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.

[sin_is_fun]

I personally prefer the Canadian approach to communism (pointed irrelevance) to the one taken in the USA (McCarthyism). In Canada, we do not outlaw communism. That would be a violation of democratic freedom. The communist parties (we have two separate registered communist parties) must abide by the same rules as all of the other parties such as: they cannot accept funds from outside the country, they are not allowed to arm, they cannot advocate violence. Our police watch them closely to ensure compliance. They run some candidates in elections. They always have a difficulty getting more votes that they can count on two hands. The few people who do not completely ignore them laugh at them. There really is no communist threat in North America.
I believe that repressive regimes need an enemy to thrive. The Soviet Union stayed strong throughout a world war and the cold war. It could not survive detente, sending many interpreters of John's revelation back to their drawing boards. Maybe there is a lesson for Chinese relations here. What would Jesus do?

canada is not America.America cannot reverse its history and become canada.If you are a mamma's boy and sit at home you wont have any enemies.But why are we not mamma's boys?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

^ I like that approach to it McCulloch. After all, it is indeed undemocratic to suppress personal opinions.

No,I disagree.

some criminals(eg:ted bundy) ought to be killed.
some wars ought to be fought,
some liberties ought to be curtailed(using fur clothes)
some happinesses ought to be banned(drugs)

Sorry, you are just really confusing me here. From your previous post it sounded like you supported all these things. Your point was unclear at first, but now that you say this it makes perfect sense.

But anyway, there are of course exeptions to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That is just implied. Hence why the founding fathers outlawed such liberties to criminals, as you suggested before.

So to be more specific: all humans have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as long as it does not hurt others. Would you agree with that one?

Because I dont disagree with use of capital punishment.I support it.

I find it interesting that you disagree with the killing of animals, but would gladly put to death a criminal for something they may not have committed.

This will seem off-subject, but I will point it back towards relevance, just hang with me.
It is proven that the death penalty does not hinder crime. States that use capital punishment actually generally have higher crime rates, if I'm not mistaken. So what exactly is the point, besides wasting our tax dollars on appeals? I believe all people have a right to life, no matter what act they may have committed. Their freedom of liberty however, obviously must be limited, as granting freedom would put others at risk. So send them to prison. You can't hurt anyone in prison.

When someone commits an offence that effects you, it is just human nature to do likewise to them. That is second nature, but it doesn't make it the reasonable thing to do. Striking back does not eliminate the problem. It contributes to it. In the vast majority of cases it seems, doing likewise to your offender fails puts an end to the quarrel, hatred, or resentment. Might that be a clue that it is the wrong course of action? I find it helps to understand the offender's motive before recklessly attacking back.

I apply this to capital punishment and war alike. Just because someone does something to you, does not give you the right to do it to them. Wouldn't the world be a much better place if everyone just turned the other cheek? The cycle of hatred and violence could be stopped right there, and cease to exist.

Now, I know what you are going to say. If the second party persists in attacking, and will not comply to attempts at peace, you are left no choice but to attack back, for the safety of yourself and/or your country. But fighting, whatever the case, should be an absolute last resort.

Anybody can preach.But practicing what we preach is difficult.

Difficult, yes. Impossible, no. As stated before, we must overcome the urge to strike back, and first pursue more peaceful alternatives.

so can we wage war for spiritual reasons?If a pagan dictorial country says "if you worship jesus I will atatck you" and he attacks you,what will you do?many wars were spiritual also,crusades for example.

I believe in the freedom to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The scenario you illustrated violates all three of those rights. You have no choice but to attack back.

The Crusades were never in any way justified. There were material motives masked behind the so called spiritual motive.

every country says it fights for human well being and to protect the native people only.USA fought in vietnam,irak and afghanisthan,somalia everywhere saying if we dont fight there commies will come next to usa.

Ethics are within the eyes of the beholder, true. The wars you mentioned are where it gets kind of murky. We had concerns for the well being of people in those countries, but it is hard to say whether those concerns were well placed.

(But I wouldnt make personal attacks like what you did in the second line. )

Who's making personal attacks? Sorry if you took it as one.

So better be a stronger man than a greater man.

Its better to be a 'bad living man' than to be a 'good dead man.'

If somebody slaps a person he can show his other cheek.
But if somebody rapes his sister he cannot offer his another sister also.

Too much of any good thing is always a bad thing.Mercy also has its limits.Beyond that limits,it is bad.

We are talking about completely different situations here. You stated "mercy shall not come at the cost of being a coward" in response to my statement about land, oil, and riches. I interpreted you to mean that we should not grant mercy to countries who have such land and riches that we want, for fear of cowardice. In other words "riches are worth killing over because that is the tough thing to do". If you sensed any aggression in my statement before, that might be the reason.

Now I see that you are talking about war in defense. In that case, I agree.

Then what are the justifiable means to kill?religion and spirituality perhaps?

Justifyable means to kill would be in DEFENSIVE situations, where your right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is at stake. Spirituality may or may not fit into that category, depending on the situation.

Now, you could argue that it is justifyable to use in offensive situations when you would be preventing the suffering of others, but sometimes it is debatable whether you are really contributing to the greater good by doing that.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

But why are we not mamma's boys?

Because we like to go out and mess up other people's lives! YEAH!




Actually, come to think of it, in your attack on Canadians you brought up a good point. If everyone just minded their own business like Canada, there would be no war, no enemies. Perhaps we should take a leaf from Canada's book?

[ST88]

I personally prefer the Canadian approach to communism (pointed irrelevance) to the one taken in the USA (McCarthyism). In Canada, we do not outlaw communism. That would be a violation of democratic freedom...

To be fair here, the Communist party was never outlawed in the U.S. A very complicated set of events put McCarthyism in motion, and it had largely to do with U.S hubris and subsequent paranoia at being a world power (Canada also had its part to play).

[ST88]

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?

There is only one circumstance, and that is to prevent further killings of fellow human beings. In other words, defending an offensive action. This assumes that the first party breaks this rule, and that the second party can prove that it has. Theoretically, all parties who observe this rule will never wage war on one another.

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

All of them. They were all started by perpetrators who violated the first rule. It was at this point that the conflicts became unjustified. Defenders in this situation are merely responding to offensive action, so there is justification for the defensive action, but since half of the parties in warfare are unjustified, I can't call any war justified.

[sin_is_fun]

But anyway, there are of course exeptions to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That is just implied. Hence why the founding fathers outlawed such liberties to criminals, as you suggested before.

So to be more specific: all humans have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as long as it does not hurt others. Would you agree with that one?

In peace times ,yes.In war times innocents will die in cross fire.That is unavoidable.But I would certainly agree with you that governments should exercise all reasonable caution to save innocent lives.However worse the war is,public life must be given priority.I agree with it completely.

I also agree that wars and deaths should be kept as last option.But I also realize that it is easy to say it,but very hard in real life.

I find it interesting that you disagree with the killing of animals, but would gladly put to death a criminal for something they may not have committed.

criminal commited sin,so he dies.what crime did that animal commit?

This will seem off-subject, but I will point it back towards relevance, just hang with me.
It is proven that the death penalty does not hinder crime. States that use capital punishment actually generally have higher crime rates, if I'm not mistaken. So what exactly is the point, besides wasting our tax dollars on appeals? I believe all people have a right to life, no matter what act they may have committed. Their freedom of liberty however, obviously must be limited, as granting freedom would put others at risk. So send them to prison. You can't hurt anyone in prison.

So If somebody rapes 100 women and kills them cruelly and what punishment does he get in return?

1.He gets a good room,life long food,no work,new friends,homosexual partners in jail,tv,music,sports,medical care,,,wow.

Death penalty is not given for preventing further crimes.It is given to console the victims family that justice is done.

Otherwise we need not even send people to jail.If the criminal promises he wont rape henceforth then by your logic he should be sent scotfree.Not only death penalty,but in reality no punishments actually ever prevent a crime.Criminals will do crimes irrespective of punishment.So dont imprison anybody.Just keep them under survellience.

punishment is for revenge.Only that will make the victim feel happy.

Many concentration camp victims are angry at god because hitler died a painless death.They want revenge,not prevention.

When someone commits an offence that effects you, it is just human nature to do likewise to them. That is second nature, but it doesn't make it the reasonable thing to do. Striking back does not eliminate the problem. It contributes to it. In the vast majority of cases it seems, doing likewise to your offender fails puts an end to the quarrel, hatred, or resentment. Might that be a clue that it is the wrong course of action? I find it helps to understand the offender's motive before recklessly attacking back.

when somebody hits me,or rapes a woman,i need not analyze his horoscope and his family history to understand him.It is unneccesary.
Only a strong country can remain a peaceful country.If powerless people talk peace,world will laugh at them.

There are occasions where you show some discretion.But a 'slap me and i will slow the other cheek always' appraoch isnt practical.

I apply this to capital punishment and war alike. Just because someone does something to you, does not give you the right to do it to them. Wouldn't the world be a much better place if everyone just turned the other cheek? The cycle of hatred and violence could be stopped right there, and cease to exist.

talking about an idealistic and moralistic world is easy.But we dont live in such a world.I agree with what you say,but i would also say that it isnt practical in todays world.If whole world reforms then I also will reform.

Now, I know what you are going to say. If the second party persists in attacking, and will not comply to attempts at peace, you are left no choice but to attack back, for the safety of yourself and/or your country. But fighting, whatever the case, should be an absolute last resort.

100% agree with you.

Difficult, yes. Impossible, no. As stated before, we must overcome the urge to strike back, and first pursue more peaceful alternatives.

I dont deny it.war must be a last option,but that option should be there.

I believe in the freedom to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The scenario you illustrated violates all three of those rights. You have no choice but to attack back.

good.I agree.

Now, you could argue that it is justifyable to use in offensive situations when you would be preventing the suffering of others, but sometimes it is debatable whether you are really contributing to the greater good by doing that.

Better be safe than be sorry.

[McCulloch]

To be fair here, the Communist party was never outlawed in the U.S. A very complicated set of events put McCarthyism in motion, and it had largely to do with U.S hubris and subsequent paranoia at being a world power (Canada also had its part to play).

You are correct. Any posting on a debate site is by nature a simplification and far too short to capture the real essence of the complex reality of politics and international relations. However, I remain convinced that communism was never a serious threat in North America.

[McCulloch]

canada is not America.

Which leads to the linguistic absurdity that the term "North America" refers to a larger area than "America" and that the "american south" has nothing to do with "South America." It does make one wish that your founding fathers would have had the forsight to give your country a proper name

America cannot reverse its history and become canada.If you are a mamma's boy and sit at home you wont have any enemies.But why are we not mamma's boys?

Would it be fair to use the term "mamma's boys" in reference to a major world power which refused to take arms against Hitler until it was directly attacked by one of his allies?

[sin_is_fun]

Which leads to the linguistic absurdity that the term "North America" refers to a larger area than "America" and that the "american south" has nothing to do with "South America." It does make one wish that your founding fathers would have had the forsight to give your country a proper name

They called it as USA,but people have shortened it as America.

Would it be fair to use the term "mamma's boys" in reference to a major world power which refused to take arms against Hitler until it was directly attacked by one of his allies?

canada's policy wasnt correct.Hitler did not attack Britain and France on his own.He occupied Eastern European countries first.Had Britain and France waited till Hitler attacked them ,they would have been swallowed by Germany long back.

Reaction is not always good.At times you have to be proactive.Prevention is better than cure.

[McCulloch]

They called it as USA,but people have shortened it as America.

Actually until the civil war, they were called the United States of America. It was during the civil war that people started using the grammatically incorrect singular.

canada's policy wasnt correct.Hitler did not attack Britain and France on his own.He occupied Eastern European countries first.Had Britain and France waited till Hitler attacked them ,they would have been swallowed by Germany long back.

First he took Austria with virtually no reaction from the west, then he took Czechoslovakia with Britain's Prime Minister's approval. When He invaded Poland, Britain and France declared war. Then the western allies sat on their duffs until he invaded and swallowed France. At this point, while Britain was being attacked daily, the USA refused to declare war on such an obviously aggessive power.