NationStates Jolt Archive

I recieved so many replies to my last thread on whether war is immoral and evry1 was so split about it that I'm going to put up a poll. The question is asking in general about all wars from the ancient romans to the the modern Muslims. My last thread was at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=478923

Most are. About the only ones I can think of that are fairly moral are WWII, possibly the American War of Independence...there are probably a few I'm forgetting.

But generally yes.

So you're asking if there is a cause high enough to justify significant loss of human life at the hands of other humans.

Even if there were, wouldn't that mean that only half of the war was moral, as the other party would necessarily be opposing that cause?

It's totally impossible to generalize. In my opinion, some wars (World War II - at least in Europe - springs to mind) had to be fought. If Hitler had just conquered Europe, the world would be a really screwed up place right now, but most other wars, like Iraq, WWI, Vietnam, Korea, Napoleonic Wars, American Civil War, and even maybe the American Revolutionary war, were pretty pointless. So if war can be chalked up to a difference of opinion, the combatants are either stupid or insane.

While its true that the specific wars that you mentioned were and are immoral, war in general is not immoral. War is neutral. Wars that are conducted for selfish reasons are immoral. Wars that have to be fought in order to accomplish a greater good (such as the liberation of Jews from concentration camps or the freeing of enslaved people) are not immoral, and are in fact an honorable undertaking that we should support. That's what I believed

It's totally impossible to generalize. In my opinion, some wars (World War II - at least in Europe - springs to mind) had to be fought. If Hitler had just conquered Europe, the world would be a really screwed up place right now, but most other wars, like Iraq, WWI, Vietnam, Korea, Napoleonic Wars, American Civil War, and even maybe the American Revolutionary war, were pretty pointless. So if war can be chalked up to a difference of opinion, the combatants are either stupid or insane.

The Korean war was pointless? From which viewpoint, North or South, was the Korean War pointless?

War is immoral. Just like theft, it causes harm to others and is thus the closest thing to “wrong” there there is.

However, also like theft, war is something that you have to do sometimes in extreme situations in order to survive.

It's totally impossible to generalize. In my opinion, some wars (World War II - at least in Europe - springs to mind) had to be fought. If Hitler had just conquered Europe, the world would be a really screwed up place right now *snip*
if Hitler had won, the war would not have been immoral, because the winners write the history books. that's a wonderful case though, since Nazi propaganda centred on the morality of bringing the aryan race back to its rightful place.

The Korean war was pointless? From which viewpoint, North or South, was the Korean War pointless?
From the American perspective it was pointless.

combatants in war almost always fight for what they think is right or at least for there families this position is almost always moral usually on both sides. Politicians also are moral in a sense because they usually go to war for the good of there people or at least because they think that it is the right thing to do (basically Imperialism is moral in the imperialist mind)

Of course what Morals are is still argued over so that might be a better question

(such as the liberation of Jews from concentration camps or the freeing of enslaved people) are not immoral, and are in fact an honorable undertaking that we should support. That's what I believed

but WWII wasn't fought to free the Jews or any other race (in fact if it was it would be an infringement on a nations sovereignty) it was mainly fought due to an obligation to Poland

From the American perspective it was pointless.

I don't see how you figure that. North Korea invaded South Korea. The UN Security voted to help out South Korea after the Russians walked out of the security council. The invasion was finally repelled and South Korea is a flourishing Democracy. I'm an American and don't think what the UN did was pointless. But, that's my opinion.

While its true that the specific wars that you mentioned were and are immoral, war in general is not immoral. War is neutral. Wars that are conducted for selfish reasons are immoral. Wars that have to be fought in order to accomplish a greater good (such as the liberation of Jews from concentration camps or the freeing of enslaved people) are not immoral, and are in fact an honorable undertaking that we should support. That's what I believed

So yur saying that the justification of millions upon millions of lives and sufering and debts and rage was to save just other millions of lives and suffering and debts and rage. I see some circle going on here... that we cant escape!

So yur saying that the justification of millions upon millions of lives and sufering and debts and rage was to save just other millions of lives and suffering and debts and rage. I see some circle going on here... that we cant escape!
this reminds me of an argument by the Canadian conservatives that we should have gone to war in Iraq so our trade relations with the US would be better. Just think of how much money we lost by not killing people!

sarcasm aside, war is not immoral, because i argue that it is the moral obligation of the best-endowed nations to bring said order to less well-off nations. it is simply a matter of who wins the war as to whether or not the action was 'just'.

Most are. About the only ones I can think of that are fairly moral are WWII, possibly the American War of Independence...there are probably a few I'm forgetting?

But generally yes.
Just as a matter of interest, what about the Irish War of Independence?

Personally I believe that war is immoral. Always. As is killing another person. But sometimes it is less immoral to kill someone or to start a war than to not do so.

Celtlund, until the 1980s South Korea was a de facto dictatorship... So much for defending democracy. (With the exception of the one year of the Second Republic.)

Violence for any sake except for reducing violence is immoral. Therefore the vast majority of wars are immoral

Violence for any sake except for reducing violence is immoral. Therefore the vast majority of wars are immoral
define 'reducing violence'. the US attacked Iraq to prevent potential future violence. was this moral?

The fact that a war had to be fought does not make it morally good. It makes it morally justified. War is always an evil, it is just sometimes the lesser of two evils.

Defending and assisting those who defend is morally justifiable. You are allowed to stand up to invaders or oppressors, and you are also allowed to stand with those who do likewise. Aggression is not, regardless of motive.

The fact that a war had to be fought does not make it morally good. It makes it morally justified. War is always an evil, it is just sometimes the lesser of two evils.
That's probably the best way of summing up my views on the topic.

You need a neutral poll option, because war can be both moral and immoral(depending the cause)

war can be justified(WWII, Afghanistan, Korea) and war can be usless(WWI, 1812(for USA), and Vietnam). Iraq "could" of been justified had the proper reasons been used(Saddam should of been taken out of power a long time ago). But right now, North Korea should of been invaded instead of Iraq(N.Korea actually admits having WMD) while Iran is coming pretty close to. We can't wait for Iran to nuke Israel in order to find a "justified" reason to invade them, if we do it now, it can save millions(of lives, not money)

You need a neutral poll option, because war can be both moral and immoral(depending the cause)

war can be justified(WWII, Afghanistan, Korea) and war can be usless(WWI, 1812(for USA), and Vietnam). Iraq "could" of been justified had the proper reasons been used(Saddam should of been taken out of power a long time ago). But right now, North Korea should of been invaded instead of Iraq(N.Korea actually admits having WMD) while Iran is coming pretty close to. We can't wait for Iran to nuke Israel in order to find a "justified" reason to invade them, if we do it now, it can save millions(of lives, not money)

Why is it certain countries are not allowed nuclear weapons? Why can the U.S keep it's nukes after killing so many people with them? All these rules and regs were written by our democratic countries, as is the definition of freedom and human rights. The moral justification for war comes retrospectively. Difficult, therefore, to assess a Europe ruled by Nazis. May have worked!

i cant hav a neutral option becuz ever1 wud go for that since many ppl havnt experienced war and dont kno wat happens during it. For example, All Quiet on the Western Front displays the torments and diillusion during WWI. The terrible consequences of war demoralize and wound the soldiers mentally and physically.

The Viet Nam war hurt so many soldiers mentally that most of them came back abusive, poor, and mentally unstable. Some even came under a vegetative state.

:eek: :sniper:

War is generally immoral because it causes innocent people to die, but it is sometimes justifiable in the name of self-defence or self-determination.

(snip) Why can the U.S keep it's nukes after killing so many people with them? (snip)
I'll say this in answer to this asnine question.

The American Strategic Nuclear Arsenal is a deterrent to future large scale conflict. It makes the price for a rational opponent to high to actually consider the action.

After the entirely justifed use at the end of World War II*, the doctorine has been primarly to keep off a large scale war. The possession of nuclear weapons by both sides actually reduced the chance for a shooting war. Both sides knew ANY exchange would ruin both sides, so the direct action was reduced to proxy wars in the Third World.

*I'm making the assertion the use of nuclear weapons on Japan as being justifed by the results of Operations CORONET and OLYMPIC. Massive American casualties were expected, and would have exceeded predictions from Japanese prepardness (schoolgirls with awls, massive kamikazi attacks). Hell, our current stock of Purple Heart medals date from WWII.

In reply to the original question, War is neither moral nor immoral. It exists as a part of the human condition.

What we get out of it is what matters.

War is a natural thing for humans and will never be classified as immoral or moral. It's just that. Humans will never stop warring. Live with it and adapt to it.

War is a natural thing for humans and will never be classified as immoral or moral. It's just that. Humans will never stop warring. Live with it and adapt to it.

Cannibalism is a natural thing for humans and will never be classified as immoral or moral. It's just that. Humans will never stop eating each other. Live with it and adapt to it.

Of course war is immoral, but it's not like that's ever stopped anyone before.

Cannibalism is a natural thing for humans and will never be classified as immoral or moral. It's just that. Humans will never stop eating each other. Live with it and adapt to it.

Cannibalism is not natural or instinctive.

War is a human INSTINCT.

Cannibalism is not natural or instinctive.

War is a human INSTINCT.

I don't think you can classify war as an instinct. Reproducing, staying-alive and eating your neighbour's wife are real examples of human instincts.

Of course most wars are wrong. Killing is bad. The Bible says so, but just like in the Bible, not all killing is bad. What we’re doing in Iraq, that’s right because we’re bringing peace.

MOst wars are immorral. The only ones I've ever approved of are revolutions, such as American, Cuban, Chinese, etc, World War 2, and thats the only ones I can think of off the top of my head.

How many of these threads do you have? Isn't one enough?

Many wars are immoral, and many wars are VERY moral.

A completely moral war follows these guidelines

Just Cause: Force may be used only to correct a grave public evil (e.g. a massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations) or in defense;

Comparative Justice: While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other;

Legitimate Authority: Only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war;

Right Intention: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose- correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

Probability of Success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;

Proportionality: The overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved.

Last Resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.

War conduct should be governed by the principle of discrimination. The acts of war should be directed towards the inflictors of the wrong, and not towards civilians caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military target and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against ordinary civilians. Some believe that this rule forbids weapons of mass destruction of any kind, for any reason (such as the use of an atomic bomb).
War conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. The force used must be proportional to the wrong endured, and to the possible good that may come. The more disproportional the number of collateral civilian deaths, the more suspect will be the sincerity of a belligerent nation's claim to justness of a war it initiated.
War conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. A certain amount of force must not be used if a lesser amount of force would accomplish the same goals. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction. It is different from proportionality because the amount of force proportionate to the goal of the mission might exceed the amount of force necessary to accomplish that mission.
Torture, of combatants or non-combatants, is forbidden.
Prisoners of war must be treated respectfully.
Conscription is prohibited.

A war should be ended by the following:

Just cause for termination - A state may terminate a war if there has been a reasonable vindication of the rights that were violated in the first place, and if the aggressor is willing to negotiate the terms of surrender. These terms of surrender include a formal apology, compensations, war crimes trials and perhaps rehabilitation.
Right intention - A state must only terminate a war under the conditions agreed upon in the above criteria. Revenge is not permitted. The victor state must also be willing to apply the same level of objectivity and investigation into any war crimes its armed forces may have committed.
Public declaration and authority - The terms of peace must be made by a legitimate authority, and the terms must be accepted by a legitimate authority.
Discrimination - The victor state is to differentiate between political and military leaders, and combatants and civilians. Punitive measures are to be limited to those directly responsible for the conflict.
Proportionality - Any terms of surrender must be proportional to the rights that were initially violated. Draconian measures, absolutionist crusades and any attempt at denying the surrendered country the right to participate in the world community are not permitted.

War is immoral. Just like theft, it causes harm to others and is thus the closest thing to “wrong” there there is.

However, also like theft, war is something that you have to do sometimes in extreme situations in order to survive.

a coward dies a thousand times

<SNIP>
That's the just war theory. Just, not moral.

I'll say this in answer to this asnine question.

The American Strategic Nuclear Arsenal is a deterrent to future large scale conflict. It makes the price for a rational opponent to high to actually consider the action.

After the entirely justifed use at the end of World War II*, the doctorine has been primarly to keep off a large scale war. The possession of nuclear weapons by both sides actually reduced the chance for a shooting war. Both sides knew ANY exchange would ruin both sides, so the direct action was reduced to proxy wars in the Third World.

*I'm making the assertion the use of nuclear weapons on Japan as being justifed by the results of Operations CORONET and OLYMPIC. Massive American casualties were expected, and would have exceeded predictions from Japanese prepardness (schoolgirls with awls, massive kamikazi attacks). Hell, our current stock of Purple Heart medals date from WWII.
Why can't other nations have one too, to protect themselves from an American nuclear attack - or in Iran's case, an Israeli nuclear attack?

(Also, some historians have asserted that invasion of Japan would have caused fewer casualties than dropping nuclear weapons. Although that you added that caveat may mean you were already aware of this.)

Depends on why its fought, how its waged and what the results are. Generally, yes, war is immoral. However there are cases when I see war as being moral, or even as one side's fighting being moral while the other side's as being immoral. eg Iraq war- America's fighting was wrong while Iraq's fighting was right.

Of course most wars are wrong. Killing is bad. The Bible says so, but just like in the Bible, not all killing is bad. What we’re doing in Iraq, that’s right because we’re bringing peace.
I like this guy, he's funny.

I like this guy, he's funny.
Summat tells me he might be attempting to get a rise out of us...

So you're asking if there is a cause high enough to justify significant loss of human life at the hands of other humans.

Even if there were, wouldn't that mean that only half of the war was moral, as the other party would necessarily be opposing that cause?

This is the reason I take the stance that all war is immoral and unjust, but that sometimes it is necessary. WW2 was necessary, but immoral and unjust. Millions of innocent people died. Millions suffered. But it was necessary to oppose Nazi militarism and aggression (remember the whole issue of the Jews was not the reason the war was fought. It made it even more necessary, true, but that was not the reason the war was fought).

And there were atrocities on both sides (though the balance is significantly towards the Axis side), so even those that fought on the "right" side
were not pure.