Morality Of War

Morality Of War
2006.01.24 12:50

War means killing each other. There must be no morality in it. But in fact there is a morality of war. First thing. War has to be a last resort. War has to be started after all possible peaceful means turned to be useless. So first, diplomacy, then eventually after ultimatum was not accepted, only war starts.
War has to be held between militaries. No civilians ought to be hurt from the battle, however, it is just an ideal of war act. How about using a radicon helicopter like this. Yesterday motor and piano company Yamaha was raided from police whether their shipment of this product to China is violating a law prohibiting an exporting of weaponry.
If the aim of war is to minimise the damage of our side and maximise the damage of their side, unmanned weaponry meets these demands, but how about the morality of war? Here's the related article from BBC.
List all Journal entries
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Morality Of War Preferences Top 11 comments Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold: -1: 11 comments 0: 11 comments 1: 11 comments 2: 3 comments 3: 0 comments 4: 0 comments 5: 0 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) Save:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Just War Theory(Score:2)
by Stargoat (658863) <the.troll.game@gmail.com> on 2006.01.24 13:29 (#14550122) (Last Journal: 2006.02.22 8:46)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War_Theory [wikipedia.org]
--The hallmark work of man for the past eight thousand years has been the creation of a more accurate model of reality.
Re:Just War Theory(Score:1)
by eglamkowski (631706) <eglamkowski@ange ... inus threevowels> on 2006.01.26 12:04 (#14569081) (http://www.angelfire.com/nj/eglamkowski Last Journal: 2006.02.23 9:18)
I reject the Just War theory. While it is best to avoid war where it can reasonably be avoided, when it does come it is best to use as much force as you can possibly bring to bear. Preferably such overwhelming violence that the enemy is not just defeated, but demoralized and crushed so severely (psychologically, if not physically) that they literally will be willing to even contemplate acting against you in the future.However, while being ruthless in war, it is also important to be magnaminous in victory. Leave no mistake in the minds of the losers that they lost and that military action against you is ill-advised in the future, but be nice enough that they can realize the benefits of being nice back so that they won't want to attack you in the future anyways.
--Government IS the problem.[ Parent ]
Re:Just War Theory(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2006.01.26 12:46 (#14569678) (http://mercedo-comments.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2006.02.24 14:13)
Thanks for the link. It will take some time for me to conceive some idea from this useful article, when I could do, I would like to write an article about it.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters[ Parent ]
In Washington DC(Score:2)
by Allen Zadr (767458) * <{Allen.Zadr} {at} {gmail.com}> on 2006.01.24 14:09 (#14550500) (Last Journal: 2006.02.15 16:48)
In the south inner chamber (the old house chamber) of the Captol building (where few are allowed to go these days), there is a statue [aoc.gov]. The rattle snake in this statue represents war. A rattlesnake never attacks unless provoked, and never without warning (by shaking it's tail), but when it does attack, it does so quickly, and fiercely.
I think our government does not take the time to actually look at the clues left for them by those who came before them.
--Truth and honesty can be compatible with sales and business, it's people who choose otherwise.
Re:In Washington DC(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2006.01.26 12:38 (#14569561) (http://mercedo-comments.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2006.02.24 14:13)
I still remember the days to visit Washington D.C. It was many years ago at age 25. I stayed for a week in an apartment of a friend of mine who were majoring in public administration in American University. We took sightseeing tour by bus, and we went to see around many monuments there. I still remember the big statue of Lincoln sitting on the chair. It was very impressive.
I don't know when I can visit Washington D.C. again, though, I would like to visit inside Capitol Hill to see these statues.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters[ Parent ]
civilians(Score:1)
by eglamkowski (631706) <eglamkowski@ange ... inus threevowels> on 2006.01.24 15:09 (#14550987) (http://www.angelfire.com/nj/eglamkowski Last Journal: 2006.02.23 9:18)
The notion of not attacking civilians is really quite a recent development. Indeed, historically it used to be a chief tactic to attack civilian populations, usually for the purpose of extermination or enslavement.Is the modern way "better"? Well, for those of us who are civilians, yes, it is better we not be indiscriminately slaughtered. But in terms of military and political effectiveness of the militaries involved, it may not be.It is a matter of morality that we don't attack civilians, but as Stargoat mentioned in a recent JE of his, morality changes over time. And some groups DO attack civilians (al-Qaeda, for example). But then al-Qaeda is still stuck in the era when that was the standard practice, socially, politically, religiously, militarily, they are throwbacks to a millinea ago. And their morality not only allows attacking civilians, but demands it.
--Government IS the problem.
Re:civilians(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2006.01.26 11:43 (#14568739) (http://mercedo-comments.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2006.02.24 14:13)
If we thought there's a morality in war, probably we would be mislead. There's no morality in war in the first place, which means anything's possible to overcome our enemy. If we thought so, everything is explicable. Unmanned weaponry is second to none as a means to win the war.
As you pointed out, massacre has always been taken place in the history of war. Relatively recently in Rwanda, Serbia, Kosovo, in Europe during World War II under German occupation, in Nanjin China under Japanese occupation, etc. They were not just a result of the regional battle between two militalies, but a denial of right to live, meant to be devised as a total annihilation attempt of one people by another.
So if we sought a morality in war, probably we would face an inconsistency in it, it would be better for us to take it for granted that war is far from morality. Therefore we ought to avoid war first and foremost. This is the most important task for those who live in the peace time.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters[ Parent ]
Re:civilians(Score:1)
by eglamkowski (631706) <eglamkowski@ange ... inus threevowels> on 2006.01.26 11:57 (#14568978) (http://www.angelfire.com/nj/eglamkowski Last Journal: 2006.02.23 9:18)
Have you read "The Art of War" by Sun-Tzu? He also prefers to avoid military conflict as much as possible. Not going to war is his first rule of war!Of course, one might suggest that warfare is a means of population control - when populations get too large, their resource demands increase and it becomes cheaper to just take resources by force than to purchase them. War kills off some amount of the population, decreasing the resource needs and allowing again for peaceful means of acquisition to become cheaper.Or that could just be a bunch of hokey. You decide :-)
--Government IS the problem.[ Parent ]
Re:civilians(Score:2)
by Allen Zadr (767458) <{Allen.Zadr} {at} {gmail.com}> on 2006.01.26 13:33 (#14570346) (Last Journal: 2006.02.15 16:48)
There is a point where this could come into play - however, at our current growth rates, we are killing ourselves off.
--Truth and honesty can be compatible with sales and business, it's people who choose otherwise.[ Parent ]
Damage(Score:1)
by DisownedSky (905171) * <disownedsky@e[ ]hlink.net ['art' in gap]> on 2006.01.25 9:08 (#14556997) (http://home.earthlink.net/~disownedsky Last Journal: 2006.02.22 10:32)
War isn't about maximizing damage. That is just the means to an end, and not always an effective means. Sometimes more focused, less general damage is much more effective, as witness Hitler's strategic blunder in the battle of Britain.
The aim of war( outside of pure animal aggression) as I see it, is to impose your will on your enemy, or to prevent him from imposing his will on you.
--
"If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day." - J. A. Wheeler
Re:Damage(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2006.01.26 11:50 (#14568850) (http://mercedo-comments.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2006.02.24 14:13)
The aim of war( outside of pure animal aggression) as I see it, is to impose your will on your enemy, or to prevent him from imposing his will on you.
Yeah, exactly. This describes the psychological phase of all wars.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters[ Parent ]