Serious War & Morality

[Classical]

Is war inevitable, for all people at all times?

• Will there ever be a point in human history that we no longer war?

Can an entity of people enter into a war with the prime motivator being moral?

• If yes, what kind of moral breech would constitute such reaction?
• If yes, what is the determining force that defines the morality upon which we act? (Are we merely imposing our own culture's morals, or is there a higher morality that transcends culture?)
• If yes, then can the head of above mentioned entity draft troops who disagree with the cause of the intervention or the severity of it?
• If yes, are there methods of war that are inherently evil and can not be used or does the end justify the means?

• If no, why? (Is it all war is innately evil? The value of the life lost? The amount of suffering put forth... etc.)

This is a serious question I was thinking over and would like to be able to discuss with people, to understand where the western mindset exists upon it. We are a culture so divorced and far flung from war it has become an idea that none of us truly know. We create idols of the combat through television, movies, and video games, while our soldiers who actually do these things come home broken and we stare at them telling them to get better while having no idea of what they have been through.

I'm going to attempt to respond to all responses, if intelligent and reasonable, and play devils advocate for both sides. To play fair I'm going to present where I stand upon the issue. Feel free to attack my views and I'll defend them as best as I can, while at the same time refuting yours. Please listen to reason and I'll happily send a message to lock the thread to a Mod if people begin merely throwing poo at each other by using the espousing the same rhetoric while ignoring what the opposition presents.

Where Classy stands on it

Is war inevitable, for all people at all times? Yes. I believe that there is something wrong with humanity as a whole, and we will never outgrow war outside of divine intervention.

• Will there ever be a point in human history that we no longer war?

Can an entity of people enter into a war with the prime motivator being moral? Yes.

• If yes, what kind of moral breech would constitute such reaction? The utter disregard of human life to the point that intervention is less costly then to allow it to continue, that is less costly in terms of human lives that die. So primarily the acts are institutionalized and systematized subjugation and genocide of people.
• If yes, what is the determining force that defines the morality upon which we act? (Are we merely imposing our own culture's morals, or is there a higher morality that transcends culture?) I believe that there is a higher standard for morality that comes from a creator.
• If yes, then can the head of above mentioned entity draft troops who disagree with the cause of the intervention or the severity of it? In a war based on morality soldiers who do not believe in the cause are counter productive to the purpose in that they cause suffering to themselves and thus can not be drafted.
• If yes, are there methods of war that are inherently evil and can not be used or does the end justify the means? Anything that offers risk of killing non-combatants is amoral.

 

[viol and bass]

I agree with you almost entirely, with the exception of the "creator" bit. So many lives have been lost as a result of the faith on the part of an aggressor that God is on his side. The problem is that this faith has a tendency to replace legitimate moral justification. Think about the crusades in the context of a religion whose deity advocates peace and of which a major commandment is not to kill. If moral judgement is filtered through the context of religion, that's alright, as long as it can be viewed objectively and as long as it's self-consistent. But this is rarely if ever true. I think morality can exist without religion, and I think, while morality is different in different cultures, there are aspects that tend to be shared, and that generally if war is being considered, it should be a reaction to something pretty abhorrent and clearly morally wrong.

 

[Shinryu]

So if you enter into a war based on morals...what makes your morals anymore right than the other side?

 

[Crux]

Did you just discover moral relativism in high school?

 

[Shiruba]

Did you just discover moral relativism in high school?

who's this question addressed to?

 

[the pugilist]

 

[Classical]

So if you enter into a war based on morals...what makes your morals anymore right than the other side?

The first question being yes necessitates the third, of some sort of higher standard being applicable to the rest of humanity. Whether that is a creator, something innate in humanity as a whole, or even just human society on a global scale being a standard which to all are held. You could even argue from their that your power is your justification; however it is super dangerous to claim that because you're by reasoning saying that anyone with power has the right to do what is in front of them, and then Hitler is justified in the holocaust.

 

[Cresselia~~]

Well, I'm from the East instead of the West.
I view all wars as evil, and an excuse to murder, conquer and exploit foreign resources.
Governments that engage in wars never tell you that and invent excuses that sounds nice. In reality, all US wars towards foreign countries are resource based, including the war towards Iraq.
In fact, the reasons you hear on the news would never ever be the real reasons, they are all made up to cover over things.
I also believe that 2 wrongs don't make 1 right. God or not, if you are in a war, you are committing murder.

 

[Classical]

Well, I'm from the East instead of the West.
I view all wars as evil, and an excuse to murder, conquer and exploit foreign resources.
Governments that engage in wars never tell you that and invent excuses that sounds nice. In reality, all US wars towards foreign countries are resource based, including the war towards Iraq.
In fact, the reasons you hear on the news would never ever be the real reasons, they are all made up to cover over things.
I also believe that 2 wrongs don't make 1 right. God or not, if you are in a war, you are committing murder.

The conversation is not speaking of wars that have happened or are happening. The question exists in a hypothetical vacuum, with no other factors be that of economic gain, or revenge tied to emotion, but from a purely moral standpoint can a country enter into a war and be justified in doing so?

When the united states inserted itself into the second world war, specifically the western campaign against Germany was the world a better place for it? The only cause that they had to enter into the war was truly pearl harbor which along with alliances to justify war with Hitler's third Reich. So without proper provocation the US moved into a war with a tyrant for the purposes of defending their allies. Was the war that the US brought to Europe justifiable?

 

[Trax]

When the united states inserted itself into the second world war, specifically the western campaign against Germany was the world a better place for it? The only cause that they had to enter into the war was truly pearl harbor which along with alliances to justify war with Hitler's third Reich. So without proper provocation the US moved into a war with a tyrant for the purposes of defending their allies. Was the war that the US brought to Europe justifiable?

Lets combine what we know about conditions for dissidents in the Soviet Union (gulags etc), with what could've happened had the US sat out the European part of WW2 (plausible scenario: the Red Army takes control of basically all of continental Europe and likely massacres the Finnish population). I'm going to have to go with the end result being largely favourable.

 

[Classical]

Or Germany no longer has to fight a war on two fronts and the proceeds to control all of continental europe. Either Red state, or super reich.

 

[Cresselia~~]

The conversation is not speaking of wars that have happened or are happening. The question exists in a hypothetical vacuum, with no other factors be that of economic gain, or revenge tied to emotion, but from a purely moral standpoint can a country enter into a war and be justified in doing so?

When the united states inserted itself into the second world war, specifically the western campaign against Germany was the world a better place for it? The only cause that they had to enter into the war was truly pearl harbor which along with alliances to justify war with Hitler's third Reich. So without proper provocation the US moved into a war with a tyrant for the purposes of defending their allies. Was the war that the US brought to Europe justifiable?

Regardless to that, my " 2 wrongs don't make 1 right. God or not, if you are in a war, you are committing murder." still applies.

 

[Classical]

Regardless to that, my " 2 wrongs don't make 1 right. God or not, if you are in a war, you are committing murder." still applies.

So to clarify, this would mean all capital punishment is also evil?
What brought you to this conclusion regarding the death of humans?

 

[Blazade]

For me this question kind of extends to, "To what extent is a necessary evil prohibited by a moral system?"

I personally believe a group of self-interested humans can and do readily derive morality from common goals. The trap of war is that it can be good and sometimes even necessary in the short term, but it promotes poor global culture. We've relied on it at points to fuel the economy, we're wary about all the potential destruction other nations could cause that's out of our control, and we're rather desensitized to the notion of killing people on the basis of ideas.

Sure, it's one thing to say that we need it to satisfy other goals, and in fact it can sometimes be the only option, and in this case I would call it moral. However, I think that the long term consideration isn't weighed nearly often enough, and we as a race have a far too itchy trigger finger when it comes to these things. Imagine if there wasn't a major war or threat of one going on somewhere constantly or erupting every 10 or so years. Then our kids wouldn't be as inclined to grow up thinking of war as a necessary measure to take over smaller differences.

I believe morality is at it's core a long term endeavor. The true meat in a moral code is the set of decisions you make that seem counterintuitve in the short term, but which serve your long term goals directly or indirectly.

 

[Classical]

I've the OP to include another question, some that I believe will spark some interesting thought and conversation regarding the topic, is war inevitable?

For me this question kind of extends to, "To what extent is a necessary evil prohibited by a moral system?"

I personally believe a group of self-interested humans can and do readily derive morality from common goals. The trap of war is that it can be good and sometimes even necessary in the short term, but it promotes poor global culture. We've relied on it at points to fuel the economy, we're wary about all the potential destruction other nations could cause that's out of our control, and we're rather desensitized to the notion of killing people on the basis of ideas.

Sure, it's one thing to say that we need it to satisfy other goals, and in fact it can sometimes be the only option, and in this case I would call it moral. However, I think that the long term consideration isn't weighed nearly often enough, and we as a race have a far too itchy trigger finger when it comes to these things. Imagine if there wasn't a major war or threat of one going on somewhere constantly or erupting every 10 or so years. Then our kids wouldn't be as inclined to grow up thinking of war as a necessary measure to take over smaller differences.

I believe morality is at it's core a long term endeavor. The true meat in a moral code is the set of decisions you make that seem counterintuitve in the short term, but which serve your long term goals directly or indirectly.

Blazade, I think we have a primary disagreement upon our definition of moral, the usage that I'm using, "Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character." For me morality is an objective fact, but for you it is a subjective one. I suppose a way to frame the question would be to use ethical instead of moral or perhaps present it as such, "Can a people enter into a combative war with the primary reasoning being they believe the other side is doing things that are 'wrong' or 'Evil' and be justified in such a war?"

 

[Cresselia~~]

So to clarify, this would mean all capital punishment is also evil?
What brought you to this conclusion regarding the death of humans?

Well, my opinion is that, if you can prevent more people from being killed by killing a smaller amount of people, such as death penalty to serial killers, then it's not that bad.
Or if you kill a prime minister or whoever who had announced a bigger war, or mass killing of a larger crowd than the amount of people you need to kill.
But it's still not that good neither. I know it is justice, but whether it is the best choice it is still in the question.

 

[Classical]

Well, my opinion is that, if you can prevent more people from being killed by killing a smaller amount of people, such as death penalty to serial killers, then it's not that bad.
Or if you kill a prime minister or whoever who had announced a bigger war, or mass killing of a larger crowd than the amount of people you need to kill.
But it's still not that good neither. I know it is justice, but whether it is the best choice it is still in the question.

Paraphrasing a book I can't remember.

"You can't judge a war on whether it was good or bad, all wars are bad, all you can is ask is 'was it worth fighting?'"

 

[Stratos]

Regardless to that, my " 2 wrongs don't make 1 right. God or not, if you are in a war, you are committing murder." still applies.

you're ethnically chinese, right? how would you feel if the united states had not waged war against japan?

 

[Bughouse]

16:35 srk1214 war is bad
16:35 srk1214 just let us take over all of our old properties we gained through war a thousand years ago
16:35 Pwnemon lol
16:35 srk1214 they're still totally ours
16:35 Pwnemon "war is bad, tibet sucks"

 

[Crux]

Well, my opinion is that, if you can prevent more people from being killed by killing a smaller amount of people, such as death penalty to serial killers, then it's not that bad.
Or if you kill a prime minister or whoever who had announced a bigger war, or mass killing of a larger crowd than the amount of people you need to kill.
But it's still not that good neither. I know it is justice, but whether it is the best choice it is still in the question.

Pwnemon and everyone else bugging her, this pretty much shows that jynx would be willing for a country to go to war if it reduced the loss of life or suffering felt by a group of people. Please read the posts of people you are responding to in future :)

 

[billymills]

War is not inevitable for all people at all times.
I am not currently at war.

An entity of people can enter into a war with the prime motivator being moral.
Conflict between two parties is acceptable, moral, and sometimes beneficial. Conflict sometimes escalates. At some point in the escalation, it may become war. Sometimes the reasons for escalation are immoral. Sometimes they are moral, but poorly thought out. Sometimes they are moral and thought out.

• If yes, what kind of moral breech would constitute such reaction?

If I could come up with a simple moral breech that I would consider declaring war over, I would have a very rough day. War does not happen overnight. Look into some of the causes of any war, in detail, not just the ignition points.

• If yes, what is the determining force that defines the morality upon which we act? (Are we merely imposing our own culture's morals, or is there a higher morality that transcends culture?)

Each person chooses whatever they want to do however they want to. People can acknowledge or ignore others' morals as they see fit.

• If yes, then can the head of above mentioned entity draft troops who disagree with the cause of the intervention or the severity of it?

If he wanted to I guess.

• If yes, are there methods of war that are inherently evil and can not be used or does the end justify the means?

Nothing is inherently evil. There are things I would stand up against, and may expect others to support me against, but I would never expect unanimous opposition to any method of war.
A method that can not be used is not a method. It is a paradox.

 

[Shiruba]

Yes, for this question to take flight, one must figure out what one means by "murder". The termination of a human life before its 'natural' clock would dictate it to be such? Would you say mercy killing or manslaughter is the same thing? Killing is murder no matter the circumstance and must be treated equally? If not, are there different types of murder morally? What constitutes a martyr as opposed to a murder? In the end everything is subjective; the worth of a human life, weighing human happiness over human life, life outside of the human population. It more or less confirms which subjective views we deem important and which we deem less so; to some, for example, religion is a poor excuse to war with others, and to others, it is the best reason to engage in conflicts.

How deep does your moral basin go? Identifying when and how the killing of others [do you identify "others" as human beings, sentient beings, or living beings?] is wrong [if it is at all] is key to developing one's stance on this issue more fully.

Is the purpose of this thread mainly to come up with a generally accepted conclusion, or to develop a personal viewpoint of the subject?

e:
Is war inevitable, for all people at all times?
Clearly not. I'm personally not at war, I suspect you aren't either, unless we're going into some deep "war against society" or "war against myself" talk.

Will there ever be a point in human history that we no longer war?
How the fuck should we know? We're Smogonites, not psychics.

Can an entity of people enter into a war with the prime motivator being moral?
Clearly. You could trace all war back to "morality" at some point - profit over pacifism, conquest over complacence, etc.

If yes, what kind of moral breech would constitute such reaction?
Nothing set in stone, really. People will fight at the drop of a hat if they want an excuse to, or will go to great extents to not to if the stakes are too high. Depends on how many people get involved in the shitstorm. What do you consider a war to be, in terms of scale?

If yes, what is the determining force that defines the morality upon which we act? (Are we merely imposing our own culture's morals, or is there a higher morality that transcends culture?)
Unless you believe in some form of a deity or some kind of all-knowing force that has a strict set of guidelines that you believe all humans must live by, there is no morality that is objective - and even then, is your interpretation of their guidelines not subjective, at least to some agree? We start to see a No True Roman phenomenon with stuff like this, where even people within their own faction face internal dissent at least minorly because they interpret a command differently or judge its importance differently.

If yes, then can the head of above mentioned entity draft troops who disagree with the cause of the intervention or the severity of it?
Technically they can, and for purely logical reasons you should probably attempt to squash any kind of rebellion unless you fear that a possible The Dog Bites Back situation due to feelings of rebellion being strong or the outcast being very popular among the ranks. Fear is a fairly poor motivator for the long run because of the above trope, but if you need something done and done quickly, I find that intimidation is a decent way to go about it.

If yes, are there methods of war that are inherently evil and can not be used or does the end justify the means?
Evil is a concept that we [and possibly other species that are sentient enough to be self-reflective and to assign "intrinsic" meaning to the world around them] have assigned to various ideals, actions, etc. "Evil" is extremely subjective - particularly in the age of conquest, non-Christian religions were considered evil, when clearly those who followed them did not think so. Particularly Aztecs who were - and, in fact, are - notorious for how liberally and brutally they would murder others, so clearly human lives weren't amazingly important to them.

If no, why? (Is it all war is innately evil? The value of the life lost? The amount of suffering put forth... etc.)
Money has no value aside from that which is put on it by society, and likewise are other items or ideals of value not valuable if they are not accepted as such at the very least the individual, though most values are inherited from a society that the person is a part of. The same goes for life, morality, etc. I do indeed agree with the concept of life having value, but I in no way claim to agree to such a thing being universal, as it is demonstrably not.

 

[blitzlefan]

Personally, I believe that morality is a luxury reserved for peacetime. Morality is important and has it's purposes, but in times of crises you cannot call upon a moral high ground to save you. During war, morality should not be an issue, at least in regards to killing on the battlefield, and therefore, killing does not equal murder in such times (at least in my eyes). I also believe that killing bad people for the common good (death penalty) is justified, and I really don't understand the objections to it, outside of the fact that accused persons may not necessarily be guilty.

 

[Myzozoa]

If yes, what is the determining force that defines the morality upon which we act? (Are we merely imposing our own culture's morals, or is there a higher morality that transcends culture?)

I believe that there is a higher standard for morality that comes from a creator.

Your assertion, that there is a higher morality determined by a creator, is a product of a cultural knowledge formation. Just because you are aware that the validity of your argument rests on the existence of objective morality, doesn't mean that this knowledge itself wasn't culturally produced, in fact it is a result of a discourse 'ethics/logic' which has been culturally constructed.

In other words: knowledge of transcendent morality is itself produced socially. You cannot escape cultural knowledge formations, and there is no limit to this: the attribute of being socially, culturally, produced is intrinsic to knowledge. We can analyze OUTCOMES produced by ethical systems, for example we can attempt to evaluate the Soviet notion of communism based on the outcomes manifest, but that analysis will be informed by the author's culture, and so analysis never escapes the environs of the culture in which it was produced, even on a Pragmatic treatment (a treatment that asks whether the results of an ethical theory are useful, rather than arguing for an ethical theory). There is no transcendence through self-consciousness.

Secondly, you must tell me a story about how nations or actors, come to KNOW this transcendent morality. If they don't have any route to objective knowledge, then they will continue to operate along the lines of cultural morality.

All moral systems that assert some form of objectivity are 'transcendent' enough for the purposes of your argument, but how do we figure out which one is the 'true' transcendent morality? Indeed, Hitler, Mao, Stalin all had transcendent moral systems to invoke to the result of what many decry as horrible ethical violations. No one is better off for transcendent morality, except that I say I am better off with my transcendent morality, and you say you are better off with yours.

As for the morality of 'war', this is easily misunderstood. The moral status of a war is merely the same as the validity of the moral justifications of that war...

but to such knowledge we never attain.

 

[Shiruba]

I interpreted it as "absolute truths" being subjective in and of themselves, which does answer many questions of the OP, with these two being addressed in particular:

• If yes, what is the determining force that defines the morality upon which we act? (Are we merely imposing our own culture's morals, or is there a higher morality that transcends culture?)
  • If yes, are there methods of war that are inherently evil and can not be used or does the end justify the means?

If that is the case, I do think it is on topic, as that is indeed how most attempt to justify war, no?
That said, I could be totally wrong. It's nearly two in the morning here, and I did have to read that passage about three times to actually understand it.