Is there really Just War?

Juan:

I'm not sure I get it. One thing is to dislike and repudiate violence - a different thing is to 'love' people who are clearly despicable or worse. I see no merit in turning the other cheek.

I'm looking at things a little differently than you. I don't see people who "are dispicable." I see people who "have done dispicable things," and I include myself among them. See the difference? I don't love the dispicable things that people do (including the things that I often do despite myself), but I try to love the people themselves. I think the value of people as such warrants the attempt to show them love.

If I didn't believe that this was so, what hope would I have that people should show love toward me, a person who has done--and will do, despite myself--dispicable things, if I didn't extend to them that same hope? Surely we all want to be loved, acknowledging as we do that, at the same time, we all do things, to ourselves and to others, that we would describe as rotten.

Anyway, that skirts the basics of my belief. I offer no pretense toward a pragmatist survivalism.

JonBostwick:

Wars are fought between sovereigns, who owe their armies to the confiscation of land which reduces the previous owners to the status of dependent. The soldiers then are the first exploited class. This is a political method for raising an army, a social method would be to hire them(without slave contracts) or convince to volunteer.

Once you have an army you have to feed it. The historical method happens to be using political means, confiscating whatever you need. Obviously, social means would be buying or begging.

So by this definition George Washington would be a 'moral' war leader?

He engaged in the social means to equip an army to fight against the British Oppressors and, as others have pointed out, kept the collateral damage to a bare minimum since he was fighting with and amongst his neighbors.

Yes, I know, I'm not supposed to talk about anything that deals with the military because I'm an 'evil baby-killing fascist' but figured I'd ask because the basic goal of this war was to establish the absolute minimum amount of government that would be viable given the actual conditions at the time instead of some pie in the sky theoritical world where the Brits and the rest of the world would've respected the rights of the US citizens not to be aggressed against.

I'm somewhat fascinated by those who would live in slavery because the result of revolution would be imperfect according to their current political philosophy. Not as fascinated as by those who think this is an Organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the New World Order but fascinated none the less.

Danno:

Juan:

Danno:

The draft wasn't (and can never be) justified -

Why not ?

Conscript troops? That can't be a serious question, Juan.

If there's no such thing as negative rights, how can you justify opposition to the draft ?

By 'we', I was referring to the lawfully-elected (mostly) government of the USofA, who had a mutual-assistance treaty with the government of South Vietnam.

Well, if the politicians had such a contract, then they should have gone to war - only a handful of politicians paying for their own bombs and other 'expenses' - but of course, that didn't happen.

The deaths of civilians probably had a lot to do with the insurgent's frequent refusal to wear identifiable uniforms, and was unintentional, Calley's misbehavior at Mai Lai notwithstanding.

The military/politicians in the 20th century have purposely targeted civilians - but why should we care ? People have no 'right' to be alive.

If that's how the word "rights" is being used, then it's being misused, badly - the sort of conflation I'd expect to see from Socialist "molders of society".

Do socialists believe in natural negative rights ? I don't think so.

The Bad Things (TM) done by people trying to enforce a moral or religious code upon their neighbors have been even worse than governmental atrocities.

I don't think I follow. We are supposedly debating whether wars can be 'just' or not. If there are no natural rights and no objective moral code, then the question is really meaningless. Also, if that's the case, there are no Bad Things (TM) either.

Danno:

Nobody can justify the right to decide on a moral code that everyone else must follow.  If it's a clearly good moral code, most will see that and adopt it - but that's not for you, me, or anyone else to decide for them - and if you force it upon them, you're committing aggression on them.

However, since they don't accept the policy of non-agression they should be fine with it. :)

 

First of all, philosophically speaking, all morality is subjective.

Second of all, I think all use of force for defense is justifiable and some use of force for aggression as well (but only in situations of retaliation).

Lastly, I do not think a standing army is justifiable.

Spideynw:

First of all, philosophically speaking, all morality is subjective.

Severe disagreement with you here.  Morality is agent-relative, but it is objective.

Second of all, I think all use of force for defense is justifiable and some use of force for aggression as well (but only in situations of retaliation).

 

Retaliatory force isn't aggressive by the libertarian definition.

 

JCFolsom:

Danno:

"their right not to be harmed"?  This is not a right - at least, not in the way I view rights.  If it were, I've had my right to not be harmed violated, almost continuously, since I was born.

The right to be not harmed, while sounding lovely, sounds very much like the right to an education, medical care, clean water, a rewarding career, a faithful spouse, and an honest government.  I keep hearing about these rights, but they generally boil down to someone else's right to run my life - which I disagree with strenuously, or someone else's being required to provide for me that which I cannot or will not provide for myself - another idea with which I refuse to agree.

It is more of a summary, though indeed, an imprecise one. Can you wrap your brain around it if we say a right not to be aggressed against or defrauded? As for "someone else being required to provide for me that which I cannot or will not provide for myself" - you mean, like "national defense"?

A right to not be aggressed against or defrauded.  You say that as if anyone, anywhere, at any time in history, has enjoyed such a right.

To be trite, a right is not what someone gives you - it's what nobody can take away.  So far, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever enjoyed such a "right".

Danno:

I may, indeed, have a moral obligation, in a rational society, to desist from committing aggression against people who have not given me clear cause - but this ain't a rational society.

So, then, what you're saying is you have a right to aggress in this society.

 

Rights don't emcompass that ability, either.  Depending on how you define "aggress", I may have a moral objection to doing so - but you're using the term "rights" to define a wide range of behavior and attitudes, not I.

Misrepresenting what I'm actually saying into something else is disingenuous - more demeaning you than belittling me.  To tell the truth, I'd expected better from you - I must have hit a sore spot with you.

Danno:

My own moral standards may prevent me from initiating aggression - but they're my business, and nobody else has the right (or might) to decide my moral standards for me.

Well, wait, I mean, this is an irrational society, so I do have the right to decide for you, if I have the force. Right?

 

Not the right - but some have had the ability.  If you wish to, you're welcome to try - we'll see if you have the ability to back it up.  Self-defense is, actually, a right. Feel free to give it your best shot.

Danno:

I fully understand the siren song of rational, ideal utopias - but history is full of atrocities committed in the quest to make them reality, and I strongly encourage you to rethink your position on the rights that people have.

Danno - kinda surprised

Will someone get out the air freshener? It stinks of Neocon in here.

Actually, I thought I sniffed some ivory-tower unreality, but I'm used to the aroma.  I prefer reality, but it's scarce.

Danno

 

 

JCFolsom:

Niccolò:

Class war.

 

Yo, Nicky! I dun interacted with you b4 (Enlish rules!) so I think you know where you're going, but you may want to clarify a bit here for those less familiar with your unique style. Do you mean to say that "Class war is always a sham", or that "Class war is justified", or what?

 

Class war is always justified.

 

That being class war only by reference to the divide between the political class and the producing class.

Danno, as a general point, if I understood you correctly.

You seem to be saying that people do not have the right to not be aggressed. Your reason for this is that people violate that right? You will agree with me that theft is wrong, yet people steal. The fact that people violate basic ethical and moral rules does not invalidate the rules. Nobody is forced to follow ethics, they can just as well abandon it. Just because our rights are seldom respected, does not make those rights disappear, it's just a sad indicator of the state of society.

The idea is that while a state lives on ethics of double standards (you can't steal but we can), we can't seriously hope for a very moral society. Only when the system of society itself no longer has ethical inconsistencies, will people have more incentives to respect others' rights (and because private defense, restitution, and arbitration is much more efficient than state police and arbitration).

Whenever you say that people do not have rights to not be aggressed, you are essentially saying that violence is moral. However, this is contradictory and foolish. If violence were moral, all wars of aggression would be justified. Indeed, if someone assaulted you, aggression being moral, you should not be able to defend yourself. If violence were moral, I should be able to rape without repercussions. If violence were moral, you wouldn't be arguing with me here in a peaceful manner, you'd be beating me with a stick to get your point across. And yet you're not, so you clearly believe violence is immoral. When I say violence, I mean the initiation of violence.

Violence on behalf of someone's else's self defense (South Vietnam) with stolen resources from american tax payers, cannot possibly be moral or justified. You can't say the social contract and the contract between SV and USA are not linked. The social contract and taxation being immoral, render all actions of government immoral, no matter what their aims, since they operate on stolen wealth.

Then again I could have misunderstood you. *shrug*

Spideynw:

First of all, philosophically speaking, all morality is subjective.

 

I don't know why philosophers spent so many hundreds of years discussing morality when all it takes to resolve the question is one post on a message board.  Then again, there's always the possibility that this statement requires at least some argument.

Spideynw:

Second of all, I think all use of force for defense is justifiable and some use of force for aggression as well (but only in situations of retaliation).

 Why should I care what you think about morality?  By your first claim, it has nothing to do with what I think.

 

Spidey, please read "Universally Preferable Behaviour: A rational proof of secular ethics" by Stefan Molyenux. It's free on his website, just google it. I really don't know where you got the idea that morality is subjective. Morality is strictly objective and can be proven to be so using logic. Of course, i'm not talking about religious morality, which is pretty empty since it requires no proof, merely the statement "God said it so it's moral/immoral". I think George Carlin did a good job of analysing the 10 commandments, you can look that up on youtube.

Danno:

A right to not be aggressed against or defrauded.  You say that as if anyone, anywhere, at any time in history, has enjoyed such a right.

To be trite, a right is not what someone gives you - it's what nobody can take away.  So far, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever enjoyed such a "right".

What nonsense! Because people violate the rights of others frequently, the violated rights are no longer rights? It is possible, you know, to remove a person's ability to communicate. It's possible, in fact, to take away a person's ability to defend themselves. Since these are removable, they must not be rights either.

Danno:

Rights don't emcompass that ability, either.  Depending on how you define "aggress", I may have a moral objection to doing so - but you're using the term "rights" to define a wide range of behavior and attitudes, not I.

Misrepresenting what I'm actually saying into something else is disingenuous - more demeaning you than belittling me.  To tell the truth, I'd expected better from you - I must have hit a sore spot with you.

 

Don't inflate your own importance, and don't try to use cheap psychological tricks on me. I think I've represented your views just fine. Rights, in their traditional, rather than their Danno version, are universally active principles that tell you what you ought always to be able to do and what you ought never do to others. Rights can be violated, that is precisely why they need protecting. Your definition of "a right is something that can't be taken away", leads ultimately to nothing, no rights at all. Not that I'm the worlds biggest fan of rights language, but I'm not sure yet what to replace it with.

Danno:

Not the right - but some have had the ability.  If you wish to, you're welcome to try - we'll see if you have the ability to back it up.  Self-defense is, actually, a right. Feel free to give it your best shot.

 

These sort of pseudo-threats, these ridiculous challenges, really make their issuer seem like a jackass. I suppose, in that regard, you had little to lose.

First of all, philosophically speaking, all morality is subjective.

This is one of the most beautiful non sequiturs in modern philosophy - because moral proclamations are motivating, it must therefore follow they're purely subjective and desire-based! Not so, though.

-Jon

To be trite, a right is not what someone gives you - it's what nobody can take away.  So far, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever enjoyed such a "right".

Rubbish. You're saying to be a right it must be inviolable (note: this differs from inalienable) - according to whom? A right is that which if violated, you may punish the violator to the extent they violated that right, crossed that border. I see this error a lot - and I cannot fathom why it is so prevalent. Perhaps a strawman to make arguing against rights easy.

-Jon

banned:

dunkel:

Is war just?  Might as well argue about whether hurricanes or earthquakes are "just".  Is a lion justified in eating a zebra?  Is AIDS justified when it kills a young kid?  War is and always has been.  No amount of hand wringing or wishful thinking is going to change that.  War has been a part of the human condition since before recorded history, and if there are two people left alive after the last war, war will continue after recorded history.

Rape always has been and always will be a part of human existance, nature. It's inherent. Now bend over since it's not unjust to rape you.

 I also like how you compared inanimate/irrational things to rational ones. It's a very convincing analogy.

Did I say that war is necessarily just because it is inherent in the human condition?  Perhaps if your reading comprehension skills matched the high opinion you have of your wit, you would have seen that I said it's pointless to discuss whether it's "just" or not...I made no judgements on the subject itself.  I also said that hand wringing and wishful thinking will not change mankind's proclivity towards violence, in general, and war, in particular.  One can attempt to mitigate the damage done by war, or a disease, or rape.  And I'm sure zebra tries its best to avoid getting eaten by the lion...but the zebra certainly doesn't try to engage in a rational discussion with the lion about the moral and ethical ramifications of the act.

The only thing that really protects you from war is being better able to wage war yourself than can your potential enemies.  The same with rape, since you brought it up...a woman should be better able to defend herself than her potential assailant is at forcing himself on her.