Morality of War

Is it moral to blindly follow orders?

What constitutes a just war?

Say a policy maker wages an unjust war and orders mass amount of people to their deaths in order to kill mass amounts of other (otherwise innocent) people. Is this not morally comparable to genocide?

Can you tell I'm bored?

Is it moral to blindly follow orders?

No. Its an attempt to claim diminished responsibility.

What constitutes a just war?

Nothing. All wars are about money and wealth. Any politician telling you otherwise is lying. Its a way for one nation to get rich at the expense of another.

Say a policy maker wages an unjust war and orders mass amount of people to their deaths in order to kill mass amounts of other (otherwise innocent) people. Is this not morally comparable to genocide?

If you like.

Can you tell I'm bored?

The fact I bothered answering must surely mean I am more bored.

All wars are immoral if you lose.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on June 01, 2012, 02:59:07 AM

Is it moral to blindly follow orders?

No. Its an attempt to claim diminished responsibility.

Would you consider it immoral?

Quote from: Thork on June 01, 2012, 03:09:42 AM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on June 01, 2012, 02:59:07 AM

Is it moral to blindly follow orders?

No. Its an attempt to claim diminished responsibility.

Would you consider it immoral?

It depends on the orders.

Also, a just war is rare, but they do occur. World War 2, for example, was completely necessary. World War 1 was simply fucking stupid, though.

Also, a just war is rare, but they do occur. World War 2, for example, was completely necessary. World War 1 was simply fucking stupid, though.

Explain your logic, please.

Nothing. All wars are about money and wealth. Any politician telling you otherwise is lying. Its a way for one nation to get rich at the expense of another.

If you believe that using violence in self-defence can be morally justifiable at the level of the individual, I find it difficult to see how you could argue that the same could not be true at the community or group level.


Whether in practice it ever is... well, different story. However, if we think there are some circumstances where interpersonal violence is morally justifiable, surely there must be conceivable situations where inter-community/state violence is morally justifiable.

Quote from: Hazbollah on June 01, 2012, 03:57:54 AM

Also, a just war is rare, but they do occur. World War 2, for example, was completely necessary. World War 1 was simply fucking stupid, though.

Explain your logic, please.

So, you think the Axis shouldn't have been stopped? We should have rolled over as an age of darkness swept the world? I fucking think not.

Quote from: rooster on June 01, 2012, 05:28:42 AM

Quote from: Hazbollah on June 01, 2012, 03:57:54 AM

Also, a just war is rare, but they do occur. World War 2, for example, was completely necessary. World War 1 was simply fucking stupid, though.

Explain your logic, please.

So, you think the Axis shouldn't have been stopped? We should have rolled over as an age of darkness swept the world? I fucking think not.

Way to assume things, bro. I think both wars were necessary.

Ah. World War 1 was going to happen, granted, due to the growing tensions between powers. However, I don't see why it was a necessary conflict.

Ah. World War 1 was going to happen, granted, due to the growing tensions between powers. However, I don't see why it was a necessary conflict.

Because all the great powers were trying to colonize everything and Germany was a big aggressive baby taking its first steps. WWII is basically a continuation of the Great War so it seems like you should see them as both necessary or both pointless.

Nature is a state of war.

World war 2 was necessary, but far from just. There's no such thing as a just war.

Nature is a state of war.

Wow man...that's like, deep.

So, are the wars that God commanded imorral also?

So, are the wars that God commanded imorral also?

Impossible to answer.

Which god?

Hopefully Hades or Mars.

Is it moral to blindly follow orders?

No. It is imorral to not consider your own actions and their consequences. Blindly following orders is immoral in the same way that it would be immoral for a bridge building company to never test the materials they were being supplied with.

What constitutes a just war?

A war that does more good than harm for the world is just. For instance the invasions of Nazi Germany was just because the Nazis were not only subdugating their own people and committing genocide, but they would have continued waging war against everyone untill the planet was under their domination anyway. It would have been unjust to not wage war against them.

Say a policy maker wages an unjust war and orders mass amount of people to their deaths in order to kill mass amounts of other (otherwise innocent) people. Is this not morally comparable to genocide?

Not only is it morally comparible to genocide. It IS genocide.

Can you tell I'm bored?

Who isn't?

___________


To summarise my feelings on war. I don't care what the motivations for the war were. A just war is determined by its cost to the civillians in the warzone, the lives lost in persuing it, and the outcomes that result from it. Men who wage war should not have their motivations looked at. If an unjust war is caused by mistaken information then the leader needs to be punished just as much as waging it without the justification as punishment for not checking their information. However just because inaccurate information was the cause of the war does not mean that the war was necessarily unjust once you look at its results.

Why should I care if people on another continent are being killed by our soldiers?

Quote from: Hazbollah on June 01, 2012, 10:47:46 AM

Ah. World War 1 was going to happen, granted, due to the growing tensions between powers. However, I don't see why it was a necessary conflict.

Because all the great powers were trying to colonize everything and Germany was a big aggressive baby taking its first steps. WWII is basically a continuation of the Great War so it seems like you should see them as both necessary or both pointless.

Not really. World War 2 was necessary because of the giant clusterfuck that was WW1.

Quote from: rooster on June 01, 2012, 10:58:00 AM

Quote from: Hazbollah on June 01, 2012, 10:47:46 AM

Ah. World War 1 was going to happen, granted, due to the growing tensions between powers. However, I don't see why it was a necessary conflict.

Because all the great powers were trying to colonize everything and Germany was a big aggressive baby taking its first steps. WWII is basically a continuation of the Great War so it seems like you should see them as both necessary or both pointless.

Not really. World War 2 was necessary because of the giant clusterfuck that was WW1.

The Treaty of Versailles, specifically. But WWI was necessary because of the clusterfuck that was colonization and expansion and tension. People don't just hand over land respectfully and decline to have a stake as a world power. That would be silly.

I think WW1/WW2 were both Pointless AND necessary

Humanity needed a truly pointless war like that to start to see how bad war is, especailly with modern weapons.

Everyone got the message after that except for the U.S. who sorta jsut swooped in at the end and played hero. Took the Vietnam war to get them to catch up to Europe in that regard.

Is it moral to blindly follow orders?

No.

What constitutes a just war?

A war fought defensively. That is, it is almost never justifiable to be an aggressor.

Say a policy maker wages an unjust war and orders mass amount of people to their deaths in order to kill mass amounts of other (otherwise innocent) people. Is this not morally comparable to genocide?

Yes.

Can you tell I'm bored?

Yes

Quote

What constitutes a just war?

A war fought defensively. That is, it is almost never justifiable to be an aggressor.

That's a bold claim. What if you're aggressing the Supreme Evil?

Quote from: Hazbollah on June 06, 2012, 03:17:30 AM

Quote from: rooster on June 01, 2012, 10:58:00 AM

Quote from: Hazbollah on June 01, 2012, 10:47:46 AM

Ah. World War 1 was going to happen, granted, due to the growing tensions between powers. However, I don't see why it was a necessary conflict.

Because all the great powers were trying to colonize everything and Germany was a big aggressive baby taking its first steps. WWII is basically a continuation of the Great War so it seems like you should see them as both necessary or both pointless.

Not really. World War 2 was necessary because of the giant clusterfuck that was WW1.

The Treaty of Versailles, specifically. But WWI was necessary because of the clusterfuck that was colonization and expansion and tension. People don't just hand over land respectfully and decline to have a stake as a world power. That would be silly.

It was unavoidable that the great powers would start knocking lumps out of each other. The Pacific half of WW2 was testament to that as well. This does not make it necessary.

How could WW2 been resolved without violence? 

How could WW2 been resolved without violence?

How is that a question? You're asking how a fight could end without violence. Shouldn't you be asking how global economy could have been fixed without violence?

Quote from: Wakka Wakka on June 07, 2012, 11:00:05 AM

How could WW2 been resolved without violence?

How is that a question? You're asking how a fight could end without violence. Shouldn't you be asking how global economy could have been fixed without violence?

I mean how could the causes of the war been resolved before violence erupted.

Quote from: rooster on June 07, 2012, 02:59:49 PM

Quote from: Wakka Wakka on June 07, 2012, 11:00:05 AM

How could WW2 been resolved without violence?

How is that a question? You're asking how a fight could end without violence. Shouldn't you be asking how global economy could have been fixed without violence?

I mean how could the causes of the war been resolved before violence erupted.

Surrender.