Basically, are there any circumstances under which the instigation of war is justified? if all individuals have moral standing, what justifies the violence that armed conflict entails? What would make killing in instances of war permissible? Any acceptance of armed conflict as a legitimate means of resolving dispute suggests that we may differentiate between the welfare of competing groups of individuals. Can we justifiably do this? Does acceptance of war imply that individuals are not all “equal” (at least in regard to their moral standing or moral worth)? What argument can we give to either support or deny such a conclusion?

Had to do this for my ethics class and was wondering what the general viewpoint is.

Justified for which side? It's not exactly a matter of reason or morality, there is always some kind of interest behind it, but if you want to discuss about it from the point of view of morality and reason, I don't think it's.

This week's favorites:

• Golden Kamui

ççççççç[Ô.Ô] tsutopodus© will eat your manga and steal your cats!

I just happened to glance that people keep voting no, war isn't justified. I'm afraid in some cases it actually is. It's justified by protecting the freedom of people. Who wouldn't justify 'The Revolutionary War' for example. People often forget how they got their freedoms. Their ancestors fought and gave their blood and lives for a better future. Today, there are people who are willing to follow in the steps of great men and women willing to protect the lives of everyone they care about. Now, if that doesn't justify, I don't know what does.

(I know there are people who will say 'It's the 21st century, we don't need war. Well, I'm afraid to tell you this. As long as there is man-kind, religion, and land, there will be war.)

I think in some cases war can be justified. In action against a government committing genocide, for example.

Yes, i feel that the American war for independence was justified.

[img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2777/4207527145_31aa2e1471_m.jpg[/img]

War can be justified

And the fourth option is useless, as that would simply mean yes

Quote from shinobimystress

I just happened to glance that people keep voting no, war isn't justified. I'm afraid in some cases it actually is. It's justified by protecting the freedom of people. Who wouldn't justify 'The Revolutionary War' for example. People often forget how they got their freedoms. Their ancestors fought and gave their blood and lives for a better future. Today, there are people who are willing to follow in the steps of great men and women willing to protect the lives of everyone they care about. Now, if that doesn't justify, I don't know what does.

(I know there are people who will say 'It's the 21st century, we don't need war. Well, I'm afraid to tell you this. As long as there is man-kind, religion, and land, there will be war.)

Sum'd it up pretty well.

I don't think so. Killing is always wrong. There's always a better way, we just have to find it.....efforts need to be put it.

Quote from cliff

no. Killing is simply wrong. War equals to genocide. But that is purely my opinion

I agree

Gay book discussion thread

Quote from you_no_see_me_

this is not about cannibalism...please get back on topic

Quote from Toto

I think it is exactly the topic. I see nothing wrong.

no. Killing is simply wrong. War equals to genocide. But that is purely my opinion

Help! I'm looking for... manga with dangerous guys [url]http://www.mangaupdates.com/showtopic.php?tid=39874&page=1#post594033[/url]

do i want war to be justified? hell no.
but it is. it has to be.

i also think that

As long as there is man-kind, religion, and land, there will be war. (indeed, very well said.)

there are other options.. but unfortunately, if even a few people like killing as an option, then there will be war. xP or, well, i guess your side could go with the no-killing option, but you.. wouldn't last long..

[img]http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l184/DancingintheRain_x3/LoveatFirstSightv04-003-1-1.jpg[/img]

ich bin dabei, du bist dabei, wir sind dabei, uns zu verlieren.
ich bin dabei, bist du dabei, sind wir dabei, uns zu verlieren? ♥

manga mood: unexpected 😮
reading: deadman wonderland

War is neither justified nor necessary.

It's just people in power deeming capital gain more significant than human life.

[color=#ff0000]"“That's the difference between me and the rest of the world!
Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!” "[/color]

Quote from BoxBox

I don't think so. Killing is always wrong. There's always a better way, we just have to find it.....efforts need to be put it.

Quote from cliff

no. Killing is simply wrong. War equals to genocide. But that is purely my opinion

I agree

one of the reasons of war is that no one can find a solution. if you were a president, and you discovered that millions of people are neglected in a country, what would you do? give up your money to help THEIR citizens and risk national debt? or give them a "strongly worded letter" about your feelings on the matter?

Theyre not gonna do sh*t unless you offer them something in return. in such a way, youre paying them to take care of their own people. The world doesnt work that way. no one does anything (mostly) without gaining something in return.

in such circumstances, war is one of the most succesful procedures and comes with large benefits. even though millions of people die, the men in charge of the nation take that as a small casualty to winning a war and writing a treaty in their position.

and even if you still believe that there are other solutions to war, lets think about a famous genocide: the holocaust. do you think hitler wouldve stopped if you wrote a fifty page letter on why its bad and illogical to kill jews. he wouldnt care and then kill some more as free time.

Sometimes, when reason is not excepted, violence is......damn this is long. 🤣

Quote from wittleD

Quote from BoxBox

I don't think so. Killing is always wrong. There's always a better way, we just have to find it.....efforts need to be put it.

Quote from cliff

no. Killing is simply wrong. War equals to genocide. But that is purely my opinion

I agree

one of the reasons of war is that no one can find a solution. if you were a president, and you discovered that millions of people are neglected in a country, what would you do? give up your money to help THEIR citizens and risk national debt? or give them a "strongly worded letter" about your feelings on the matter?

Theyre not gonna do sh*t unless you offer them something in return. in such a way, youre paying them to take care of their own people. The world doesnt work that way. no one does anything (mostly) without gaining something in return.

in such circumstances, war is one of the most succesful procedures and comes with large benefits. even though millions of people die, the men in charge of the nation take that as a small casualty to winning a war and writing a treaty in their position.

and even if you still believe that there are other solutions to war, lets think about a famous genocide: the holocaust. do you think hitler wouldve stopped if you wrote a fifty page letter on why its bad and illogical to kill jews. he wouldnt care and then kill some more as free time.

Sometimes, when reason is not excepted, violence is......damn this is long. 🤣

Omg, you guys should be shocked at how I replied to a message before it was posted. I can see into the future! 😲 where LAmb will be eaten, Calibre is Uncle Ruckus, and Dr. Lov is Mamsil's bf

Gay book discussion thread

Quote from you_no_see_me_

this is not about cannibalism...please get back on topic

Quote from Toto

I think it is exactly the topic. I see nothing wrong.

I'd have to vote no for this.

For there is no war I'd join willingly. There is no opposition I view so evil and so great an obstacle that I must kill the opposition in question.
I am forced to join
a war if something nasty ever happens, but I do not have
even one principle I am not willing to give away if I must
expose my life to death. Nothing will make me fall into such a delirium besides sheer rage and I do not feel rage unless I am personally
heavily insulted. The main problem
to me is that the people in charge of decisions barely
are risking their lives in them. I wouldn't mind if things were
solved by a handful of 60-year-old men in a cage fight.

I think that war with another country is only justified if there is an actual attack from that country in particular, and if the response is proportionate to the attack, e.g. Britain's war with Germany was justified during Hitler's era of aggressive expansion of Nazism into the rest of Europe, and war against Japan was justified following Pearl Harbor, but dropping nuclear bombs on Japan's civilian populace was NOT JUSTIFIED AT ALL, it was a humanitarian crime because it was a disproportionate response to a situation that could have been handled with greater caution and strategic insight.

I do feel that war is justified so long as these conditions are met - proportionate response AND war in "defense" only. I do not support any so-called preemptive or preventative war. Huh? That's just stupid. You can't start a war to prevent a war. That doesn't even make sense! However if another country's government had already attacked or had provided tacit permission for other non-government forces within its borders to have launched an attack on my country, then I think it's okay to fight a proportionate war in self-defense, so long as diplomacy is never given up on and efforts are made to have a non-violent resolution while staving off further attacks. Responding to a direct attack with ONLY negotiations is a sign of surrender; however, responding only with violence and with no negotiations whatsoever is a sign of barbaric stupidity.

There should be a two-pronged approach: following a direct attack, respond proportionately by sending only enough troops to hold back the enemy, not to deliberately escalate the conflict - and while holding them back, engage in diplomacy with nearby powers that might become allies in the fight, as well as with people within the ranks of the so-called "enemy" themselves, since some of them may be convinced to come to a ceasefire following a strategic compromise of some kind. After diplomacy, new alliances and back-room bargaining have succeeded (eventually), we should stop attacking altogether and keep a minimal defensive force with strict orders not to shoot; after some time has passed and it has become evident that the threat is gone and the situation is stabilized, we should withdraw the troops altogether and let those brave people finally come back from their tours of duty. (It's totally ridiculous to keep troops stationed in a place even after the war has ended, like why the hell should America still have troops in Japan and Germany? That's crazy - and it's a commitment we can't afford when the troops are desperately needed elsewhere.)

As for civil war within one's own country, it is only justified if the people in power are violating fundamental human rights, and if you have to be a freedom fighter against your own government just to defend your most basic rights against a tyrannical regime that refuses to listen to reason. For example fighting the Civil War in America and abolishing slavery was very important; fighting in the French revolution and ousting a carnivorous monarchy was very important; maybe one day, the Iranian people will also have an uprising against their own government. It certainly seems possible given what we have seen in the past year...

One of the most important things in any war I think is to make sure that corporate business stays out of it, so that certain powerful people don't actually see the creating and sustaining of wars as a profit venture. That's just sick. To prevent this, a lot of government oversight would be needed to keep weapons manufacturers, defense contractors and appropriations businesses in line. Lobbyists from the military industrial complex should be banned from appearing in, talking to or influencing the government altogether. There should be NO lobbyists from these businesses. That is also one way to prevent needless wars (since lobbyists with a financial interest in them will convince politicians to fight wars even if they are unjustified) and human rights abuses (like with Blackwater in Iraq). Combining "profit" and "war" is sick, perverse and always leads to an unnecessary loss of lives and horrible human rights abuses. This approach should be banned altogether, in law and in public discourse.

So I do think that war is justified within these parameters and with a great deal of reasoning and oversight. Wars should not be "started," attacks should only be "responded to". By this definition the ENTIRE WAR IN IRAQ was a total freaking waste of life and resources, and it should never have happened. The war in Afghanistan, though? Well I don't like the idea, but I can see that there might be some reasoning for it since attackers to the US actually did come from there, and an actual attack did happen. The war should not just have "a military approach" there, though, I think it should be strategic, financial and diplomatic as well...

War is a horrible phenomenon and attacking people for any other purpose than self-defense against a direct attack is wrong. But if you are under direct attack then you have the right to fight back, as long as you don't let the war-rhetoric go to your head and just fight for fighting's sake - as long as you go into war only to defend yourself until a diplomatic solution can be found, and you continuously and tirelessly try to find a diplomatic solution without escalating the war unnecessarily. Tricky, yes, but with the right kind of leader I think it can be done.

Is President Obama the right kind of leader? I hope he is. I want to believe he is. Whether my hopes will bear fruit, however, is something only time will tell - when the wars of the present become the wars of history. Amen to that.