NationStates Jolt Archive

i kno this getting annoying but every1 seems to be split over the issue that war is moral and immoral. So I take the liberty of generalizing the question to just holy war! Just vote unless u feel that yur reasoning needs to be heard and might change ppl's mind. No spam like "o i hate u", "i hate u 2", "i'm sry", "I'm sry 2"

Holy wars?

Utterly immoral. I mean come on, war because of religion?

I happen to believe that war is unholy. It can be necessary, but is never holy, or sacred. So where does that put me?

As george carlin once said, "hey anytime a bunch of holy people want to get together and kill each other, I'm a happy guy."

holy war? no. if i must kill and die to make others see the light then so be it. and im not muslim or anything, i have my own religion that i made up. i mean come'on look at my name!!! Check out my nation : Rightous Reclamamation:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

holy war? no. if i must kill and die to make others see the light then so be it. and im not muslim or anything, i have my own religion that i made up. i mean come'on look at my name!!! Check out my nation : Rightous Reclamamation:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

"Make others see the light" Pfft.

I would submit that your question contains a vital flaw. The whole idea of a holy war is the imposition of one groups morality onto another group by force.
What may qualify as moral behavior for one individual may be completely different for another individual in different circumstances.
For instance:
Is it wrong to steal food if you or your family are starving to death?
Is it wrong to seek compensation if what you have rightfully gained is stolen?
Do the circumstances of the thief alter the justification of the victim to seek compensation?
My point is that the perception of morality and the level at which morality is to be imposed on others is the root cause of holy war.
A better question might be… at what point on my own path will I feel compelled to defend another from imposition upon their ideology?

Is Holy War Immoral?

So is killing someone over something that is entirely imaginary moral?

Gee, that's a tough one.

I would submit that your question contains a vital flaw. The whole idea of a holy war is the imposition of one groups morality onto another group by force.
What may qualify as moral behavior for one individual may be completely different for another individual in different circumstances.
For instance:
Is it wrong to steal food if you or your family are starving to death?
Is it wrong to seek compensation if what you have rightfully gained is stolen?
Do the circumstances of the thief alter the justification of the victim to seek compensation?
My point is that the perception of morality and the level at which morality is to be imposed on others is the root cause of holy war.
A better question might be… at what point on my own path will I feel compelled to defend another from imposition upon their ideology?

Well wat i mean is like the Holy Wars like the Crusades. Christians find justification in the holy war. Now Muslims do to. Immoral or not?

Moral to whom?
Has there ever been a war fought where both sides didn’t believe that they were the ‘good guys’?

So is killing someone over something that is entirely imaginary moral?

Gee, that's a tough one.
Allow me to take this one a step further.

Can killing someone over something that is entirely imaginary accurately be appraised by a highly subjective system of imaginary conclusions. The irrelevance is dire.

The only "moral" reason for war is self-defense. If you are attacked, you defend yourself. You carry the war into the other's territory and obliterate their abililty to attack you again, then you leave. War for any other reason, including religion, is immoral.

War is generally stupid, and war over superstition is two times as stupid. At least fight over things that actually exist, for pity's sake.

I think it's immoral to substitute words with letters, but that's just me.

Thou Shall Not Kill kinda makes me want to say "no".

Moral to whom?
Has there ever been a war fought where both sides didn’t believe that they were the ‘good guys’?

Seconded it is very much moral to do anything if you believe it is right of course sometimes your wrong but who’s to say really especially when it comes to religion

Moving from "war" to "holy war" isn't generalizing.

I think these threads need to stop is that moral?

i kno this getting annoying but every1 seems to be split over the issue that war is moral and immoral. So I take the liberty of generalizing the question to just holy war! Just vote unless u feel that yur reasoning needs to be heard and might change ppl's mind. No spam like "o i hate u", "i hate u 2", "i'm sry", "I'm sry 2"

Killing people unjustly is immoral.

Killing people justly is moral. (MUST be a last resort, of course.)

Accidently killing people while attempting to justly kill other people or
property is, IF UNAVOIDABLE, moral.

Destroying property justly is moral.

Destroying property unjustly is immoral.

War is destroying enemy property and enemy personnel.

War is neither moral or immoral. It is aggregated acts of violence toward
some end product.

The individual acts of destruction and/or killing are either moral or immoral
depending on the above criteria (the justification).

What does "holy war" actually mean?

If it means that any act of violence is justifiable because it serves a "holy"
cause, then to a believer in that cause "holy war" is perfectly moral.

The "non-believer" of the "holiness" of this "holy war" would not think that
many of the believer's acts are justifiable, and would consider the "holy war"
to be immoral.

Basically then, believer's in the "holiness" of the "holy war" are the only one's
who believe that it is a moral war.

By this definition ANY war is in fact a "holy war", because those who have
reason to start them ALWAYS have a justification (the only required criterion
of morality) for doing so.

Thus, All wars are moral to those who can justify them, and immoral to those
who don't justify them.


If one says "All wars are immoral", what one is really saying is, "There is
nothing I am willing to fight for", because ANY violence (even passive non-
violent action that causes "perceived" violence to another) is immoral.

Therefore, if all fighting is immoral, all striving against percieved evil is itself
an evil, so the holder of this belief is stuck in the bind of always either
commiting the evil of striving or the evil of allowing evil to triumph.

This is a mental illness, and is why the question of, "Is war evil (immoral)?" is
not the question to ask, but rather, "What is the essence of the justification
of war?"


If the (rather naive and pat) answer is, "There can be no justification for
war!", then that is a very clear signal from the speaker as to their state of
mental health.


-Clamato, "..what a FREAKY idea.!"

justly
By whose standards? Your own? Your community? Your religious sect?

Holy wars?

Utterly immoral. I mean come on, war because of religion?
As an atheist, this is my position. War is sometimes necessary, but that means having a damn good reason. Religion is not a good reason.

Thou Shall Not Kill kinda makes me want to say "no".

Yeah, I suppose all christians who want to go to war suddenly develop selective memory in regards to that commandment.

But to answer the OP: Aw Hell YES!!!!111

Why would atheists not care? We're as likely a target as other religions, if not more likely.

Why would atheists not care? We're as likely a target as other religions, if not more likely.
Well yes, but you're unlikely to wage wars over it. Any role Atheists play in holy war is defensive.

Thou Shall Not Kill kinda makes me want to say "no".

actually the Hebrew translation is 'Murder' not 'kill' I know, a somewhat minor difference but it does make a difference

Snip




That's your opinion. Guess what? I disagree! I guess that means I'm mentally ill. I'll go check myself into a mental hospital...

Killing people unjustly is immoral.

Killing people justly is moral. (MUST be a last resort, of course.)

No, it is still immoral to strip another of his/her life. Did it need to be done? Perhaps, but that doesnt make it "right".

actually the Hebrew translation is 'Murder' not 'kill' I know, a somewhat minor difference but it does make a difference

I see no difference between killing and murder.

Wars in general are bad, although sometimes unavoidable. For example, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, did we really have any choice but to declare war on them? For that matter, if there ever was a justifiable, or holy war, it was World War II, simply because our opponents were so demonstrably evil.

I see no difference between killing and murder.

Then you're not very bright. No offence.

Then you're not very bright. No offence.

There may be a legal difference, but is there really a moral one? I think that's what he/she meant.

There may be a legal difference, but is there really a moral one? I think that's what he/she meant.

What about killing in self-defence?

What about killing in self-defence?

Still wrong.

I see no difference between killing and murder.
There is a minor technical difference. Murder implies the killer is consciously involved.

You do not murder someone when you are driving normally on the road and someone walks in front of you; you just kill them. You do murder them however when, in acknowledgement of their presence and with plenty of time to stop, you fail to do so. Similarly, throwing a Javelin at the olympics does not rend you a murderer when someone walks in the way of your spear, although throwing the spear at them would.

The murder victim, of course, does not need to be directly targetted. There merely needs to be a conscious awareness of the risk to the victim by the killer. For instance, the man who fires a gun randomly into a crowd is guilty of the murder of anyone he kills. The officer who blows up a town is also responsible for the murder of his own soldiers caught in the blast (as well as, obviously, the residents of that town).

Intent is the key. And, of course, state of mind or state of war is no excuse for that.

Still wrong.

So if I come at you with a loaded gun, you won't mind, then? :p

What about killing in self-defence?

In my opinion, that's still "murder." It's still taking the life of another into your own hands, which no one has the right to do.

In my opinion, that's still "murder." It's still taking the life of another into your own hands, which no one has the right to do.

Hmm. Another person who doesn't mind dying so that his killer may live. Are there really that many people who have death wishes?

So if I come at you with a loaded gun, you won't mind, then? :p

Oh, no. I will still kill you first, but that doesn't mean what I did was right, at all.

Nation A has an agreement with nation B to meet on the field of battle every so often on an agreed to schedule. The combatants get on the field and attacpt (using crude weapons) to knock each other out. The winners, take the loosers home with them, but everyone's a "winner" because the loosers can take pride in knownig that they will be sacrificed to keep the SUN traveling high up in the sky. (And that's a very holy honor you know.)

That was the "Flowery War" as practiced in Mezzo-America before the Europeans came and introduced the more modern "kill the enemy with guns" warfare.

Hmm. Another person who doesn't mind dying so that his killer may live. Are there really that many people who have death wishes?

I don't have a death wish. If I had a death wish, I'd jump in front of a bus. I would rather die than kill. But, honestly, how many Canadians are murdered each year? Not many.

Hmm. Another person who doesn't mind dying so that his killer may live. Are there really that many people who have death wishes?
A skilled enough shooter can disarm and disable without killing. Not that I am one, but it's very unlikely to be in a situation where the only ever possible outcomes are the death of one of the participants.

A skilled enough shooter knows that in a desperate situation the best course of action is to aim for the big part.

Just for the record… last time I checked, the homicide rate in Canada is 3 times higher per capita than in the USA.

Originally Posted by Clamatoatoll
justly

By whose standards? Your own? Your community? Your religious sect?

Uh,.. yeah....

The standard of justification of whatever "thing" is making war.

War-MAKERS must justify their attacks, and war-targets must justify their
responses.

What's your REAL question..?


-Clamato

Originally Posted by Clamatoatoll

Snip

That's your opinion. Guess what? I disagree! I guess that means I'm mentally ill. I'll go check myself into a mental hospital...

..in all probability you ARE mentally ill, but that's beside the point..

What do you disagree with me about..?


-Clamato

Originally Posted by Clamatoatoll
Killing people unjustly is immoral.

Killing people justly is moral. (MUST be a last resort, of course.)

No, it is still immoral to strip another of his/her life. Did it need to be done? Perhaps, but that doesnt make it "right".

There is no fundamental difference between killing another person, an animal,
or any other form of the use of force, also kown as "violence".

The only difference is one of degree. How you differentiate these degrees
gives you the morality of your working philospohy (as opposed to your
abstract bullsh*t intellectual philosophy).

If you state that any use of force is "immoral", then turning a garden faucet,
much less killing another human being, is immoral to you.

I grant you your working philospohy, and see your life filled with much immoral
activity.


I see no difference between killing and murder.

"Killing" is taking life, regardless of the cause.

"Murder" is doing evil by taking life, by which evil is the causal motivator.


-Clamato

As an atheist, this is my position. War is sometimes necessary, but that means having a damn good reason. Religion is not a good reason.

You're also an athiest?

But yeah... AGREED.

isn't holy war sort of an oxymoron??

There is no fundamental difference between killing another person, an animal,
or any other form of the use of force, also kown as "violence".

ok...

The only difference is one of degree. How you differentiate these degrees
gives you the morality of your working philospohy (as opposed to your
abstract bullsh*t intellectual philosophy).

bullshit intellectual philosophy is what you are giving me right now, douchebag.

If you state that any use of force is "immoral", then turning a garden faucet,
much less killing another human being, is immoral to you.

okay talk about your all time ridiculous comparisons.

I grant you your working philospohy, and see your life filled with much immoral
activity.

immoral to you maybe.