Justifying War

[The Persnickety Platypus]

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.

[sin_is_fun]

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?

There cannot be such a law.For such a law to exist on wars,basic human rights need to be defined.Nobody has succeeded in defining what are basic human rights.

I believe UNO has some circumstances under which war is allowed.It says something like

'The disputes between 2 countries should be bilaterally negotiated"
"If they fail a third party negotiated talks should happen"
"If it fails then it should be bought to UNO"
'If UNO doesnt reach a consensus the problem will go to voting in security council"(where USA,china,Russia have veto power... )"
"If the dispute isnt solved then countries can fight without W M D and not killing too many civilians etc and following geneva conventions"

I am not sure whether this is the process though.

2. Which past and present wars would you deem unjustified? Perhaps this will allow us to put such rules into context.

The loser of every war will see it as an unjustified war. The winner of every war will call it as a justified war.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

There cannot be such a law.For such a law to exist on wars,basic human rights need to be defined.Nobody has succeeded in defining what are basic human rights.

I don't know about that, I think our founding fathers were on to something with their unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think that is a pretty good definition of basic human rights. On the other hand, if you mean that no one will ever agree on any such definition, then sure. There are plenty of oppressive rulers that would argue that humans are not entitled to their life, much less happiness and freedom.

But we all have our opinions on what is "ethical", and hypothetically speaking, IF there were such a law, what do you think it should say?



As for me, absolutely no thing, object, or factor should be respected over human life and well-being. Land, riches, oil, power, or other such material objects must not be gained through means of war and killing, lest all morals, empathy, and ethics be sacrificed. I believe most of the sane among us can agree on that much.

[sin_is_fun]

I don't know about that, I think our founding fathers were on to something with their unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Did founding fathers give 'right to live' to innocent war victims?
Did founding fathers give 'right to liberty' to prisoners and slaves?
Did founding fathers give 'right to use drugs and pursue happiness?'

I think that is a pretty good definition of basic human rights.

you havent defined it.Capital punishment still exists,so where does the 'right to live' exist?

But we all have our opinions on what is "ethical", and hypothetically speaking, IF there were such a law, what do you think it should say?

I would suggest the UNO route which I gave with reforms in security council and setting up of a powerful world court.

As for me, absolutely no thing, object, or factor should be respected over human life and well-being.

what about jerusalem?what if pagans occupy church of nativity and build a pagan goddess temple?what if a dictator kidnaps somebodys wife or children?what if terrorist government holds a plane load of passengers as hostages?

Land, riches, oil, power, or other such material objects must not be gained through means of war and killing, lest all morals, empathy, and ethics be sacrificed. I believe most of the sane among us can agree on that much.

Mercy shall not come at the cost of being a coward.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Did founding fathers give 'right to live' to innocent war victims?
Did founding fathers give 'right to liberty' to prisoners and slaves?
Did founding fathers give 'right to use drugs and pursue happiness?'

Whether the founding fathers practiced what they preached is completely irrelevant.

The point is, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a good definition of the most basic of human rights. Regardless of who wrote it, would you agree with that statement, sin is fun?

you havent defined it.Capital punishment still exists,so where does the 'right to live' exist?

I disagree 100% with the use of capital punishment.

You don't disagree with me, you disagree with the government. In that case, we are both in agreeance. So why are you arguing with me?

I would suggest the UNO route which I gave with reforms in security council and setting up of a powerful world court.

I approve of that route, up until the last step. Violence solves nothing. The only effect which it can bring about is more violence. Look at the Israel/Palestine conflict. They have fought over the same land for centuries. A resolution has yet to come about.

War is not JUSTIFIED just because no one can come up with a better course of action. Chances are, the two nations at each others throats are fighting over something material, which I retain is never in any circumstance worth killing over. The importance of human life is second to none.

what about jerusalem?what if pagans occupy church of nativity and build a pagan goddess temple?what if a dictator kidnaps somebodys wife or children?what if terrorist government holds a plane load of passengers as hostages?

I don't see how any of these situations debunk my statement that war fought over anything less that human well-being and the sake of native people's protection is unjustified. I don't even see how they are applictable to the discussion of war. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit more?

Mercy shall not come at the cost of being a coward.

Wow man, you sound all tough and macho when you say that. You also sound devoid of all reason and rational thought.

It takes a stronger man to win a fight, but it takes a GREATER man to resist one.

I say again, territory and power are NOT justifyable means to kill.

[sin_is_fun]

Whether the founding fathers practiced what they preached is completely irrelevant.

The point is, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a good definition of the most basic of human rights. Regardless of who wrote it, would you agree with that statement, sin is fun?

No,I disagree.

some criminals(eg:ted bundy) ought to be killed.
some wars ought to be fought,
some liberties ought to be curtailed(using fur clothes)
some happinesses ought to be banned(drugs)

I disagree 100% with the use of capital punishment.

You don't disagree with me, you disagree with the government. In that case, we are both in agreeance. So why are you arguing with me?

Because I dont disagree with use of capital punishment.I support it.

I approve of that route, up until the last step. Violence solves nothing. The only effect which it can bring about is more violence. Look at the Israel/Palestine conflict. They have fought over the same land for centuries. A resolution has yet to come about.

easy to say,hard to implement.If somebody wages a war against you what will you do?

War is not JUSTIFIED just because no one can come up with a better course of action. Chances are, the two nations at each others throats are fighting over something material, which I retain is never in any circumstance worth killing over. The importance of human life is second to none.

so can we wage war for spiritual reasons?If a pagan dictorial country says "if you worship jesus I will atatck you" and he attacks you,what will you do?many wars were spiritual also,crusades for example.

I don't see how any of these situations debunk my statement that war fought over anything less that human well-being and the sake of native people's protection is unjustified. I don't even see how they are applictable to the discussion of war. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit more?

every country says it fights for human well being and to protect the native people only.USA fought in vietnam,irak and afghanisthan,somalia everywhere saying if we dont fight there commies will come next to usa.

Wow man, you sound all tough and macho when you say that. You also sound devoid of all reason and rational thought.

It takes a stronger man to win a fight, but it takes a GREATER man to resist one.

So better be a stronger man than a greater man.

Its better to be a 'bad living man' than to be a 'good dead man.'

If somebody slaps a person he can show his other cheek.
But if somebody rapes his sister he cannot offer his another sister also.

Too much of any good thing is always a bad thing.Mercy also has its limits.Beyond that limits,it is bad.

I say again, territory and power are NOT justifyable means to kill.

Then what are the justifiable means to kill?religion and spirituality perhaps?

[sin_is_fun]

Whether the founding fathers practiced what they preached is completely irrelevant.

The point is, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a good definition of the most basic of human rights. Regardless of who wrote it, would you agree with that statement, sin is fun?

No,I disagree.

some criminals(eg:ted bundy) ought to be killed.
some wars ought to be fought,
some liberties ought to be curtailed(using fur clothes)
some happinesses ought to be banned(drugs)

I disagree 100% with the use of capital punishment.

You don't disagree with me, you disagree with the government. In that case, we are both in agreeance. So why are you arguing with me?

Because I dont disagree with use of capital punishment.I support it.

I approve of that route, up until the last step. Violence solves nothing. The only effect which it can bring about is more violence. Look at the Israel/Palestine conflict. They have fought over the same land for centuries. A resolution has yet to come about.

Anybody can preach.But practicing what we preach is difficult.

War is not JUSTIFIED just because no one can come up with a better course of action. Chances are, the two nations at each others throats are fighting over something material, which I retain is never in any circumstance worth killing over. The importance of human life is second to none.

so can we wage war for spiritual reasons?If a pagan dictorial country says "if you worship jesus I will atatck you" and he attacks you,what will you do?many wars were spiritual also,crusades for example.

I don't see how any of these situations debunk my statement that war fought over anything less that human well-being and the sake of native people's protection is unjustified. I don't even see how they are applictable to the discussion of war. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit more?

every country says it fights for human well being and to protect the native people only.USA fought in vietnam,irak and afghanisthan,somalia everywhere saying if we dont fight there commies will come next to usa.

Wow man, you sound all tough and macho when you say that. You also sound devoid of all reason and rational thought.

It takes a stronger man to win a fight, but it takes a GREATER man to resist one

wow man you also sound like a saint when you say that
(But I wouldnt make personal attacks like what you did in the second line. )

It takes a stronger man to win a fight, but it takes a GREATER man to resist one.

So better be a stronger man than a greater man.

Its better to be a 'bad living man' than to be a 'good dead man.'

If somebody slaps a person he can show his other cheek.
But if somebody rapes his sister he cannot offer his another sister also.

Too much of any good thing is always a bad thing.Mercy also has its limits.Beyond that limits,it is bad.

I say again, territory and power are NOT justifyable means to kill.

Then what are the justifiable means to kill?religion and spirituality perhaps?

[keltzkroz]

Its better to be a 'bad living man' than to be a 'good dead man.'

I'm sorry, but I cant resist. Whoa!
Tell that to the people who died fighting 'the good fight'.

Sometimes, a war must be fought. For example, history is filled with oppressive regimes, and people must fight for their freedom.

[McCulloch]

every country says it fights for human well being and to protect the native people only.USA fought in vietnam,irak and afghanisthan,somalia everywhere saying if we dont fight there commies will come next to usa.

I personally prefer the Canadian approach to communism (pointed irrelevance) to the one taken in the USA (McCarthyism). In Canada, we do not outlaw communism. That would be a violation of democratic freedom. The communist parties (we have two separate registered communist parties) must abide by the same rules as all of the other parties such as: they cannot accept funds from outside the country, they are not allowed to arm, they cannot advocate violence. Our police watch them closely to ensure compliance. They run some candidates in elections. They always have a difficulty getting more votes that they can count on two hands. The few people who do not completely ignore them laugh at them. There really is no communist threat in North America.
I believe that repressive regimes need an enemy to thrive. The Soviet Union stayed strong throughout a world war and the cold war. It could not survive detente, sending many interpreters of John's revelation back to their drawing boards. Maybe there is a lesson for Chinese relations here. What would Jesus do?

[sin_is_fun]

Its better to be a 'bad living man' than to be a 'good dead man.'

I'm sorry, but I cant resist. Whoa!
Tell that to the people who died fighting 'the good fight'.

Sometimes, a war must be fought. For example, history is filled with oppressive regimes, and people must fight for their freedom.

My friend,I am arguing for pro war and our friend is arguing against war.A bad living man will fight wars and live.A great good man will not fight and die.This is what I meant