Is war ever morally justifiable?
Is anything?
>>389260
>morally justifiable
>morals
If you win, always.
if you're fighting against the bad guys
Do morals actually exist or is war just a spook?
>>389260
yes
no
maybe
>>389260
War is always morally neutral. It is just a form of diplomacy, much like any other.
>muh real politik
>>389365
Trying to define war as morally justifiable would be abstract politik senpai
>>389302
This desu senpai
>>389282
>>389287
>>389310
This to be honest senpai
For something to morally justifiable, you presuppose the existence of morality. Morality doesn't exist in the way it's implied. It's a blanket term to describe the theory behind the best way to keep society prospering. War lets some societies prosper more than they did before/otherwise and destroys others
So it depends where you look at it from
>>389260
No, morality does not exist on the macro level. War is just another form of diplomacy
>>389260
You mean for both sides at the same time. I'm not sure.
Imagine two men, locked in a dungeon with their families. Starving. Now imagine someone (a jew I'd imagine) drops a loaf of bread between these two men. Both men need the bread to save their families, so i'd imagine it's morally sound for them to fight over it.
>>389260
Depends on your morals.
Which are always justifiable.
From a certain point of view.
So if you ask if something is morally justified, you have to first define your morals. Then we can compare it with our morals. And if we disagree, well...
>>389739
It's pretty nice of the jew to provide bread for starving people.
>>389821
Obviously the moral choice for the Jew would be to let both goys starve.
Nope
there are times when it's necessary, but never morally right
even with more decisive wars like WWII you get shit like
>muh dresden
>muh hiroshima
>muh rape of Berlin
>>389365
but anon when you can't make some fucker accept your deal you kill him and take his wife
>>389260
Is killing?
Because war is just killing on a large scale.
>>389573
>morality does not exist on the macro level
Does it exist on the micro level? Precisely where does the micro level end and the macro begin?
>>389260
The only wars I respect are wars of national liberation which usually has popular support in the regions in question.
I don't view political struggles very fondly since they just seem to destabilize the country most of the time in favor of preying states, despite the occasional success story like the American revolution (which received French support because it would mess with Britain). Yet there are idiotic feudal civil wars that have caused the extinction of entire nations. On the other hand, the populace just can't blindly accept the state of things because of the "you're a traitor to your nation" mentality.
I also think America's campaign against communism was valid, amplified by the fact that the communist states were failures even by communist standards, but since the wall fell they've made sure to ruin that image with their greed and continued "containment" masked as terrorism, evil dictators, etc, when it's clearly about picking apart any sphere of influence that isn't American.
>>391113
>Is killing?
Of course. It's well recognising by pretty much everyone that, for example, euthanising disabled children is a moral course of action so they don't become a burden on society.
>there is no universal morality, therefore I have no moral standards or, at least, political principles and beliefs to answer OP's question with
Back to Reddit
>>391131
>euthanising disabled children is a moral course of action
No it isn't. Suppose they want to live, what then? How disabled is disabled, what if you're only missing a couple fingers?
>so they don't become a burden on society
That which is pragmatic has no bearing on what is moral.
>>391149
>No it isn't. Suppose they want to live, what then?
Their wishes are irrelevant.
>How disabled is disabled, what if you're only missing a couple fingers?
It's pretty much uiniversally agreed that if a child is missing fingers it needs to be euthanised.
>That which is pragmatic has no bearing on what is moral.
Morality is entirely based on pragmatism.
>>391180
>>391180
are you trying to make people that think a certain way look bad?
Most wars aren't fought under moral or ethical grounds but rather on economical/cultural/religious/political interests or conflicts.
>>389260
Self Preservation
http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/
No war between humans is always a barbaric, stupid and wasteful conduct that leaves large amount of people miserable and causes pain and suffering, but some people can't stop romanticizing the scope and intensity of it and will defend it from a pseudo-rational standpoint that's actually based on emotional inclination.
There is no universal morality, everybody has different levels of morals.
Morals are rules of thumb built up to aid in humans cooperating with one another. If your intent is to get humans to cooperate internationally, then yes, war is morally wrong.
War happens when negotiations break down. War happens because of human nature. I wouldn't call it justified, but rather unavoidable.
>all this talk of *le edgy morals don't exist im a nihlost look how cool and fedora I am*
All humans are made from the same
objective, subjective stuff(rational capabilities, passions,habitual behaviours, etc) stop with this morality isn't objective and good doesn't exist self masturbation bullshit.
>>389841
What if the Jew only has one loaf?
>>391131
No it isn't.
