Our only hope is to seek ways to live ALONG with our neighbors, not obliterate them.

[MagusYanam]

who will console the victims heart?who will satisfy his need for justice?Its entirely upto the victim

You are exactly, absolutely, 100% right. It is entirely up to the victim. Is the victim going to let his hurt weigh him down the rest of his life in his pursuit of vengeance, or is he going to transcend that hurt and that need for retribution and get on with his life? You live with the pain a lot longer than you need to if you keep wanting revenge for it and keep reminding yourself of it repeatedly. Again, I speak from experience.

I've found that it's better in the long run - for the victim - just to forgive and move on. There is no justice if the victim does himself none.

So god can punish and have revenge.You said "Revenge heals nothing. Revenge solves nothing. Revenge, as shown by history, only carries NEGATIVE effects." So why does god follow this negative habit?

Vengeance belongs to God. We don't know how or even if he chooses to employ it. We've seen it repeatedly in the Scriptures that God is 'slow to anger and quick to forgiveness'.

Personally, I think God's punishment is redemptive, not vindictive - God seems to do nothing for his own benefit, but everything for ours, so why should punishment be any different? A mother will tell her child to go to his room, but that's not the mother satisfying her own need for revenge against the child - that's the mother teaching her child to do things right. Punishment does not equal revenge.

Wars are created by offense and retaliation.If retaliation isnt there,the non-retaliating side will be swallowed.There wont be any war,there will be only massacre instead.

Heard of Gandhi? The politics of satyagraha? The British struck out at the Indians when they refused to cooperate, but Gandhi and his followers refused to strike back. You're right, there wasn't any war, but you're wrong in that there wasn't a massacre either. The British were shamed out of India.

Martin Luther King, Jr. did the same thing. He didn't fight back against the Southerners who beat up, hosed down and killed his followers, but there was no massacre of Blacks in the South. He shamed the Southerners into allowing the Black community equal and integrated treatment.

Retaliation is a sign of moral weakness - you shame yourself in the eyes of the world when you strike back. Look at the Serbo-Croats and the Kossovar Albanians, killing each other left and right (even today) in the Balkans. Or look at the Russians and the Chechnyans in Central Asia. There is no moral high ground - everyone there's a victim and everyone's a perpetrator. So what do we do? Kill everybody in hopes of achieving 'justice'? Doesn't sound just to me.

I too want world peace.But total peace is an utopia.It isnt possible.Some Peace will come with power and strength.World now doesnt have total peace,but without the good being strong there wont be any peace at all

That smells suspiciously neoconservative. Boy, you want to talk about bad moral standards? The neocons are right near the top of my charts. So 'might makes right', is it? I'm sure the Nazis and the Fascists felt that peace would come about as soon as they were powerful and strong enough to achieve autarky, or when they conquered the world, but that doesn't make them right.

Peace will come about when people have food in their stomachs and clothes on their backs, and when they don't envy what others have. One of the main reasons terrorism is so prevalent is because the terrorists have next to nothing left to lose. We start relieving debt, building economic structures that will last beyond the oil supply and ensuring that there are enough resources (like clean water, for example) to go around and voila! we won't have cause for war in the Middle East. All this religious nonsense is so much eyewash: Muslims and Jews got along more or less fine before the Ottoman Empire collapsed, and I don't see Osama himself (multimillionaire that he is) blowing himself up for his cause.

Its an utopian dream.I wish it comes true,but I understand the reality that it will never come true.

Of course it's just a dream. But we can damn well try for it, even if we know we'll never get there.

[sin_is_fun]

Is revenge good or bad?It is wrong to generalize revenge and forgiveness for the entire humanity.In some circumstances revenge will work.In some circumstances forgiveness will work.

If your opponent is a fair person like the british versus gandhi example of magnus,forgiveness will work.But will satyagraha(nonviolence)work against sadham hussain?He would have gassed the protestors to death,like what he did to kurds.Hitler sent jews to concentration camps in millions.Had they peacefully protested it would have been of no use.

On the other hand for some people forgiveness will work more than war.I am also not denying it.So we should not prefer means over ends and say 'I will only follow this'.When forgiving works its pointless to choose war.When war only works it is pointless to choose forgiveness.

Ultimately ends matter.Self defense is the objective.Whether it comes through peace or war,that should be followed.we need to love the end and not the means.

In a hypothetical world where every person shows his other cheek,yes,forgiveness will work.But we are not in such a hypothetical world.We want to go there,fine.But before going there if we unilaterally decide not to slap back,we will be the losers.We will always get slapped in our two cheeks.

It is to be noted that jesus who preached nonviolence did not practice it always.He physically chased away wrongdoers from the temple of god.He did not follow nonviolence there.This is an example of ends above means.

[MagusYanam]

If your opponent is a fair person like the british versus gandhi example of magnus,forgiveness will work.But will satyagraha(nonviolence)work against sadham hussain?He would have gassed the protestors to death,like what he did to kurds.Hitler sent jews to concentration camps in millions.Had they peacefully protested it would have been of no use.

Au contraire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_the_Danish_Jews

A non-violent act of resistance saved 4500 Danish Jews from the hands of the Nazis. Imagine if this had taken place on a larger scale in other nearby countries...

That's all working under the assumption, of course, that the war wasn't already well under way. Once Hitler came to power, it was soon clear that only force would remove him. (All things considered, it should have come sooner rather than later.)

My point here is, though, had the retributive Treaty of Versailles never taken such a drastic toll on Germany (after WWI, as I'm sure you've heard, the French occupiers of the Saarland routinely brutalised and raped the Saarlanders, hyperinflation occured because of the massive debt and desperation fueled the popularity of the Communists and the Nazis in German politics, effectively killing German democracy) WWII may never have happened. Retribution too often causes more trouble rather than solving it.

Also, I wouldn't call the British presence in India 'fair'; they could be every bit as brutal as Saddam Hussein. After the 1857 Sepoy Rebellion in India, the British undertook to wipe out entire villages in what became known as the Devil's Wind - as bad as anything Saddam ever did against the Kurds.

When war only works it is pointless to choose forgiveness.

That's not the right way to look at it, IMHO. War should be the last resort, only to be used if all else fails. War should be thought of, ultimately, as failure. We had tonnes of other options going into Iraq - we had the leverage on Saddam with our troops ready to invade. He may have been a brutal dictator, but he wasn't suicidal - he would have tolerated not only UN weapons inspectors but also (for example) UN human-rights inspectors in Iraq. If it came down to it, Saddam, coward that he was, would rather have surrendered any WMD's he did have rather than his rule or his life.

But before going there if we unilaterally decide not to slap back,we will be the losers.We will always get slapped in our two cheeks.

True. I'm saying that slapping back is the wrong thing to do, but I'm not saying that we should never do it. I'm saying that we shouldn't do it until it becomes necessary, as it was in WWII. We have to keep in mind that once we strike back, we've failed to find a better means to the end. After we've finished striking back, we have to examine, if we can, what we could have done better.

Actually, we'll never stop slapping back, since we are all of us prone to failure and, while hindsight is 20/20, our foresight as human beings is often downright myopic. But it would be a step in the right direction once we try to diminish that possibility.

It is to be noted that jesus who preached nonviolence did not practice it always.He physically chased away wrongdoers from the temple of god.He did not follow nonviolence there.This is an example of ends above means.

It is to be noted that Jesus drove out the moneychangers but did not hurt them, and then overturned the tables to symbolise that one needn't pay to enter the temple for worship. In its historical context, Jesus was opening the temple up also to the poor (which was almost the same as putting out the moneychangers by their ears). It is significant that right after this story (St. Matthew 21:12-13) comes an account of Jesus welcoming into the temple the blind and the lame, and then curing them. It was not a violent act, but an act of inclusion.

[sin_is_fun]

MagnusYanam,

You must be an optimist to believe in the world.I'm not one.I'm a pessimist.Maybe both of us mistakenly think that he is a realist.

A pessimist never has ugly shocks,does he?

[MagusYanam]

Yep: I'm an optimist, and I admit it proudly. I admit, though not so proudly, that I'm not exactly a realist (I'm too young for that as yet).

I think the upside to being an optimist is that we don't get depressed easily. The downside, of course, is that we're very easily disappointed, heh. That's where the pessimists get the advantage over us.

[qstns]

I believe war can be justified. I do not believe everyone based on their worldview can state that which I just did. People, that call themselves atheist or materialist often share the belief that there is no universal right or wrong. Therefore there is no standard. While they may personally reject murder they can not say with an absolute it is wrong to murder. Ie..if someone goes out and kills someone, there is nothing more wrong with that than staying home and eating ice cream.

Therefore, it seems only thoses that believe in a universal right and wrong should be debating if war is justified. Others should just read the opinions stated and not judge. In their worldview,there is nothing wrong with one or the other. No, good or no bad.