If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
War Ethics?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
'There is no justice, no ethics to this war' say Abu Bashir. (The Times, 16/04/2002)
eth'ic(al) a. relating to morals .... -eth'ics pl.n. science of morals; moral principles, rules of conduct
The question I'm asking here is ..... is war ethical? Can we find moral reasons to fight with others?
Before flaming me for this, please note that I haven't expressed an opinion. Rather, I figured that there could be a good debate in this. Not the best at debating myself but know there are those of you out there that are. <IMG SRC="tongue.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
eth'ic(al) a. relating to morals .... -eth'ics pl.n. science of morals; moral principles, rules of conduct
The question I'm asking here is ..... is war ethical? Can we find moral reasons to fight with others?
Before flaming me for this, please note that I haven't expressed an opinion. Rather, I figured that there could be a good debate in this. Not the best at debating myself but know there are those of you out there that are. <IMG SRC="tongue.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
0
Comments
Most people abhor killing, we despise murderers, rapists etc and they are rightly condemned by society.
But in a war, a killer is a hero and it is often considered just and right to wipe out thousands of innocent people with bombs and missiles. This contradiction is a strange one, there is a lot of philosophy literature on it....
I dont think ive ever heard anything about anyone thinking its just and right to wipe out thousands of innocents with bombs and missiles...Not in recent times.
Millions were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki not to mention Germany, Italy, Spain and others during WWII.
War and mass murder are 2 different things entirely. In war, as sad as it may be, collateral damage is expected and accepted.
Personally I think killing is wrong, im sure you do as well. However, if I were threatened, if my life was threatened directly by another person then I would be willing to kill that person in order to save my own life. Most people on earth feel the same way.
Of course, it really depends on the particular war and the reasons for which it is being fought.
If its a fight for survival then even the most passionate pacifist would probably be willing to kill.
I have simply found myself to be good at it. As a matter of necessity.
As I have posted elsewhere, when I was a child, I held to idealistic and pacifistic thinking. I grew up, and reality replaced idealism.
Left to my own, I would rather not engage in violence, of any form. However, when anyone makes the attempt to subjugate me to their whim - enslave me to their agenda - then I will resist.
When someone comes at me, or anyone within my responsiblity to care for or protect, then I WILL meet their threat with the promise of a reckoning. It WILL happen.
Some who post here need to acquaint themselves with the difference between murder and killing. War and civilian life. Collateral casualties and targeting civilians.
You engage in "social congress" on the level chosen by the other. You do not change the agenda of the barbarian with debate.
Most "empires" have fallen because they ceased to be what it was that brought them into power. Most "empires" were formed by acts of violence, and as the society softened with time, they fell to other societies that had not yet softened.
If you have not been engaged within a war, then you have not the basis of comprehension to form a perspective. To present a moral posture is to engage in an act of public verbal masturbation.
ALL people have the RIGHT to defense, whatever is necessary. To refuse them is to make them chattels. Sheep.
Too many issues here, and one simplistic answer cannot address them...REGARDLESS of how "neat" that would be for you all. The world is not a neat and tidy place...
The regime of the state is tied very closely to the well being of the individual.
Afghanistan, for example, was a fight for survival for the USA. Granted America wasnt threatened with total annihilation but it was threatened with losing a great many more lives and their sense of security.
Also, who mentioned having a clear conscience? <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> In this life of ours, its often necessary to do things that we do not like. Some things have to be done regardless of your moral convictions and regardless of your conscience. My conscience isnt clear over the deaths of civilians, I feel bad because of their deaths but I realise that that is what happens.
this was never a fight for survival Baldy, the USA is more than capable of whipping anyone in the 3rd world with its eyes closed, don't try and make them out to be the losers in all this.
America is justified in protecting it's people, but despite the big man crushing the ants with its feet, the terrorist attacks will still continue. Have you heard about the trial in Frankfurt, where suspected terrorists are bring tried for planning to bomb places in Germany?
Plans uncovered for a terrorist attack during the Qm's funeral, and a suicide attack that resulted in the death of 10 Germans.
America's response is similar to trying to hit mosquitos with a hammer. This isn't a fight for their survival, yes 3000 people died but I wouldn't call it the destruction of the USA, would you? More people have died in the UK from IRA activity than that, we're hardly going to fall over and die are we?
As for war, war is an evil of the world that has to be tolerated in order to protect ourselves. I'd rather see 1, 10, 1000 innocents die if it means that the 60 million people in this country live. If someone is killed by accident, in a war that is necessary to prevent thousands, or even millions of lives, then I won't shed a tear.
I can only assume you missed this part of my post Whowhere.
i did see it, but have we ever lost our sense of security? when a car bomb goes off outside a pub, do you lie awake at night, wishing for Mr Blair to send our troops to flush the bastards out of Ireland?
And when the IRA were setting car bombs off, where were the B52's and US marines to back us up then?
Oh wait....it wasn't their problem. Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda weren't our problem until Blair decided to back up the US in a war that should have been over ages ago. Now they're sending in 1700 of our finest troops, that we can't afford to lose because the US troops don't have the training.
Where was the US when the Falklands were invavded? Where were the US for the first 3 years of World war 2?
Some allies.
Well if we weren't threatened with total annihilation then it really wasn't a fight for survival was it?
Let's not make this attack out to be more than it was, a tragic event that killed thousands of innocent people, including some distant relatives and acquaintances of mine. The loss of life, while sad, was no more than what is lost in this country every few months from drunk driving. At no time were we on the brink of national catastrophe, like England or France in 1940, or America in 1812.
That being said, the reponse was just and had to be expected. The fact that there will be civilian casualties cannot be avoided, just like retaliation for the attack couldn't be avoided. Decisions by leaders of political groups (and because of the close relationship between al-qaeda and the taliban, al-qaeda certainly was political) are always carried on the backs of ordinary people. Do you honestly think that millions of German civilians wanted to die for Hitler's fantasies? Do ordinary Israelis and Palestinians want to die because of their political leaders bickering?
War is a political tool. As long as there are nations, they will always try to gain at the expense of others, or to weaken another nation if the risk isn't too great for themselves. Leaders are taught to do this, its called instrumental thinking.
It sucks. Especially for people like you and me who have to live up to the consequences of our leaders actions. You just have to hope that when you voted , you voted for the right guy. Hopefully he (or she) is looking out for your best interests.
Thats what this war is being fought for. In order to make sure those things dont happen.
Whowhere....i remember back in the 80s when my parents told me we couldnt take the trip to london because they were worried about bombs..The same thing was repeated across the country...Oh and in case you missed it, we did send our troops in to flush the bastards out. Theyve been there for 30 years.
'Some allies'
<IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
I wish you could get over your issues with the USA mate.
Israel has been trying to do this for years. They use tactics that the US would never dream of using, allowing the Mossad to do whatever the hell they feel the need to do throughout the world.
It hasn't done one bit of good, has it?
The distinction that I think you fail to make is that these operations are designed to intimidate would be terrorists. The US government full well knows they can't stop these things from happening, only to discourage would be attackers. If you are determined enough and plan well enough, I guarantee you that you could do something like this again. This doesn't reassure me that much.
It takes one spore, a few petri dishes, a warm place to grow bacteria, and all of sudden you have 10,000 sick people. Believe me, in the building where I work there are strains of potentially deadly bacteria that could easily be grown and spread in downtown L.A.
So, no, Sept. 11 hasn't changed my life one bit. It's nearly as easy for these things to happen as on Sept. 10.
It's easier for George W Bush to annihilate Afghanistan because the American public think it's full of Osama's troops. NI is full of innocent British citizens so the same tactics are not used.
On the subject of ethics in the two conflicts, I would have said the NI situation would be a more ethical war. But only because ut has to be to retain the support of the British public.
The Afghan war is perhaps unethical because of the civilian loss of life, but is seemingly acceptable according to the public mood in the US.
We've been going through the same thing for the best part of a century, I fail to understand what makes the American case so special.
Careful there... <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
The children are likely to get really riled up when you start talking like like a realistic adult, rather than a naive child... <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
You on the other hand...
we're British, we aren't allowed our own opinions, we certainly shouldn't have them respected by Thanatos!
Cup of tea?
Jolly good, any crumpets and marmalade?
Would be ever so helpful if you had the basis to form a cogent perspective. When you pontificate concerning the morality within war, you might as well be an eleven year old virgin,...
Nationality plays no role. Find any Brit vet who has spent a couple of years in real combat (as opposed to NI, say, or any other "police action"), and that Brit vet would most likely be no more tolerant of being "edified" as to what you claim to understand more clearly than he, what with your extensive combat experience.
Diesel plays nice with you, but then... officers are "supposed" to be "gentleman". Grunt NCO's are less tolerant...
Your ignorant idealism is great, as long as it is limited to the microcosm of your classroom existence, and you can impress them with even less comprehension than yourself. It gives a focal point at which to direct derision. Reality is what plays in the real world.
How about this?
I won't attempt to justify an existence dependent upon drug induced stupors, alcohol oblivion, wanton rave madness and the associated trysting, and other definitive irresponsible behavior.
In return, "at ease" with your moralistic judgments concerning warfare.
It is obvious that your abhorance at the concept of becoming an accountable, responsible, self-reliant and honorable adult is equal to my disgust of what you represent.
As the saying goes, "Opinions are like assholes". It's just that yours are frequently beyond flatulence, and on toward a full projectile diarrhetic spew...
Talk about what you do understand - rather than speculate from ignorance - and we will not have a problem.
I disagree fundementally with much of what MoK and MacKenZie post, but they are definitely not in league with the likes of you. Them? I can respect.
You? Wank away...
Edited tone of post - decorum please!
[ 18-04-2002: Message edited by: Squinty ]
I don't have an issue when you discuss the events leading up to a war. When you attempt moralization of actions within the conflict - actual combat up close and very personal - then you are speculating from ignorance.
Ever been shot at? Ever been shot? Ever take another's life? Ever been in a "kill or BE killed moment"? Ever lead other men into combat? Ever responsible for not just their lives, but the successful completion of a mission? Ever watch the men in your squad die all around you? Ever watch your friends decapitated, dismembered, disemboweled? Ever smell the stench of that violent death? Ever engage in a war with civilians in the way?
If you cannot answer YES! to each and ever question, then you have NO IDEA of "what happens". You flatter yourself undeservedly to think that you do, and you verbally wank away when you choose to "discuss" it...
Are you really so pathetically naive as to think that war is like your pampered and protected juvenile life? <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> There is a difference between collateral civilian casualties and targeting civilians within an act of terrorism.
You want to bring to trial every veteran of every war?
Wank on...
These posters would seem to have a grasp on reality. I cannot presume the same of you...
[ 18-04-2002: Message edited by: Thanatos...AGAIN ]