Why is war morally wrong?

[Raider5678]

14 hours ago, CharonY said:

Let's turn it around. Let's say there is a wonderful utopian nation who decides that the way the world is run is detrimental to its people. After "liberating" all regimes they turn their eyes on the US which in their eyes is a humanitarian disaster. There is too much poverty, wholesale criminalization of swathes of the population and even state-sanctioned death penalties. This  entire against their Utopian (tm)  sense of morality and they decide to invade the US in order to supplant the system with a system that ensures more freedom, less property and all the good stuff. In this hypothetical scenario would it be moral? And what is it based on? The humanitarian outcome? Or the established laws of the nations?

This scenario is equivalent to the ticking time bomb scenario where it's simply too unrealistic to give a good answer. That's the problem.

It's not unrealistic to question the morality of the Allies actions in WW2, because it happened.

It wouldn't be unrealistic to question the morality of potentially invading North Korea, for example.

But it is unrealistic to assume that a perfect utopian nation would emerge. There's no information on the motives, the causes, or anything of the sort of this country. It's impossible to even speculate about the morality of it, because anything I say can be countered with a "What if this though?" and it'll lead me to be strawmanned into a position I don't want to hold(not by you.)

[dimreepr]

On 2/3/2019 at 1:06 PM, Raider5678 said:

So, there is a man with a gun. Let's call him Russia.

Russia is about to shoot another man. Let's call him Ukraine.

There is another guy named America standing there. He's holding a gun.

Russia aims the gun at Ukraine and goes to pull the trigger.

 

How do you defend him?

 

[Raider5678]

32 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

how do you know the diplomatic route wouldn't be more effective?

Have you studied World war 2 history at all?

This is utterly ignorant of all that actually happened prior to it.

Austria and Czechoslovakia were both completely annexed by Germany and other surrounding powers. War still happened. 

Do you think the Allies just waited for one little infraction by Germany before declaring war? 

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

this question?

No. The one you quoted.

36 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What would you have done in that situation? Was it wrong for America to invade Germany on D-Day?

 

 

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Have you studied World war 2 history at all?

This is utterly ignorant of all that actually happened prior to it.

Austria and Czechoslovakia were both completely annexed by Germany and other surrounding powers. War still happened. 

Do you think the Allies just waited for one little infraction by Germany before declaring war? 

It's never simple e.g. Why did America sit and watch Ukraine get invaded?

Edited February 4, 2019 by dimreepr

[Raider5678]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Why did America sit and watch Ukraine get invaded?

Because they weren't involved in the war at that time.

They weren't involved when Poland was invaded.

They weren't involved when France was invaded.

They were involved when Austria was invaded.

Now. Are you going to stop gish galloping around and actually answer my questions, or are you going to continue asking random questions that don't make sense, saying other random things to get out of actually giving a straight answer, and just otherwise using circumlocution?

[dimreepr]

29 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Because they weren't involved in the war at that time.

They weren't involved when Poland was invaded.

They weren't involved when France was invaded.

They were involved when Austria was invaded.

Now. Are you going to stop gish galloping around and actually answer my questions, or are you going to continue asking random questions that don't make sense, saying other random things to get out of actually giving a straight answer, and just otherwise using circumlocution?

 

have you finished?

39 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

how do you know the diplomatic route wouldn't be more effective?

Have you studied World war 2 history at all?

This is utterly ignorant of all that actually happened prior to it.

Austria and Czechoslovakia were both completely annexed by Germany and other surrounding powers. War still happened. 

Do you think the Allies just waited for one little infraction by Germany before declaring war? 

your argument is not valid sir... it's like talking to Trump

Edited February 4, 2019 by dimreepr

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

But it is unrealistic to assume that a perfect utopian nation would emerge. There's no information on the motives, the causes, or anything of the sort of this country. It's impossible to even speculate about the morality of it, because anything I say can be countered with a "What if this though?" and it'll lead me to be strawmanned into a position I don't want to hold(not by you.)

You are missing the point of the argument. You are anchoring your arguments on historic events and conduct a post-hoc justification. However, you are missing the background or framework on which the morality of the war is being justified on. Since you mentioned that they can be questioned, it alludes to moral relativism. An that is where my though experiment implies. Here, we got an example where a higher moral claim is made to justify war, the main difference here is that it takes a situation where folks may think they are on a moral high ground, and flips it. What would be the basis to evaluate whether a war is just then? Or to put it differently,  do you apply your personal moral principles to declare a war just? And if so, what if someone else uses their values to declare it unjust? Under these circumstances, how can war be objectively just and hence, moral?

[peterwlocke]

who said war is wrong.  it is in a gray area like guns it is a tool good or bad.

 

[beecee]

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

how do you know the diplomatic route wouldn't be more effective?

I would hazard a guess and say that despots such as Amin and Hitler could not be trusted anyway to abide by any mutually agreed diplomatic route.  

[Raider5678]

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

You are missing the point of the argument. You are anchoring your arguments on historic events and conduct a post-hoc justification. However, you are missing the background or framework on which the morality of the war is being justified on. Since you mentioned that they can be questioned, it alludes to moral relativism. An that is where my though experiment implies. Here, we got an example where a higher moral claim is made to justify war, the main difference here is that it takes a situation where folks may think they are on a moral high ground, and flips it. What would be the basis to evaluate whether a war is just then? Or to put it differently,  do you apply your personal moral principles to declare a war just? And if so, what if someone else uses their values to declare it unjust? Under these circumstances, how can war be objectively just and hence, moral?

So you disagree with my premise that not all wars are moral and not all wars are immoral?

 

[CharonY]

Just now, Raider5678 said:

So you disagree with my premise that not all wars are moral and not all wars are immoral?

 

Not at all. I am saying that in order to assign morality to wars we first have to figure out how we assess morality in the first place. This framework, whatever it would be, would have to be universally applicable and not only through an historic lens.

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, beecee said:

I would hazard a guess and say that despots such as Amin and Hitler could not be trusted anyway to abide by any mutually agreed diplomatic route.  

 

maybe but they might be kept in check, declare war and all bets are off.

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, CharonY said:

Not at all. I am saying that in order to assign morality to wars we first have to figure out how we assess morality in the first place. This framework, whatever it would be, would have to be universally applicable and not only through an historic lens.

2

2

akin to assigning a value to my cheese sandwich.

It's edible, but how hungry are you?

Edited February 5, 2019 by dimreepr

[Itoero]

Maybe the reason for a war can be considered to be 'moral' but in modern warfare numerous innocent people are generally killed because they happen to be in the wrong place. This is mostly because the weaponry  developed/evolved.  Wars used to be fought with sword/spear/bow and it was more about single combat.

Weapons now kill a lot faster and can kill 'many' people at once.(Nuclear/biologic bomb….)

The reason for a war can be considered moral but the war itself is not.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Itoero said:

The reason for a war can be considered moral but the war itself is not.

Why?

If I'm hungry enough to eat stilton...

[Itoero]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Why?

If I'm hungry enough to eat stilton...

How does stilton tastes?

To overthrow  something like Nazism...

Edited February 5, 2019 by Itoero

[dimreepr]

On 2/5/2019 at 2:37 PM, Itoero said:

Maybe the reason for a war can be considered to be 'moral' but in modern warfare numerous innocent people are generally killed because they happen to be in the wrong place. This is mostly because the weaponry  developed/evolved.  Wars used to be fought with sword/spear/bow and it was more about single combat.

Weapons now kill a lot faster and can kill 'many' people at once.(Nuclear/biologic bomb….)

The reason for a war can be considered moral but the war itself is not.

On 2/5/2019 at 7:35 PM, Itoero said:

To overthrow  something like Nazism...

hindsight is the philosophy of fools...

 

[HB of CJ]

Historically wars were fought over Population Pressures.  Economically Wars were/are fought over Resource Depletion.  Politically wars were/are fought over Ideological Differences.  Some scientists say wars are also fought throughout the animal and perhaps the plant kingdom; just at a different time and intensity scale. 

Perhaps Evolution is just another type of war.  Sosss ... are wars morally justified?  I dunno.  Depends upon your point of view and the scope of ones horizons.

Clear as mud.  Hope this helps some.

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, HB of CJ said:

Historically wars were fought over Population Pressures.  Economically Wars were/are fought over Resource Depletion.  Politically wars were/are fought over Ideological Differences.  Some scientists say wars are also fought throughout the animal and perhaps the plant kingdom; just at a different time and intensity scale. 

Perhaps Evolution is just another type of war.  Sosss ... are wars morally justified?  I dunno.  Depends upon your point of view and the scope of ones horizons.

Clear as mud.  Hope this helps some.

2

With hindsight; nope... 

Edited February 8, 2019 by dimreepr

[nymnpseudo]

War does not seem to be morally wrong unless an authority, either yourself, or someone in authority, sets that morality.

"principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

 

"A particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society."   "The extent to which an action is right or wrong."

    I have seen references to Christianity in this discussion.  Jesus Christ said, "Put up thy sword. He who kills with the sword will be killed by the sword."  This is then, a specific commandment of Christianity.

    Christ's immediate predecessor, John the Baptist, commanded soldiers who came to him asking, "What shall we do to inherit the kingdom of God."  He told them, "Do violence to no man."  This translation however has been changed in some publications.  

     So .. for Christians, war should be morally wrong, as their two primary doctrine setters made commandment to abandon war.   In fact, John was preaching to the Jews, so if his authority is recognized, and it was by multitudes of Jews, Jews also should abandon war.  Muslims likewise, recognizing all the prophets in the old and new testaments, should abandon war.  I will not speak on other religions as I know little of them.  

     However, a Christian in any nation may say, 'but the bible says to obey all he laws of the land.'  Yes, but it also says there shall be evil rulers making evil laws, and in that case, we should obey God rather than man.  Also, every nation that I know of has allowed for conscience, that a person does not have to serve if his conscience, whether religious or not, prohibits killing.  (Conscientious objectors, recognized by law.)  

     Reason for war, apart from God commanding the Israelites, seems to have always been for material gain, in our era, money, in previous eras, hunting grounds.  This is totally obvious in our modern era, where crude oil and natural gas is worth $$$$ more than all the gold, silver, diamonds, iron ore and coal put together, and which are the target for every war going on now .. the attempt to make war against Venezuela a prime example, Canada for instance wanting to destroy Venezuela so it can sell more oil on the international market, Canada being in no way more moral than Venezuela as it has immense poverty in every large community and among all races living in Canada, including the highest per capital suicide rates in the world.

     Patriotism affects many, but again, if one recognizes the authority of Christ, patriotism is not a factor, as Christ says, "My kingdom is not of this world."   

     The morality of a regime is evil is always dictated by the regime it opposes.  The United States is an evil regime to the Iranians, the Iranians were an evil regime to the Iraqis during their war, the Northern States were evil to the South in the U.S. civil war, the stone age tribe who won the battle determined the morality of their war against the evilness of the vanquished enemy, the French were evil to the English and the Germans to the Russians and the French to the Black Africans and Canadian socialism is evil to U.S. capitalists who hope to use it as an excuse to invade Canada for control of its crude oil.  

     "Love of money is the root of all evil."  New Testament.  As stone age tribes used wampum and sea shells and stones for money, could we say love of the lucrative Conch supply on a Florida beach is reason for South Carolina and Texas to form an alliance to invade the Keys?  

     Stay tuned for the war coming to your doorstep.

     

     

 

21 hours ago, HB of CJ said:

Historically wars were fought over Population Pressures.  Economically Wars were/are fought over Resource Depletion.  

A United Nations study way back in history in the 70s or 80s reported our planet's capacity of population as, I think it was 40 to 80 billion.  When we see that China with its immense and well fed population, now that it is not being destroyed in war by foreign invaders, exports large amounts of many different kinds of food to the United States, Canada and many other nations, we can easily see where 40 billion could be a reality, and yes I believe 80 billion could be a reality.  And please don't say China's food is inferior, or it would not be on the market here.  So population is definitely NOT a reason for war .. though it is a resource easily led into war through the tried and true method of, "We are being invaded or threatened by an evil empire.'  In the old days, bright blue or red uniforms and fancy hats with white feathers were used to recruit. 

On 2/7/2019 at 9:02 AM, dimreepr said:

hindsight is the philosophy of fools...

 

 

On 2/5/2019 at 2:35 PM, Itoero said:

 

To overthrow  something like Nazism...

Then why did Britain and the U.S. finance Hitler?  Answer .. to overthrow communism in Russia of course, thereby gaining access to the vast oil and mineral wealth within Russian borders.  https://www.globalresearch.ca/history-of-world-war-ii-nazi-germany-was-financed-by-the-federal-reserve-and-the-bank-of-england/5530318  and other sources on that page.  Don't forget that ALL the 'allied' nations turned back Jewish refugees, in the famous ship St. Louis example, and others, before ww2.   https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/voyage-of-the-st-louis   'To save the Jews' was NOT the reason for that war, as the Jewish problem was not recognized by any 'allied' nation until the war was over.  The U.S., by the way, did not enter the war until the Russians had beaten Germany in Russia through Russian destruction of the armies attempting to destroy Moscow, Leningrad, and other major Russian cities, and when it was clear the war was basically over, and that the Russians could end up occupying all or Europe .. THEN the U.S. entered the war to gain control of whatever parts of Europe they could scavenge.  

On 2/4/2019 at 8:21 AM, Raider5678 said:

Have you studied World war 2 history at all?

This is utterly ignorant of all that actually happened prior to it.

Austria and Czechoslovakia were both completely annexed by Germany and other surrounding powers. War still happened. 

Do you think the Allies just waited for one little infraction by Germany before declaring war? 

No. The one you quoted.

 

There were no 'Allies' until the U.S. entered the war AFTER Russian had defeated the German military in Russia .. and practically ALL of Germany's military was IN Russia when they were defeated.  Before the U.S. entered the war as a scavenger the war against Germany was fought by the British Empire.  France was a German ally in  WW2  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Pétain  and welcomed the Germans to France to protect it from the British, almost 200,000 French troops and aircraft fighting against the British-American invasion of North Africa https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/fact-america-france-fought-each-other-during-world-war-ii-22800   Likewise, Austria was a full partner with Germany during the war.  Let's not forget it was England and Canada who declared war on Germany September 3 1939 not the other way around.   Annexation?  If  a city in Canada or the U.S. annexes a county outside its borders, is it a military invasion?  No.  It is an agreement by both entities, so it was with the European nations who allied with Germany KNOWING it was Russia who was eventually to be invaded and all that loot taken from (but they lost of course.)   If you haven't learned how distorted history gets from the era we are now in ('they had weapons of mass destruction .. oops, they had NO weapons of mass destruction and we knew it .. etc.)  you may never learn.

Edited February 8, 2019 by nymnpseudo

[nymnpseudo]

On 2/3/2019 at 7:05 PM, beecee said:

My 10 cents worth, All War is morally and inherently wrong, period!! But situations do exist when one has no choice in the matter, and any moral concern need to be put in incubation for a period. As mentioned, the declaration of war by the British Commonwealth that commenced the WW2 is an example of an evil that was spreading and needed to be excised. 

 

 

 

 

 

You would have done well to stop at your first statement that was worth FAR more than 10cents.

  The destruction of the Jews was not recognized until AFTER the war ended, it was NOT the least reason for WW2.  In fact, before WW2, as you will see in my other posts, Jewish refugees were denied entry to all the 'allied' nations, and returned to Germany.  (Ship St. Louis one example only.)  Regarding the destruction of the Jews, the allied bombing of Germany's farms, food warehouses, food factories,  transportation systems, burning of entire cities, etc., caused the starvation of almost everyone in Germany including the Jews in camps or in hiding.  In fact, the U.S. bombed Buchenwald.  https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/bombing-buchenwald/   There is intense and disgusting propaganda in that article, but even it admits the U.S. bombed that concentration camp.    Jews and Gypsies had always been the most despised people of Europe and indeed throughout the world, in all nations.  In Canada Jews were not allowed to buy property in certain municipalities up to the early 1950s.  https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/bernie-farber/human-rights-canada_b_1510399.html    and          https://www.thestar.com/life/homes/2015/04/17/honouring-the-end-of-real-estate-racism-in-canada.html    

[Itoero]

 

On ‎2‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 3:02 PM, dimreepr said:

hindsight is the philosophy of fools... 

 

 

Edited February 8, 2019 by Itoero

[nymnpseudo]

1 minute ago, Itoero said:

thx

Not at all true.  Hindsight is an EXTREMELY valuable tool.  It's one way we learn.  We all make mistakes, hindsight can correct them.  If anyone calls someone a fool .. they are merely denying the other person is human and therefore errs .. perhaps NOT as much as the person calling the person making the error a fool.  

And in fact regarding the morality of historians' involvement with war did Britain declare war on Germany BEFORE Germany invaded Poland or After?  Certainly George Orwell and modern day ethics teach us anything is possible regarding the writing/rewriting of history.  (We can't count the radio tower incident as an invasion .. it's not proven and can never be proven that Germans dressed as Poles or vise versa were involved .. don't forget some Poles wanted Germany to occupy Poland to defend it from Russia.) 

[Itoero]

1 hour ago, nymnpseudo said:

Then why did Britain and the U.S. finance Hitler?  Answer .. to overthrow communism in Russia of course

So? The question was why the reason for a war could be considered to be moral.

[CharonY]

26 minutes ago, nymnpseudo said:

(We can't count the radio tower incident as an invasion .. it's not proven

Except among historians it is considered mostly settled and I have yet to see a serious claim to the opposite. From historians that is, not random blogs from Nazi apologists.