Can war have an ethical nature? Obviously, war is awful, but if there isn’t death then more might die. But are we then choosing who’s life is worth more? I just want to know what people’s opinions are on this. Do you think war can have a good side, or is it always horrible? Or any other ideas that may pertain. This is honestly really random, but a class I was taking wants people to try and ask a question about what we found important in the course, and I figured this may be a reason to ask.
The discussion of ethical, or ‘just’ war has long roots:
1 Like
Yeah, I wrote an essay on it a few years back for another class, and I figured I’d bring it up again here since it still fascinates me, in a really sad type of way.
1 Like
No, there can be no discussion on that, there isn’t. Any discussion on that direction only serves warmongers. You resist an invasion but you are forced to it. Anything outside of that is collective murder.
1 Like
Personally, I think that aggressive action in pursuit of stopping aggressive action can be ethical.
It’d be great if everyone could be peaceful and never engage in war, but if there are no checks in place if someone violates that peace, then the aggressor will always win.
3 Likes
Really depends on which side of the war you’re on, usually 
War is never desired, but the truth is there are many cases of rogue leaders who will not respond to sanctions or any other form of diplomatic and/or economic punishment. In addition, trying to pacify such countries through appeasement is only kicking the can down the road and will result in the inevitable war being bigger and deadlier than otherwise.
Even then, you can’t initiate a war unless you have a clear idea on what the objective is and on what a victory looks like (as wars without direction or an end in mind is nearly as bad as letting bad actors do their thing).
I agree with that statement. But the only thing that has always made this curious to me, is how sometimes we allow mass death in order to bring about a greater end. So, for example, we joined WWI and WWII by allowing innocent people to die. The Lusitania was most likely sent into enemy waters knowing it would probably be sunk. The Lend Lease program was clearly going to fail. Both situations created a great opportunity to rally the american public to avenge their fallen. In so doing, they stopped the inevitable prolonging of the war, and saved britain from, in the case of WWII, being concquered by the Nazis. Which in turn kept more Jews from being killed in the Holocaust. Would this justify our joining the war because it possibly saved thousnads more lives? By choosing to join those wars, was it worth the cost of life?
Depends on how you present war.
Humans are easy.
No it isn’t! war is always for interest and to stole other resources.
2 Likes
I think we could all agree that starting a war is unethical, but is participating in one unethical?
If Nation A starts a war with Nation B, is Nation B unethical for choosing to defend itself?
Now if Nation C chooses to support Nation B and enters the war as well, even though Nation C was never threatened by Nation A, is Nation C unethical for supporting it’s ally?
2 Likes
Volunteering to fight for a cause deemed worthy enough too willingly lay down ones life, if a situation should happen to present itself? - possibly.
1 Like
I would say a definite no.
The problem is that “ethics” may not be only thing to take into account.
Humans are simply animals and animals (also plants and “life” in general) have an inbuilt need to protect their family, colony and species.
Life has a need to multiply, expand its domains and dominate other species, using or defeating them to satisfy it’s need for territory, light or food.
Monkeys have wars, ants have wars and plants have wars etc. etc.
For our human society, food and territory are closely related to money and more importantly power, both of which are hoarded by our fractional “leaders” in pyramidal structures. Most of us are at the lower end of those pyramids and could potentially suffer the consequences.
The next question would be is it ethical to defend yourself? Your family, your friends, your home, town, region, or strangers that are unable to defend themselves?
Would it be ethical for us to declare war on an alien species that threatens our existence? …………. or would it be ethical to eat them (or them eat us)?
I know the question was more about modern human wars but “life” is at war continuously. Unfortunately I believe that there will be wars as long as life exists.
Life fights for life, it fights to exist.
Us humans think we are gods gift to the earth-or the universe, but the reality is that we are just a form of life and will probably one day perish or succumb to another species.
Is life ethical? Is it meant to be?
I am not saying that anything goes and we should carry on raging war against each other, that is very far from what I believe.
I am a peaceful person and wish peace and well being to everyone on the planet, sadly I do not think that is going to happen.
5 Likes
What is a law? Isn’t a authorisation to the State to make violence if necessary to enforce a rule?
The more laws and rules the more instances the State is justified to make violence.
So if war is always immoral are all laws immoral too since they can only be enforced by violence?
Then if not and violence can be moral to enforce a just law l how all wars can be immoral?
1 Like
I think violence has existed since life began, much earlier than any written or legislated law.
Many laws were made in the intent to mitigate violence.
3 Likes
Yes but condemnatjon of war is due to its inherent violence. So the issue is violence can be just?
Any law for whatever objective - including mitigating violence - can only be sustained by violence. That makes inevitably that violence can be just if the law is just. If doing violence can be just then doing war can also be just, “collateral damage” can exist either in enforcing laws and in war.
Unless the reason for all wars to be unjust not be related to its violence.
1 Like
The state has a monopoly on violence
I think laws can be just in some cases and unjust in others. Conceptions of “justness” or “ethics” vary depending on the observer. This is a can of worms because we all have different perceptions.
I would not like to be the person who has to decide, or enforce, in the same way I would not want to go to, or get trapped in a war.
Although in some way we all have made judgement at some time of our lives, and enforced some sort of violence (even minor).
1 Like
When the King asks you to fight in his name:
Without regard to its purpose or justification, war is always a pack thing, something that mercilessly overrides any individual concerns, up to sacrificing individuals’ lifes “for the Greater Good”, and not as a sacrifice made willingly, but as one they’re forced into whether they want it or not.
It’s the archetype behavior of men becoming The Borg.
Hence IMO there can’t ever be “ethical” war, no matter the cause. It would have to be unanimous, each participant in it on her own, free will, throughout all the fighting from beginning to end, for a cause that truly justifies it.
There are decisions societies, states and governments are not entitled to make for and on behalf of the individual, without regard of however many laws they may have passed to “legitimate” that type of authority.
Assuming that type of power is always wrong, no ruler, party or majority vote can ever change that.
3 Likes