I have been in an argument with someone recently in regards to moral justifications in war. I'm of the opinion that actions in war can be justified, and that any means necessary are needed to end a war. He is of the opinion, war cannot be justified as it would entail killing innocent uninvolved civilians, and anything that I point is nothing but "murdrous" convenience.
This argument ended in a stalemate but has gotten me into reaserching, weather or not a war or actions in war can be justified.
>>30093096
Ask him how unjustified killing the fuck out of Hitler was
>>30093110
You do what you need to do to get home. Ain't nobody innocent in this shit, man.
>>30093110
I remember pointing that out, even then he said it was no justification as it would entail killing civilians.
>>30093096
>>30093138
whats wrong with killing civilians? they maintain your ability to wage war. do you think soldiers make their own weapons?
>>30093168
Nothing, all means are needed to end a war. However, I guess it comes down to the morality of it.
>>30093251
it's a micro vs macro issue.
on a small scale, death is a tragic, irreversible thing.
on a large scale, death is not a matter of if but when, you see the world in dire conditions that will induce all the suffering and loss to these people and more, you aren't thinking of whether you're responsible for causing destruction, but for directing it.
>>30093096
>doing something like a warcrime be justified
no
>can something like killing out of revenge be justfied
maybe, morally its wrong buy you can't act like "why did they do that?!!"
I say maybe because for example there was an incident at the end of WW2 where an SS officer was captured by the American soldiers in France, who turned him over to Polish soldiers, who mercilessly beat him to death as a POW. You can't justify that, he may not have even ever been to Poland but its not hard to see why they did it
another example is Dresden but I'm not getting into that shitshow
>>30093389
What is the war crime here?
I would say not doing anything in your power is immoral.
Also Dresden was a military target.
Depends what sorta war
Is it a race war purging the non-whites from the west? Then anything is justifiable
>>30093950
Then the twin towers were a military target
>>30093096
If you win, you don't have to explain yourself.
>>30093987
But they were not. Dresden was a rail Center and a military target not the twin towers.
>>30093987
FACT explorers found containers of 5.56 ammo headed for Israel in the wreckage of the twin towers
WAKE UP SHEEPLE
>op talks to a beta libfag
>wonders how to convince beta libfag that necessary evil exists
good luck op
>>30093096
Explain to him the concept of total war and how during wartime every man,woman and child is vital to the war effort.
>>30093096
can you justify posting this here? /his/ is where this belongs.
Wars seem to revolve around a rapidly changing atmosphere of confusion and lies. Propaganda indoctrination as well.
My opinion is the most justifiable actions are ones intended to reduce death and suffering while still winning.
You have to realize most every decision someone makes in a war is justifiable in their eyes at that time.
Quantifying morality in such an atmosphere is likely inherently difficult.
For example it's easy to condemn the Japanese soldiers in China during WW2, but you have to consider the atmosphere and mindset. They might have been told certain things or certain characteristics and traits were rewarded while others were punished.. Japanese civilians were told that Americans were torturers and rapists, so if you were an American soldier that stumbled into a Japanese home to see a mother slit her children's throats and then her own, you'd think she was an insane monster because you don't know the whole story.
>>30094787
Guy considers himself an anarchist. He states that whatever I do is not morally justifiable as it requires the murder of innocent people to destroy the enemy.
>>30094813
I have, the guy simply kept repeating that no, I was I the wrong and nothing I do was justifiable as it required to total war. He argued also that what the allies did to win ww2 was equatable to what ISIS does.
>>30094820
Was tentative to post here, but I figured morality of war would be more for /k/.
>>30093110
Hitler an Hero'd.
War is self-justifying. You either win or you die.
>>30093251
>the morality of it.
there is no god therefore everything is permissible
>>30095102
Stop making atheist look bad.
Take psych 101. Religion or a belief in a Deity is not a requirement for morality. Give this man a fedora.
There is a whole body of (philosophical) literature on Just War Theory. I did a paper on this long ago, so I'll give some main point.
You can justify going to war (the technical or latin term is Jus Ante Bellum). For example to defend your territory or you population. Wanting to expand your territory or kill all the people of a certain race is generally not justifiable. Things like going to war to prevent or end a civil war or genocide in another country are difficult cases.
Jus in bello is the justifiable acting during a war. In broad terms this is doing everything you can to win the war as soon as possible, while avoiding civilian casualties as much as possible and adhering to agreements like the Geneva Convention. This means you can't bomb a building of civilians to kill one guy who isn't all that vital to winning the war.
There isnalso something called Jus Post Bellum, which is the just way to end a war. This is stuff like fair peace agreements and so on.
>>30095641
I understand the action for Jus in Bello, by that object though it would not be justifiable to destroy an enemy factory due to its proximity to urban centres?
>>30095021
>He argued also that what the allies did to win ww2 was equatable to what ISIS does.
>>30095771
>would not be justifiable to destroy an enemy factory due to its proximity to urban centres?
It would be justifiable if you do everything in your power to protect civilians. That means using precise weapons to minimize collateral damage, perhaps even at more risk to your own pilots, who might have to fly closer or lower. For example choosimg a low level bombing run with a 10% risk of collateral over, say, a cruise missile with a 50% risk of collateral.
>>30095905
My reaction as well.
>>30096009
True, I can see that. Though the person I was arguing with was concerned with ww2 raids. I don't that person would accept any collateral. By the way in regards to the theory of war, what books would you reccomand?
>>30093096
With reference to the bombs, sure, why the fuck not?
Aside from this, >>30093155, which is true as fuck, the fact is we went to war with Japan to defend ourselves, and we finished it to make sure it didn't happen again. The fact that civilians died needs to be balanced against the fact that our guys were draftees. If your force is volunteer, then there's a difference. They have consented to hold themselves to the rules of war and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. When your force is composed of people who had no choice whether or not to be there, you owe them the same duty of care you owe civilians, whenever their deaths can be reasonably avoided. The math here was millions of people who had no choice about being there, vs hundreds of thousands from the nation that started this shit. It's cruel, but then again, so were the Japs.
>>30093987
well, that was a terrorist attack, and the WTC was an economic hotspot.
>>30093096
They're not innocent if they supported their country during the war. That inludes loyally paying taxes and not leaving.
>>30096238
>Every person in every country ever deserves to die.
k
>>30093096
so is terrorism justified aswell?No bait,im genuenly curious.i honestly think that in some regards 9/11 or the paris massacre were justified meansfor the islamists to stike fear into the enemy.and if the enemy is unable to stop these attacks,why not execute them?
>>30093138
Dresden firebombing was wholy militarily unimportant.
Only losers stand wartrials anon, and not even then sometimes.
>>30093096
>war cannot be justified as it would entail killing innocent uninvolved civilians
That depends on what kind of civilians you're talking about.
If you're engaged against country X and you stumble across country Y's civilians and that are doing no part in country X's actions (and that includes arming, feeding, housing, or supplying), then yes, engaging these civilians would be a dick move.
On the other hand, if you're engaged against country X and you have an opportunity to knock out a munitions factory, staffed by civilians of country X, actively supplying the armed forces of country X, then you're engaging the munitions factory to prevent weapons from coming to the front to kill your own dudes. Thus it would make sense to engage the munitions factory, with engaging outlying civilian populations up to the soldier's discretion and/or population spread/concentrations. One might say to themselves that they're blowing up the factory, not killing fathers and sons in order to sleep at night. Or maybe he might think of all the enemy he''s killed to help him sleep at night.
There is a difference between destroying a vital supply or manufacturing point and gunning down people fleeing for their lives.
>-whether- or nor a war or actions in war can be justified.
A war is fought by the people. If you can convince them that what they are doing is right, anything can be "justified." The person defending his home thinks he is justified, while the person reclaiming stolen territory feels he is justified, someone shooting "subhumans" feels he is justified, and someone overthrowing the invaders feels justified. Justification is a weird-ass thing that differs from person to person, and one's person's "justice" is another person's "tyranny."
>>30096360
>blah blah blah
So in other words, shit's complicated and it depends on your viewpoint, like everything else about morality in this fucking world.
>>30096063
My posts were mostly based on what I remember from doing a paper on Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars. My knowledge on the subject is not very extensive, but this book seemed to be quite popular as a basis. Plus it's not 'too philosophical' and has plenty of historical examples.
>>30093096
fundamental flaw:
you, a scholar in peace time
who enjoys the freedoms bought with the sacrifice of your ancestors
seek to judge the ethics and morality of war, which is, by nature, savage, fluid, and the result of a breakdown of civility
or from the perspective of the vanquished who must, at all costs, save face.
what's your agenda?
