A "Just" War

There are genarally three positions I hear on war.

There is the "offensive" war, where one nation attacks another for little other reason than profit.

There is the "defensive" war where the attacked defend themselves (note: this always assumes they are attacked a preemptive strike is pretty hard to justify as a defensive move...).

Lastly, people try to make the case for a "just" war. In this, the cause is righteous, so it justifies the means used to reach its desired ends.

I have to ask how many of us really believe in a just war?

I don't believe in such an animal. It is self-contradicting. How can it EVER be just to attack a nation, leave its mothers without husbands and begging on the street, causing children to go into prostitution to make money, killing young men who had done nothing against the other nation, the wholesale slaughter of children, and other such atrocities? These aren't side-effects of war. They are inevitable results. They cannot ever be called "just" in my opinion, but many people seem to hold just such an opinion.

Now, I'm not a pacifist, and I realize that war is sometimes sadly necessary. It, however, is not just. It may simply be the least evil choice of several evils.

Now, I have to ask...how many people on this board seriously believe in this beast? I would really be surprised if there's a large number .

I wholeheartedly agree. Nothing justifies what happens during war.

Dr. No*s -

I think that what you describe as a "just" war, is in fact, what most of us would refer to as a "religious" war. In my mind, there are only two ways to classify a war - offensive or defensive.
Offensive war is one that is waged for any gain of any type - possession of land, gain in power, subjugation of a population, to spread a given religion, etc.
Defensive war is any war that is waged by a nation that is under attack from an aggressor nation.

For myself, any offensive war is morally corrupt, while any defensive war is a moral obligation to ones culture and society.

Of course, like everything that mankind touches, there are gray areas. When the US entered into World War II, it was in a position to support the Allies through material and intelligence help. After Pearl Harbor was attacked, it became a moot point.

TVOR

TVOR,

You're right there. The "just" war is something I've heard a lot of Christians use to classify war in. WWII is the favorite pick for an example.

However, I think I agree virtually word for word with you, especially on the "offensive/defensive" issue. The only other criteria I add is "neccessity," and that is pretty much entirely resolved by the "offensive/defensive" difference.

No*s, who doesn't quite have a doctorate...yet

Oh, I believe in a "just" war...



They are "just" stupid.

They are "just" for the rich to get richer.

They are "just" evil.

They are "just" barbaric.

They are "just" wrong.

They are "just" foolish.

They are "just" expensive.

They are "just" so "Bush".

ND,

That was rich. If my browser didn't screw up on frubals, I'd give you some. As it stands, you have my compliments...

There may be such a thing as a just/defensive war. But the present Iraq invasion certainly isn't one of them.

retrorich said:

There may be such a thing as a just/defensive war. But the present Iraq invasion certainly isn't one of them.

Click to expand...

I don't know if I'd call it just...just necessary.

Maybe war just cant be looked at in this way. Afterall, war, itself, is such a huge thing that looking at it as a whole begins to become a near impossible task. Who can say what the benefits and tragedies which never would have happened if WWII had not taken place. When you are talking about something on such a massive scale, claiming it is either just or injust is not really fair since there are so many reactions and counterreactions that some will inevitably be left out of any judgement made on such a thing.

It is the actions done in war which can be judged as just or injust. There were many good outcomes as well as many bad outcomes of WWII. It doesnt really matter if the war itself was good or bad.... it is the individual effects that are important.

Oh yeah and also remember hindsight is a wonderful thing but makes any discussion on whether something was just completly and utterly useless (in my opinion).

Yes, hindsight is 20/20, and that's why I'm not basing it on the events that come after the war, but on the war itself.

However, we don't know the outcomes of any number of actions. For instance, a man may be engaged to a girl, a drunk hits him, and he later finds a more compatible love that he lives with for his whole life. Was the drunk killing the first woman bad? Unconditionally. Does the fact that he later finds a more compatible love give some justness to it? Absolutely not. Did come of it? Yes, it did.

If I take the line of reasoning used here on war, I could use it to make any event a good thing. There is a difference between good things coming after something, and the thing itself. Would I change WWII? No. I wouldn't want to tamper with history if I could. That doesn't detract from its nastiness either.

No if you placed this line of reasoning onto anything then you would be accepting that no action is good or bad, only its outcomes are good and bad, independently of the action which caused them. I am not arguing that war is good, merely that it cannot be defined as good or bad because it is so complex that the simplifications involved to make it comprehendable to a single person make the end judgement such a rough estimate as to make it useless.

To define something as just is a reflection of the opinions and values of the person making that judgement. When this person decides upon this, he applies all of his opinions and values to every part of the event in question. When there are less elements making up an event, such as a single murder compared with a war, then a group of randomly selected people could be assumed to arrive at roughly the same conclusion since their differences on each article will only give a small overall difference in how just this act was. With war, because it is so huge, the over difference in opinion would be massive if every single event within a war were considered by the same group of people.

I just think that war is so complex that it defies definition in terms of justice.

I am totally against war....I do believe wholeheartedly in the Allies' stopping Hitler. Does that make me a hypocrite?

I don't think it makes you a hypocrite huajiro, its just that, like me, you have trouble with moral absolutes and the problem of taking the lesser evil.

Besides... ignoring the good outcomes of war, even if you consider it totally injust, would be worsening the act wouldn't it? Okay so war is a bad thing... doesn't mean that we can't take advantage of the good things that has come of it. To do otherwise would be to just make all the people, who died during it, remembered only for the bad outcomes of that war.

No*s said:

No*s, who doesn't quite have a doctorate...yet

Click to expand...

A quick trip to the land of Oz can cure that. Of course, you have to bring back the broom from the Wicked Witch of the West.

huajiro said:

I am totally against war....I do believe wholeheartedly in the Allies' stopping Hitler. Does that make me a hypocrite?

Click to expand...

No - it makes you human - with the ability to see areas of gray, and no easy answers.

TVOR

Fluffy said:

I just think that war is so complex that it defies definition in terms of justice.

Click to expand...

Then we will have to disagree on this, because I cannot see it that way. It is, at its heart of hearts, about the protection of resources and the taking of human life as a valid means of doing that. All the extra details grow out of of these assumptions and a few other thrown in. The level of complexity really doesn't alleviate it for me on that point...

huajiro said:

I am totally against war....I do believe wholeheartedly in the Allies' stopping Hitler. Does that make me a hypocrite?

Click to expand...

No. You just recognize that sometimes war is, sadly, necessary . I wish it weren't so...

The Voice of Reason said:

A quick trip to the land of Oz can cure that. Of course, you have to bring back the broom from the Wicked Witch of the West.
TVOR

Click to expand...

Then, praytell, how may I arrive at OZ? I don't want to wait for a tornado .

Then we will have to disagree on this, because I cannot see it that way. It is, at its heart of hearts, about the protection of resources and the taking of human life as a valid means of doing that. All the extra details grow out of of these assumptions and a few other thrown in. The level of complexity really doesn't alleviate it for me on that point...

Click to expand...

Hehe totally agree to disagree. To be honest I find your ideas intriguing and its not as if I have given this idea so much thought that my ideas are set in stone. At least we both agree that war is necessary sometimes.

James 4:1 What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you? 2 You want something but don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. 3 When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures. NIV

Add war to this list.

Fluffy said:

Oh yeah and also remember hindsight is a wonderful thing but makes any discussion on whether something was just completly and utterly useless (in my opinion).

Click to expand...

Never mind hindsight. In this case, a President with even a minimal amount of FORESIGHT would have realized that an invasion of Iraq could never produce positive results--just needless death and destruction on both sides.