1. Under what circumstances should the brutal killing of fellow human beings be ethically tolerable? In other words, if there were a universal law dictating the specific reasons for which to declare war, what might it say?
2. Which past and present wars would you deem unjustified? Perhaps this will allow us to put such rules into context.
Justifying War
Moderator: Moderators
-
The Persnickety Platypus
- Guru
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 11:03 pm
-
The Persnickety Platypus
- Guru
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 11:03 pm
Post #41
Regardless of whether there is a universal right and wrong, we all still have our personal opinions on good and bad, and can judge situations such as war in accordance. Sure, there is no way of knowing what truly is "right" (or most beneficial to society, essentially), but we can speculate.Therefore, it seems only thoses that believe in a universal right and wrong should be debating if war is justified. Others should just read the opinions stated and not judge. In their worldview,there is nothing wrong with one or the other. No, good or no bad.
You must be an optimist to believe in the world.I'm not one.I'm a pessimist.
If we cannot view our future optimistically, what hope is there for humanity? Submitting to a pessimistic outlook automatically means defeat. Negative attitudes never bring about change and progress. Hope may be the last thing we as humans have to cling to. Don't let us lose that.
I urge everyone to have an optimistic outlook. Otherwise, how can peace and other such goals ever become reality?
Post #42
The Persnickety Platypus wrote:Regardless of whether there is a universal right and wrong, we all still have our personal opinions on good and bad, and can judge situations such as war in accordance.
On another note, if we cannot view our future optimistically, what hope is there for humanity? Submitting to a pessimistic outlook automatically means defeat. Negative attitudes never bring about change and progress. Hope may be the last thing we as humans have to cling to. Don't let us lose that.
Of course we all have our opinion, and we all like to give them
However, if it is contrary to your worldview or your internal make up or presub's of your worldview then you just showed a flaw / inconsistency within your on worldview. Therefore, your worldview is wrong/flawed.That is why I believe Humanist, atheist, secularist should not/ could not take place in this debate. In their worldview either answer is right. War is justified, war is not justified. It's all relative to that person.
-
The Persnickety Platypus
- Guru
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 11:03 pm
Post #43
Having an opinion on ethics is contradictory to the "no universal good/bad" worldview? Doesn't make sense to me. So athiests cannot take part in topics concerning morals? Can't morals exist without religion?
Perhaps I misunderstand.
Perhaps I misunderstand.
Post #44
Your very welcome to have an openion, of course. Athiest can take part in discussion on morals and ethics. However, in their worldview there is no absolute. Therefore while they can personaly reject war. They can not say it is absolutly wrong. While it may not be favorable to their given view point they have to concede it can/ is / may be favorable to the other persons perspective. It now becomes cirular debate. ie..its bad for me so its bad, its good for me so its good. Does not sould like a debate. War then just becomes good for the strong and bad for the week.The Persnickety Platypus wrote:Having an opinion on ethics is contradictory to the "no universal good/bad" worldview? Doesn't make sense to me. So athiests cannot take part in topics concerning morals? Can't morals exist without religion?
Perhaps I misunderstand.
