Outlook on War

[xris]

Originally Posted by dharma_bum

Yeah, I really don't mean to give the impression that I dislike soldiers or think they are bad people. That would be highly ignorant.

I think the best way I could put it is that in a civilized society, there should be no need for soldiers, and there should be no politicians to force them into situations where they must kill.

Ide like to sit be warm sea and be waited on by young maidens. We are always dreaming us poor mortals.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by dharma_bum

Nazis are not bad people. They are people with bad beliefs. Beliefs can be changed.

Find me one example of a prominent Nazi who expressed regret (let alone mortification) after the war and maybe I'll go along with this. I've read a great deal on this subject -- and what's shocking is that after the war, even decades later, expressions of remorse were incredibly uncommon. The most famous example of remorse was by Rudolf Hoess, who was the commandant of Auschwitz -- but his remorse was VERY tongue-in-cheek, because at his execution he apologized for his crime against Poland and not against Jews (even though over 90% of his victims were non-Polish Jews). The other example of remorse was Hans Frank, the governor-general of Poland; I've not read his statement, but his own children felt that it was disingenuous.

Other major Nazis who admitted their involvement, like Eichmann and Stangl and Blobel NEVER expressed any regret or remorse. The majority of ex-Nazis justified it, denied it happened, or claimed to be just following orders and not responsible for their actions.

People are NOT blank slates. They can corrupt themselves past a point of no return. I don't think ex-Nazis could even live if they saw their crimes the way their victims did.

[stew]

Originally Posted by deepthot

You write: "Stopping genocide? You would rather sit back and do nothing?"
Those aren't the only two alternatives ...unless one is only capable of thinking in 'black-or-white', 'either-or', terms.
In Value Science the latter is known, technically, as Systemic-Thinking, and is relatively low in value. (See the Chapter on Dimensions of Value, and also Appendix One in the manual, a link to which is available in the signature.)

Well if there are other alternatives, you should at least explicate what those alternatives are. I should also add, it is not fair for me to say that in justified cases for going to war, one is morally obligated to goto war. Given the harms involved, one must weigh the harms to oneself against the benefits, but for those that indeed choose to goto war, for a just cause, they are morally praiseworthy. So didn't mean to imply a strict dilemma.

In short, people do what they can.

Originally Posted by deepthot

The topic of this thread is not "the justification of war" or its non-justification. It is for the majority of the human family to look at war from a novel perspective which is being suggested here. I say "novel" for it is rather different from the prevailing perspectives on the subject.

The justification or non-justification (both of which are reasons) for war are in my mind, synonymous with one's outlook on war. If we are looking at war as a subject of morality, that is, how one determines the constraints that should be placed on war, it seems to flow from how one morally justifies it, or not.

If one feels that war should be constrained, even in the slightest, you move towards moral constraint. Those constraints require reasons/justification.

Originally Posted by deepthot

His point is given in the very next quotation that you selected, viz., "We have to stop thinking in terms of nominal territories. We have to stop thinking of people with different beliefs as different people." We are one human species, one race - the human race. We have a common interest: which is the sustainability of our species and the cultural advancements it has made. [...the planet will survivie...even if the next war we commit is mostly in outer space (a 'star wars' type of battle, that irradiates most of us into genetic mutants, or hurts us by contaminating our air supply.)]

No doubt individuals prosecute war. Such prosecution has consequences. It is those consequences that are morally relevant.

Originally Posted by deepthot

It is required for the very reason you mentioned in your last observation that "war is not taken seriously enough." What you call 'loading' is emphasis - being emphatic !! - on the point that every human life (from the point of view of Ethics) is of indefinitely-large value, an infinum, in Lattice Theory, and thus is rather precious.

War is horrific, but to label all soldiers who partake in war, especially a just war, as murderer's is an incoherent value judgment. Human life is important, and that is precisely the point why going to war against actual murderers is justified. The absolute label you apply, I think, is unfair.

Originally Posted by deepthot

Your definition would claim that a bar-room brawl is a "war." Any melee becomes a war under your inadequate definition.

On a sufficient level, perhaps it could be. With that said, of course there is no problem in distinguishing different types of war. Take a case like gang-warfare for example. The conduct is similar to notions of international war in many respects, but of course it also differs on a variety of levels, thus making it a distinct type.

But even so, the notion of conflicting belligerent parties in the definition of war, I think is a crucial one.

Originally Posted by deepthot

Dr. Hartman's definition captres the essence of it. There is (often manufactured) malice aforethought in a war. The participants are taught to kill, and to first de-humanize their victims by regarding them as "monkeys", "gooks", "scum", "ragheads," etc. This commits ethical fallacies. Ethics ought to be imporatant to members of this Forum, I would venture to say.

As I've said, the value judgment Hartman implies in his definition is not only arbitrary, but objectively wrong as well, as I have mentioned above.

The training of soldiers to instill combat motivation, indeed, has many moral implications. But even if soldiers were completely brainwashed (which of course many aren't e.g. cases of conscientious objectors), it does not follow they are mass murders. They may hold morally questionable stereotypes, but that does not mean they are murderers.

Originally Posted by deepthot

Historians have made a good case that The Treaty of Versailles, after World War I, led directly to Hitler's being able to mobilize Germans to wage World War II. It is a persuasive argument they make.

I am just not quite sure what connection you are trying to make. Of course from a historical point of view, there are relevant historical circumstances that lead to the breakout of WWII. But from a moral point of view, what are you trying to say?

Originally Posted by deepthot

From my point of view each war is a prelude to the next one; it sows the seeds for a future violent conflict by setting an example that "violence is legitimate, and can solve problems" ...which from an Ethical viewpoint is a whopper if there ever was one.

Ok so I take it this is your argument. You seem to argue war only perpetuates itself, and only for unjust reasons. Well in some cases it definitely is the case. But in others, I would disagree. You forget that going to war, requires reasons for going to war. It is primarily those reasons that I am disputing, and which you are as well.

The only difference is, you think all reasons for going to war are morally condemnable, whereas I argue that in some cases the reasons to goto war are morally permissible e.g. stopping genocide.

Originally Posted by deepthot

I agree with you when you say, " if war is unnecessary, then it is pointless". And would add that war, indeed, is a social invention that we are ready to outgrow. We need only become aware of this. The media can spread the word ...IF we demand it of them. First we must care; then we must mobilize for action. Nonviolent Direct Action can serve as an alternative. It starts locally with conflict resolution in the immediate family; then in the neighborhood; then in the city. We need more people to go into the profession of Mediator; and that of Negotiator.
War really is unnecessary.

If the world was perfect, then you be right. But far from it, the world is not perfect, and acts if immorality on a grand scale will happen. Perhaps Just War theory is a response to those cases of immoral war, and a theory which hopes the influence our normative values of what it means for a war to be just in the first place. So until immorality vanishes all together, if war is to be constrained, we need to know those conditions.

Originally Posted by deepthot

The Afghans today would welcome us if we came as civilians to construct, to feed and nourish, to build, to teach engineering, etc. If we invade and/or occupy as soldiers, or as armed combatants, in or out of uniform, they feel they must drive us out. They see us as they did the British, the Russians, etc. And we will get nowhere. End war now.

I am sure that not all afghans would have appreciated that. I can guarantee that the Taliban would have had a hay day with humanitarian workers.

Still, you are simplifying quite a complex issue. The question is, who is in the just? I think that is still up for debate. Further, concerns regarding the conduct of war e.g. a-symmetric warfare is also a relevant consideration into why the war is perhaps, self defeating.

[deepthot]

Greetings HybridPhilosophy !

Welcome to our Forum on Ethics.

Originally Posted by HybridPhilosophy

First post, new to forums.
I agree with Aedes.
.... Many societies in history have been devoted primarily to martial prowess most namely the Spartans of ancient Greece and the Vikings.

Yes, and where is Sparta,, the City-State and the culture, today? And where is the Viking culture today? ...extinct.

It didn't help them much to engage in warfare.

Originally Posted by HybridPhilosophy

To make the statement "all soldiers, no matter what country they are from, are murderers" is ignorant...

You will notice that my definition of war does not do this ...it avoids that. It talks about the institution itself - and recognizes its craziness.

Originally Posted by HybridPhilosophy

Conflict in general although often unpleasant fuels human competition and human progression. ...

No one here has opposed "conflict." I agree it is inevitable. But violence, my friend, is NOT beneficial to the recipient of it. If his thinking is unenlightened, he will often brood about getting revenge, and one day may actually wreak vengeance.

Originally Posted by HybridPhilosophy

However i do agree some wars are not worth the price in human collateral.

That's a start... Some day you may come to see that not merely "some" but "all" are fundamentally unethical - and to be ethical will be of vital importance for you.

---------- Post added 11-25-2009 at 04:46 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Aedes

Exactly how might this be accomplished?
I

Here is a link to get you started on this quest:
The Peace Alliance - Campaign for a Department of Peace and Youth PROMISE Act - Home Page
The (gradual) evolution toward ending war will be accomplished when you join up. Others are joining all the time.

Here are some others:
The search for common ground
Basic Facts About Conflict | Resources | Search for Common Ground


National Peace Academy - Home



The Global Alliance for Ministries and Departments of Peace:
http://www.mfp-dop.org/





On the influence that words have:
Read the Handbook


Hope this helps....

[stew]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Find me one example of a prominent Nazi who expressed regret (let alone mortification) after the war and maybe I'll go along with this. I've read a great deal on this subject -- and what's shocking is that after the war, even decades later, expressions of remorse were incredibly uncommon. The most famous example of remorse was by Rudolf Hoess, who was the commandant of Auschwitz -- but his remorse was VERY tongue-in-cheek, because at his execution he apologized for his crime against Poland and not against Jews (even though over 90% of his victims were non-Polish Jews). The other example of remorse was Hans Frank, the governor-general of Poland; I've not read his statement, but his own children felt that it was disingenuous.

Other major Nazis who admitted their involvement, like Eichmann and Stangl and Blobel NEVER expressed any regret or remorse. The majority of ex-Nazis justified it, denied it happened, or claimed to be just following orders and not responsible for their actions.

Really? Wow. I guess it is nothing to be surprised about, but it is definitely relevant to a recent discussion with some peers. They challenged the function of war tribunals being an effective deterrent for leaders not to pursue war versus the enhanced social functioning of truth reconciliation committees.

I don't why I didn't even think about it but if leaders assume no responsibility whatsoever, how is that in practical terms, any better than retributive justice in war tribunals?

Thanks, I will look further into your examples now.

[HybridPhilosophy]

Originally Posted by deepthot

Yes, and where is Sparta,, the City-State and the culture, today? And where is the Viking culture today? ...extinct.

It didn't help them much to engage in warfare.

No civilisation lasts for ever all that is left is legacy and the legacy of both Sparta and the Vikings is huge on its impact on its area of the world.
In fact without the Viking conquests the Normans who went on to conquer the Anglo Saxons would not exist and so then neither would the British empire and then neither would the good old US of A, neither would Iceland as well… Vikings did not go extinct and neither did the Spartans simply their way of life changed and so do the names of the civilisations, however their advances live on.

If we can go to the moon, build supercomputers, use nuclear power, or find it necessary to have 700 channels, we CAN find an alternative to war.

The rocket engine was designed by Nazi’s during the second world war for the purpose of defeating the allies.
The original technology that modern computers where designed on where built in the second world war for the war effort before that analog computer where considered to be state of the art and computing technology is also responsible for "700 channels", why one would want to watch so much tv is a different mater...

But violence, my friend, is NOT beneficial to the recipient of it. If his thinking is unenlightened, he will often brood about getting revenge, and one day may actually wreak vengeance.

This i could not disagree with more. Physical violence very often has a beneficial effect to someone’s metal state. Often being physically assaulted can have the effect of removing ones ego and regularly being put into stressful physical situations where your forced to defend yourself can teach young men especially to have a more calm and assertive nature and get rid of many of the innate insecurities regarding young men’s masculinity that plenty of young men suffer from in modern western society.
The majority of the time the injuries are superficial and cosmetic, however I agree that once weapons are involved the individual conflict has escalated to a point where it in most cases would be more beneficial for both parties not to continue.

Thank you for your greetings.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by stew

if leaders assume no responsibility whatsoever, how is that in practical terms, any better than retributive justice in war tribunals?

I think it helps in a few respects, even if the leader is indignant and defiant (like Slobodan Milosevic or Saddam Hussein).

1) It's a major catharsis and reassurance to the victims and to the world that the world community considers this a grave crime, and that humans (as opposed to circumstances) are to be held responsible

2) It reminds leaders in power that they will never be immune from their actions. Some may get away with it, but some (like Charles Taylor, like Fujimori, like Saddam Hussein) can't escape forever.

3) You can't punish every functionary in a genocide. So you have to punish the ones issuing the orders. To execute every person who was in some way actively responsible for the Holocaust, even if just by calling out Jews, would be a genocide unto itself.

[stew]

Originally Posted by Aedes

I think it helps in a few respects, even if the leader is indignant and defiant (like Slobodan Milosevic or Saddam Hussein).

1) It's a major catharsis and reassurance to the victims and to the world that the world community considers this a grave crime, and that humans (as opposed to circumstances) are to be held responsible

2) It reminds leaders in power that they will never be immune from their actions. Some may get away with it, but some (like Charles Taylor, like Fujimori, like Saddam Hussein) can't escape forever.

3) You can't punish every functionary in a genocide. So you have to punish the ones issuing the orders. To execute every person who was in some way actively responsible for the Holocaust, even if just by calling out Jews, would be a genocide unto itself.

Agreed (I think). The way I am interpreting what you are saying is that retributive justice still has a it's place, especially when truth reconciliation committees are impotent to those who refuse to take responsibility. If I am wrong, just let me know.

Your points are pretty much the same ones I made to my peers. Though I think truth reconciliation committees are important and do provide a functional way for societies to deal with the crimes of war (e.g let those who were responsible in any way for unjust actions to admit their guilt and responsibility to those affected), I do not think truth reconciliation committees alone do a sufficient job. Though prosecuting the leaders responsible for crimes of aggression is in the legal sense a very difficult thing to do at the present moment, I do not think the project should be abandoned, all together.

---------- Post added 11-26-2009 at 12:11 PM ----------

Originally Posted by HybridPhilosophy

This i could not disagree with more. Physical violence very often has a beneficial effect to someone’s metal state. Often being physically assaulted can have the effect of removing ones ego and regularly being put into stressful physical situations where your forced to defend yourself can teach young men especially to have a more calm and assertive nature and get rid of many of the innate insecurities regarding young men’s masculinity that plenty of young men suffer from in modern western society.

Do you think such egoistic concerns provide sufficient moral justification, when applied to different cases of war? Take those involved in perpetuating genocide e.g Hutus salughter of Tutsis. Should the Hutu's be justified for such slaughter on the grounds that such killing had beneficial effects to their mental states? Even if it does teach things about ones own beliefs and attitudes? What about those killed? Shouldn't their interests matter too?

I guess what I am trying to push you on, is whether egoistic concerns about one's own mental states/mental life is sufficient to morally justify violence. Perhaps there are other reasons?

[dharma_bum]

Originally Posted by HybridPhilosophy

This i could not disagree with more. Physical violence very often has a beneficial effect to someone’s metal state. Often being physically assaulted can have the effect of removing ones ego and regularly being put into stressful physical situations where your forced to defend yourself can teach young men especially to have a more calm and assertive nature and get rid of many of the innate insecurities regarding young men’s masculinity that plenty of young men suffer from in modern western society.
The majority of the time the injuries are superficial and cosmetic, however I agree that once weapons are involved the individual conflict has escalated to a point where it in most cases would be more beneficial for both parties not to continue.

I must say, I do agree with this. But to me, there's a HUGE difference between violence for the sake of instinctual self-improvement, and violence for the sake of killing, pride, and ego.

There are few things in life more ego-destroying than being in a fist-fight. As long as nobody gets seriously injured, and as long as it's not done out of anger or contempt, I see few things wrong with fighting.

War, on the other hand, is a completely different game.

[stew]

Originally Posted by dharma_bum

I must say, I do agree with this. But to me, there's a HUGE difference between violence for the sake of instinctual self-improvement, and violence for the sake of killing, pride, and ego.

I don't understand the distinction you are making. How do you define "instinctual self improvement?"

Further, does is that distinct, from egoistic concerns? If an act of violence, as you attempt to distinguish, is not primarily acted on out of self-interest, what then, accounts for this difference?

In addition, how this difference account for the moral justification of a violent act? If so, tell me how.

Originally Posted by dharma_bum

There are few things in life more ego-destroying than being in a fist-fight. As long as nobody gets seriously injured, and as long as it's not done out of anger or contempt, I see few things wrong with fighting.

War, on the other hand, is a completely different game.

Really? So I could punch you in the face, just to see what your facial expression would be like? I don't see how any conditions you lay out have been violated. And if such is the case, would that make it a morally right act? Are your conditions sufficient for me to justify punching anyone in the face for the same reasons?

I'm curious, what accounts for war being "a completely different game?"