Blaze The Great Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Shocker. A thread in Serious Discussion got derailed. So, this is now our topic for discussing the morality of war. I'm not sure of a solid jumping-off point, so given the breadth of this topic, so I'll allow someone to bring up a somewhat specific issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwalin2010 Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 (edited) I have already said most of what I had in mind in that other thread, but to sum it up, my opinion is that, while war is a horrible thing by itself, unfortunately at the moment it is impossible to completely eliminate it from this planet, because too few people (especially too few people with power) are interested in the effort. However, recognizing it as something inevitable and embracing the concept are two different things. I personally abhor every kind of military actions except ones finalized to defend something or situations like freeing hostages from terrorists etc. Also, would like to respond to Blah2127's quote from the other thread. As a disclosure on my beliefs, a peasant is less important to me an the Emperor of France. That is because everything an emperor does matters, while a peasant affects relatively little. A successful war can do a nation a lot of good, so by that measure it would be pragmatically justifiable for a leader to win a war at the cost of so,e of their people. I can see pretty well that our two moral compasses are pretty much incompatible, so what do you say we bury the hatchet now? I agree to bury the hatchet, only would like to say why in my opinion the emperor may be less important from a moral point of view than a peasant or other "normal" citizen: because a "normal" citizen may be somebody who values human life and is unable to kill or give an order to kill, while an emperor is almost always capable of such things, otherwise he wouldn't be emperor. Edited July 24, 2015 by Dwalin2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 War is justifiable under these circumstances: to reclaim a nations land, as a preemptive strike, to get something your country needs, and to defend an ally. Of course, these conditions are open to interpretation, and that is when war gets morally grey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze The Great Posted July 24, 2015 Author Share Posted July 24, 2015 I agree to bury the hatchet, only would like to say why in my opinion the emperor may be less important from a moral point of view than a peasant or other "normal" citizen: because a "normal" citizen may be somebody who values human life and is unable to kill or give an order to kill, while an emperor is almost always capable of such things, otherwise he wouldn't be emperor. Sometimes an emperor has to make such tough decisions for the good of his country. Your view has merit, but the opposite is true. If he wasn't able to sacrifice a few for the good of the many, he wouldn't be fit to be emperor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwalin2010 Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Sometimes an emperor has to make such tough decisions for the good of his country. Your view has merit, but the opposite is true. If he wasn't able to sacrifice a few for the good of the many, he wouldn't be fit to be emperor. But unfortunately it's not always sacrificing few for the good of the many. Sometimes it's sacrificing many foreigners to save a few compatriots. That's why I have always thought that "patriotism" is a concept to be very careful with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 is chemical warfare okay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze The Great Posted July 24, 2015 Author Share Posted July 24, 2015 is chemical warfare okay? That question has so many possible answers for so many different situations. Please be more specific, because I can't give just one answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 That question has so many possible answers for so many different situations. Please be more specific, because I can't give just one answer. expand, then. i'm asking generally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naughx Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 (edited) What about using chemicals on your own civilians to justify an "agression" against another country? (False flag) Edited July 24, 2015 by Naughx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 What about using chemicals on your own civilians to justify an "agression" against another country? (False flag) Oh, that's unforgivable for obvious reasons. But unfortunately it's not always sacrificing few for the good of the many. Sometimes it's sacrificing many foreigners to save a few compatriots. That's why I have always thought that "patriotism" is a concept to be very careful with. Patriotism is a dangerous concept, but it isn't for patriotic reasons that an emperor is obligated to protect a few of their people over a bunch of foreigners. An Emperor owes his power and his duty to his people, and no one else's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze The Great Posted July 24, 2015 Author Share Posted July 24, 2015 But unfortunately it's not always sacrificing few for the good of the many. Sometimes it's sacrificing many foreigners to save a few compatriots. That's why I have always thought that "patriotism" is a concept to be very careful with. A ruler's duty is to their own people, not to others. First and foremost, they must protect their people, and if that means sacrificing lives from their enemy's ranks, then so be it. Harsh, but realistic. expand, then. i'm asking generally. Ok. As a general rule, I don't think we should use chemical warfare. However, if it comes down to use chemical warfare or fail some huge objective such as taking a huge enemy base, then yes I think it is justified. Really it all comes down to common sense in most scenarios. Indiscriminate, rampant use of chemical weapons is not ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwalin2010 Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 (edited) A ruler's duty is to their own people, not to others. First and foremost, they must protect their people, and if that means sacrificing lives from their enemy's ranks, then so be it. Harsh, but realistic. Yet, what about the numbers? If it's 1000 foreigners vs 10 compatriots (especially if these 1000 are civilians, maybe women, children and elderly people)? "Duty", you say. In this case it's just an excuse for a coldly made calculation and a "plea bargain" deal with your own conscience. Anyway, I don't think the discussion will get anywhere. "Majority is more important than minority" I can understand, but "compatriot minority" being allegedly more important than "foreign majority" is a logic that shouldn't be used outside video games. Edited July 24, 2015 by Dwalin2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze The Great Posted July 24, 2015 Author Share Posted July 24, 2015 Yet, what about the numbers? If it's 1000 foreigners vs 10 compatriots (especially if these 1000 are civilians, maybe women, children and elderly people)? "Duty", you say. In this case it's just an excuse for a coldly made calculation and a "plea bargain" deal with your own conscience. Anyway, I don't think the discussion will get anywhere. "Majority is more important than minority" I can understand, but "compatriot minority" being allegedly more important than "foreign majority" is a logic that shouldn't be used outside video games. Again, one has to use common sense there. Sacrificing 1000 to save 10 is somewhat ridiculous, but a ruler is duty-bound to their people. That's why they were (hopefully) elected as the ruler of their country. A ruler isn't just any ordinary person. They are chosen because they have desirable traits which would make them a good leader for a country. They are supposed to defend their people, and if they don't do that, they are a failure as a ruler. Also, that is correct that your compatriots are not intrinsically more valuable than your enemies. However, if they are your compatriots, then you should help them, without worrying about your enemies as much. If you don't have to kill your enemies, that's a good thing, but protecting compatriots is more important, in my mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwalin2010 Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 (edited) Again, one has to use common sense there. Sacrificing 1000 to save 10 is somewhat ridiculous, but a ruler is duty-bound to their people. That's why they were (hopefully) elected as the ruler of their country. A ruler isn't just any ordinary person. They are chosen because they have desirable traits which would make them a good leader for a country. They are supposed to defend their people, and if they don't do that, they are a failure as a ruler. Also, that is correct that your compatriots are not intrinsically more valuable than your enemies. However, if they are your compatriots, then you should help them, without worrying about your enemies as much. If you don't have to kill your enemies, that's a good thing, but protecting compatriots is more important, in my mind. I understand what you are saying, but you use the term "enemies". If they are civilians, then even if I were a ruler, I wouldn't consider them enemies. If it's a battle between 2 armies of soldiers, of course for the commander it's better if the enemy loses many and he loses few. The situation I was talking about is a "neutral" one, not about allies and enemies, but when you have to choose between foreign civilians/innocents/unarmed people or whatever we call them and the same kind of people from your country. Theoretically, I think the rule "majority is more important than minority" still applies, even though sacrificing any number of people even to save 10000000000000000000 more would still be an impossibly hard decision, even though a logical one. I personally wouldn't like to be responsible for any death even if this death saved lives. I admit I wouldn't be fit to be a ruler and don't have this kind of ambitions. But, if my opinion had any relevance in choosing a ruler, I would prefer one who doesn't reason in terms of "categories" and if had to sacrifice somebody, would have chosen the majority to save, no matter of their nationality. On the other hand, there may be a situation where I couldn't have followed this rule myself: for example, if I had to choose between a close relative and a major quantity of strangers. This is a situation I can only hope to never be in. Edited July 24, 2015 by Dwalin2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze The Great Posted July 24, 2015 Author Share Posted July 24, 2015 I understand what you are saying, but you use the term "enemies". If they are civilians, then even if I were a ruler, I wouldn't consider them enemies. If it's a battle between 2 armies of soldiers, of course for the commander it's better if the enemy loses many and he loses few. The situation I was talking about is a "neutral" one, not about allies and enemies, but when you have to choose between foreign civilians/innocents/unarmed people or whatever we call them and the same kind of people from your country. Theoretically, I think the rule "majority is more important than minority" still applies, even though sacrificing any number of people even to save 10000000000000000000 more would still be an impossibly hard decision, even though a logical one. I personally wouldn't like to be responsible for any death even if this death saved lives. I admit I wouldn't be fit to be a ruler and don't have this kind of ambitions. But, if my opinion had any relevance in choosing a ruler, I would prefer one who doesn't reason in terms of "categories" and if had to sacrifice somebody, would have chosen the majority to save, no matter of their nationality. On the other hand, there may be a situation where I couldn't have followed this rule myself: for example, if I had to choose between a close relative and a major quantity of strangers. This is a situation I can only hope to never be in. Umm, I'm not sure how a situation would work when in wartime you have to choose between saving your innocent civilians and saving those of your enemy. There would almost have to be soldiers involved somewhere in the dilemma. If civilians are getting tangled up with each other, then they likely aren't acting like "innocent civilians" regardless. It is more likely in that scenario that the foreign civilians are spying or carrying out some other secret military operation in your territory if that is happening. But the statement still stands. Morally, saving x amount of lives is always better than saving x-100 lives. However, from a ruler's standpoint, when you are bound to protect your own people, you should always try to do what is best for your own before doing what is best for others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwalin2010 Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 (edited) Umm, I'm not sure how a situation would work when in wartime you have to choose between saving your innocent civilians and saving those of your enemy. There would almost have to be soldiers involved somewhere in the dilemma. If civilians are getting tangled up with each other, then they likely aren't acting like "innocent civilians" regardless. It is more likely in that scenario that the foreign civilians are spying or carrying out some other secret military operation in your territory if that is happening. But the statement still stands. Morally, saving x amount of lives is always better than saving x-100 lives. However, from a ruler's standpoint, when you are bound to protect your own people, you should always try to do what is best for your own before doing what is best for others. I agree that the situations are usually more complicated than simply having 2 groups and pointing a finger at one and dismissing the other. But theoretically, such a situation could be possible, even though unlikely. For example: we have 2 terrorist hideouts, one has 10 American hostages and the other 100 French hostages. The terrorists are about to kill both groups of hostages, and the ones to free them are American troops who have only enough forces and time to free 1 group at a time, therefore increasing the possibility that the other hostage group will be massacred meanwhile. So, what do you think should they do? Save 10 compatriots or 100 foreigners first? Sorry if the situation I alleged seems too unrealistic, but I couldn't think of a better example just now. Edited July 24, 2015 by Dwalin2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze The Great Posted July 24, 2015 Author Share Posted July 24, 2015 Well it does involve a third party. But the American military also has a primary job of protecting American people. They have to follow their duty/orders, even if some other factor says they shouldn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 a nation saves its own hide before anyone else. Ok. As a general rule, I don't think we should use chemical warfare. However, if it comes down to use chemical warfare or fail some huge objective such as taking a huge enemy base, then yes I think it is justified. Really it all comes down to common sense in most scenarios. Indiscriminate, rampant use of chemical weapons is not ok. i was hoping blah would respond. but anyway, why isn't it ok? what makes chemical weaponry different from strategic bombing? why are chemical weapons taboo? even in war? some think "anything should go" during wartime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Well, lets turn the situation around. If a ruler kills their own people, are they worse or the same as a ruler who kills the same amount of foreigners in your eyes? This is the core of the Hitler vs Stalin debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze The Great Posted July 25, 2015 Author Share Posted July 25, 2015 (edited) a nation saves its own hide before anyone else. i was hoping blah would respond. but anyway, why isn't it ok? what makes chemical weaponry different from strategic bombing? why are chemical weapons taboo? even in war? some think "anything should go" during wartime. They're called weapons of mass destruction for a reason. Potential for damage to civilians or civil infrastructure is much higher. Well, lets turn the situation around. If a ruler kills their own people, are they worse or the same as a ruler who kills the same amount of foreigners in your eyes? This is the core of the Hitler vs Stalin debate. Worse. Yes, I am calling Stalin a worse leader than Hitler. No, there is no reason for you to be shocked. Edited July 25, 2015 by Blaze The Great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwalin2010 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 (edited) Worse. Yes, I am calling Stalin worse than Hitler. No, there is no reason for you to be shocked. I have never been a fan of Stalin of course, but theoretically Hitler made more deaths I think, if we add to the Holocaust victims also everybody who died during the war attacks and the occupation on conquered territories (even if we don't count the soldiers but just the civilians). But why do you think Stalin is worse than Hitler? To me, making a choice in this case would be pretty hard. Anyway, I think the worst dictator in history was Pol Pot: only massacres and no improvement not even on a purely political level. I mean, Hitler and Stalin committed atrocities, but made their countries stronger (even though this does in absolutely no way justify what they did). Pol Pot, on the other hand, accomplished absolutely nothing other than making a big slaughterhouse. Well, lets turn the situation around. If a ruler kills their own people, are they worse or the same as a ruler who kills the same amount of foreigners in your eyes? This is the core of the Hitler vs Stalin debate. I think it's the same whether he kills compatriots or foreigners, it's an equally dangerous murderer. Edited July 25, 2015 by Dwalin2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze The Great Posted July 25, 2015 Author Share Posted July 25, 2015 I have never been a fan of Stalin of course, but theoretically Hitler made more deaths I think, if we add to the Holocaust victims also everybody who died during the war attacks and the occupation on conquered territories (even if we don't count the soldiers but just the civilians). But why do you think Stalin is worse than Hitler? To me, making a choice in this case would be pretty hard. Anyway, I think the worst dictator in history was Pol Pot: only massacres and no improvement not even on a purely political level. I mean, Hitler and Stalin committed atrocities, but made their countries stronger (even though this does in absolutely no way justify what they did). Pol Pot, on the other hand, accomplished absolutely nothing other than making a big slaughterhouse. Woops, I messed up my post. I was literally thinking as I typed it that I needed to mention that Stalin is a worse LEADER than Hitler. As for who is a worse person, I'm not going to say, because they are both terrible beyond belief. But considering that Stalin had a body count in the millions of HIS OWN PEOPLE, and Hitler, despite having a higher body count overall, killed mostly foreigners, I think that that makes Stalin a worse leader overall. Pol Pot was terrible. Also on the dishonorable mention I would add Mao Zedong to the list. I'm fairly certain no other leader in modern history has been responsible for more deaths during their regime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 (edited) They're called weapons of mass destruction for a reason. Potential for damage to civilians or civil infrastructure is much higher. i'm not sure why it matters if killing civilians is the goal (as is the case in strategic bombing--destroying morale, economy, etc. etc.). the point is, even war has rules to it, as crazy as it sounds. "all's fair in...war" isn't a cute adage that's actually true or should be taken seriously. purposefully targeting civilians should be punishable by legal councils or something, soldiers shouldn't (and i guess aren't sometimes) be allowed to rape and pillage cities that are taken over. after your enemy surrenders, you aren't allowed to completely destroy the nation. the reason the victor(s) isn't (aren't) tried for war crimes is because no one is there to actually enforce the "law". in the future, some board in the united nations can possibly carry out punishment for even the victors after war. it's crazy to simply chalk things up to, "that's war!" if it were an actual excuse, much worse things would be allowed to happen during its time. Edited July 25, 2015 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naughx Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 (edited) Anyway, I think the worst dictator in history was Pol Pot: only massacres and no improvement not even on a purely political level. I mean, Hitler and Stalin committed atrocities, but made their countries stronger (even though this does in absolutely no way justify what they did). Pol Pot, on the other hand, accomplished absolutely nothing other than making a big slaughterhouse. Pol Pot... Killing intellectuals and everybody who wore glasses, that's clearly the most effective way to destroy your economy and repel innovations. Edited July 25, 2015 by Naughx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 a nation saves its own hide before anyone else. i was hoping blah would respond. but anyway, why isn't it ok? what makes chemical weaponry different from strategic bombing? why are chemical weapons taboo? even in war? some think "anything should go" during wartime. Chemical weapons are a lot more likely to hit your own troops than a targeted bombing attack. It can impact those involved long after the war is over (DDT is an example, even if it wasn't used in chemical warfare). Now, if there was some sort of substance that could incapacitate a populated center for a relatively short period of time with a low mortality rate (say, a month), did not linger, and kept structures intact. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.