Morality in War...

[Jenson71]

Where does morality fit in war? Where do you draw the line? If you really want to win a war, must you do evil? How much?

Do you think it's justified or not to:

Bomb residential areas of a country we're fighting?
High schools?
Food supply centers for civilians? Military food supply centers?
Military research facilities?
Trains carrying civilians and military?
Military hospitals?


Let's look at Iraq. We are nation-building, it seems. Is that even right for America to do that by force? We tried that in Vietnam, and it didn't work. Although, to their credit, they are pretty much capitalism now. There seems to be things that are off-limits for the US to do in Iraq. If we destroyed a temple full of civilians and terrorists, would there be anything wrong with that?

[KCWolfman]

I have been watching The Color of War on the History Channel. They bring up this question, but on a more personal level. Men have to become numb to their situation and be aggressive or they will be casualties on a front line - unfortunately that includes questionable actions against others who are willing to go just as far.

That said, I believe leaders need to take the big picture moralistic viewpoint.

No, I would not condone deliberately targeting and destroying a school. However, I wouldn't cry about a soldier who shot a prisoner because he couldn't take him back to his base.

[Jenson71]

No, I would not condone deliberately targeting and destroying a school. However, I wouldn't cry about a soldier who shot a prisoner because he couldn't take him back to his base.

I'm just going to try and make you expand on that answer. What about the residential area? Or just bombing an area that happened to have a school in it and we knew it?

Let's talk nuclear weapons. Would it have been wrong in most eyes to drop a nuclear weapon on Vietnam during that war? I think so. Instead, we dropped agent orange and napalm all over. Did anyone have a problem with that? Why is 1 bomb killing 100,000 people bad but 10,000 bombs killing 100,000 people okay? I say that because of the heat America's past gets from dropping 2 bombs in Japan.

[Logical]

Do you think it's justified or not to:

Bomb residential areas of a country we're fighting?

Is the enemy hiding itself in the residential area, then the answer is absolutely yes. They have put their civilians at risk as a moral decision.

High schools? Are they being used to also produce Chemical weapons, you see there is no simple answer, if the answer is yes then bombing it makes sense.

Food supply centers for civilians? Military food supply centers?

A food supply center for Civilians is a food supply center for their military food is food, so yes.

Military research facilities? Absolutely

Trains carrying civilians and military? Yes

Military hospitals? The only 99% no. I would think if a hospital were being used as both a military weapon production facility and a hospital it would call for a strike action by something like Delta Force or the Seals.

[Logical]

I'm just going to try and make you expand on that answer. What about the residential area? Or just bombing an area that happened to have a school in it and we knew it?

Let's talk nuclear weapons. Would it have been wrong in most eyes to drop a nuclear weapon on Vietnam during that war? I think so. Instead, we dropped agent orange and napalm all over. Did anyone have a problem with that? Why is 1 bomb killing 100,000 people bad but 10,000 bombs killing 100,000 people okay? I say that because of the heat America's past gets from dropping 2 bombs in Japan.

Dropping Nuclear bombs bring up entirely different issues. Nuclear escalation from allies, fallout drift, etc. Killing people is killing people that much you are right about not necessarily bad, often just necessary. Too use a bigger bomb to kill the same number of people is not in and of itself worse than many smaller bombs. It is the consequences of the act outside the intention to kill the enemy that must also be considered.

[Jenson71]

Dropping Nuclear bombs bring up entirely different issues. Nuclear escalation from allies, fallout drift, etc. Killing people is killing people that much you are right about not necessarily bad, often just necessary. Too use a bigger bomb to kill the same number of people is not in and of itself worse than many smaller bombs. It is the consequences of the act outside the intention to kill the enemy that must also be considered.

Yes, yes. I think that's a fact. Okay. What if we take the consequences out of the equation? I'm not sure if we even can do that but let's think about it anyway.

Why did we not drop nuclear bomb on Vietnam? It had to have been brought up at point. If we had, the Soviet Union might have bombed us. Is that the only thing stopping us? No, I'll bet there was a morality issue in there. One bomb, and all those people. How horrible that would have looked.

[Logical]

Yes, yes. I think that's a fact. Okay. What if we take the consequences out of the equation? I'm not sure if we even can do that but let's think about it anyway.

Why did we not drop nuclear bomb on Vietnam? It had to have been brought up at point. If we had, the Soviet Union might have bombed us. Is that the only thing stopping us? No, I'll bet there was a morality issue in there. One bomb, and all those people. How horrible that would have looked.

I really doubt there was a morality issue in play, really, really doubt it.

[memyselfI]

Where does morality fit in war? Where do you draw the line? If you really want to win a war, must you do evil? How much?

Do you think it's justified or not to:

Bomb residential areas of a country we're fighting?
High schools?
Food supply centers for civilians? Military food supply centers?
Military research facilities?
Trains carrying civilians and military?
Military hospitals?


Let's look at Iraq. We are nation-building, it seems. Is that even right for America to do that by force? We tried that in Vietnam, and it didn't work. Although, to their credit, they are pretty much capitalism now. There seems to be things that are off-limits for the US to do in Iraq. If we destroyed a temple full of civilians and terrorists, would there be anything wrong with that?

Morality and war are incompatible...anyone trying to make a case that there is such thing as a 'moral' war is playing semantics. Clearly, war's highest tolls are taken on those not even participating in the war. Therefore, there is no such thing as 'moral' war.

It's like saying there is such thing as a 'moral' rape...

it's just not possible.

FWIW, my 7th grader recently was chastised by his communications teacher for arguing the same point I've made above when she was trying to say that Vietnam was morally justified. :rolleyes:

[trndobrd]

Morality and war are incompatible...anyone trying to make a case that there is such thing as a 'moral' war is playing semantics. Clearly, war's highest tolls are taken on those not even participating in the war. Therefore, there is no such thing as 'moral' war.

It's like saying there is such thing as a 'moral' rape...

it's just not possible.

FWIW, my 7th grader recently was chastised by his communications teacher for arguing the same point I've made above when she was trying to say that Vietnam was morally justified. :rolleyes:



http://www.americanrevolution.com/

http://www.civil-war.net/searchlinks.asp?searchlinks=Abolition%20&%20Slavery

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/25.htm
(can't believe you would argue with this one)

www.holocaust-history.org

[patteeu]

I kind of agree with Memyselfi that morality and war don't make a good mix. That's probably where our agreement ends.

IMO, if you are in a war you should do whatever it takes to win it while keeping an eye on long term interests as well as a particular short term war objective. For example, dropping a nuke on the enemy's capital city might be the quickest way to end a war, but you also have to factor in the ill will such an action will generate with other countries that aren't involved in the conflict and what the long term implications of that ill will would be.

If the choice is between bombing a residential area to win a war and not bombing that residential area but losing the war then "bombs away" (assuming that losing the war would have negative consequences that you don't want to accept).

[Mr. Kotter]

Morality and war are incompatible...anyone trying to make a case that there is such thing as a 'moral' war is playing semantics. Clearly, war's highest tolls are taken on those not even participating in the war. Therefore, there is no such thing as 'moral' war.

It's like saying there is such thing as a 'moral' rape...

it's just not possible.

FWIW, my 7th grader recently was chastised by his communications teacher for arguing the same point I've made above when she was trying to say that Vietnam was morally justified. :rolleyes:

So, going to war to stop Hitler was not morally justifiable in your mind?

How pathetic. Not surprising at all, but pathetic nonetheless. The standard for a moral war is if the gravity of evil PREVENTED by going to war, outweighs the gravity of evil "perpetrated"....

[Mr. Kotter]

This link makes the usual arguments, and a pretty good case....

http://pewforum.org/just-war/

AN EXCERPT:

While loathing the destruction and loss of life that attend war, Augustine nonetheless believed that a "just war" might be preferable to an unjust peace. Drawing on the apostle Paul's New Testament injunction to submit to governing authorities, "who do not bear the sword for nothing" (cf. Romans 13:1-7), Augustine recognized biblical mandates for individuals to love their neighbors (to the point of renouncing self-defense) even while defending government's duty to preserve civic peace and to secure justice. He maintained that use of force is necessary—though always regrettable—in a fallen world in order to restrain evil, but that its ultimate goal must be to restore peace.

St. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-74) significantly contributed to the development of just war theory in his Summa Theologica in the 13th century. He formalized three criteria for a just war—right authority (a sovereign government, rather than individuals), just cause (to avenge wrongs or to restore what was unjustly seized) and right intention (the advancement of good or the avoidance of evil)—while also laying the groundwork for other criteria that would eventually be integrated into the tradition.

[Baby Lee]

So, going to war to stop Hitler was not morally justifiable in your mind?

How pathetic. Not surprising at all, but pathetic nonetheless. The standard for a moral war is if the gravity of evil PREVENTED by going to war, outweighs the gravity of evil "perpetrated"....
That's a crappy standard. The evil of your enemy is no excuse for needless evil on your part.
I would propose that the standard for a moral war is the effort a nation goes to in assuring that their efforts maximize the effect on the identified enemy and minimize the effect on all others, while maintaining a steadfast lock on the aims sought by warring in the first place.

[patteeu]

That's a crappy standard. The evil of your enemy is no excuse for needless evil on your part.
I would propose that the standard for a moral war is the effort a nation goes to in assuring that their efforts maximize the effect on the identified enemy and minimize the effect on all others, while maintaining a steadfast lock on the aims sought by warring in the first place.

That sounds like a good standard to me. :thumb:

[Mr. Kotter]

That's a crappy standard. The evil of your enemy is no excuse for needless evil on your part.
I would propose that the standard for a moral war is the effort a nation goes to in assuring that their efforts maximize the effect on the identified enemy and minimize the effect on all others, while maintaining a steadfast lock on the aims sought by warring in the first place.

Sorry I didn't include that in the excerpt...if you had clicked on the link, it comports with your:

that their efforts maximize the effect on the identified enemy and minimize the effect on all others

[Baby Lee]

Sorry I didn't include that in the excerpt...if you had clicked on the link, it comports with your:
I wasn't replying to the link, I was replying to your standard is the previous post.

[Mr. Kotter]

I wasn't replying to the link, I was replying to your standard is the previous post.

And post #12, with the link...was a continuation of an explanation of the standard I began in post #11....hence....the "...." ending post #11.

:)

[memyselfI]

http://www.americanrevolution.com/

http://www.civil-war.net/searchlinks.asp?searchlinks=Abolition%20&%20Slavery

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/25.htm
(can't believe you would argue with this one)

www.holocaust-history.org

I believe the crux of their arguments have more to do with war being 'just' or a 'necessary evil' vs. being actually moral. As it is entirely possible to do a wrong thing for the right/just reasons...

and vice versa.

However, doing so for right/just reasons still does not make it necessarily moral.

[tyton75]

Machiavelli would say that, if you are going to make war, make it swift and terrible.

In the case of Iraq, I think thats exactly what we did.. we won the "war"... what is left is essentially a police state where we are trying to help them self-govern, which makes for a lot of grey areas that one wouldn't necessarily face in "war".

But speaking of War.. I agree with Machiavelli... Do it fast and as terrible as possible to minimize losses on your side... quick and overwhelming strike demoralizes the enemy, nothing should be a DMZ, if a mosque is holding some members of the enemy.. level the place.

[Clint in Wichita]

I don't think any military should fire a single shot unless it is willing to kill everyone within the borders of its enemy's territory, if necessary.

The USA hasn't fought a real war since WWII, when we firebombed Tokyo and nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki without batting an eye. That was also the last last time our freedom was directly protected by the armed forces.

If the govt. had been pussyfooting around during WWII the way they have during every conflict since, we'd STILL be fighting the Japanese.

[Calcountry]

I have been watching The Color of War on the History Channel. They bring up this question, but on a more personal level. Men have to become numb to their situation and be aggressive or they will be casualties on a front line - unfortunately that includes questionable actions against others who are willing to go just as far.

That said, I believe leaders need to take the big picture moralistic viewpoint.

No, I would not condone deliberately targeting and destroying a school. However, I wouldn't cry about a soldier who shot a prisoner because he couldn't take him back to his base.Military should never ever hide behind the skirts of women & children, or under the desks of schools, pews of churches.

It turns those innocents into hostiles plain and simple.

[Logical]

That's a crappy standard. The evil of your enemy is no excuse for needless evil on your part.
I would propose that the standard for a moral war is the effort a nation goes to in assuring that their efforts maximize the effect on the identified enemy and minimize the effect on all others, while maintaining a steadfast lock on the aims sought by warring in the first place.

Using your standard it is reasonable to assume we would have lost WWII. I am glad we did not follow your morality.

[Logical]

I believe the crux of their arguments have more to do with war being 'just' or a 'necessary evil' vs. being actually moral. As it is entirely possible to do a wrong thing for the right/just reasons...

and vice versa.

However, doing so for right/just reasons still does not make it necessarily moral.

So to do the moral thing it would have been moral to allow Hitler and the Nazi's to pursue their Ultimate Solution?

[trndobrd]

I believe the crux of their arguments have more to do with war being 'just' or a 'necessary evil' vs. being actually moral. As it is entirely possible to do a wrong thing for the right/just reasons...

and vice versa.

However, doing so for right/just reasons still does not make it necessarily moral.


That may be the most convoluted and insipid thing I've ever seen posted on this board.

[Mr. Kotter]

So to do the moral thing it would have been moral to allow Hitler and the Nazi's to pursue their Ultimate Solution?

Actually, they called it the FINAL Solution.... ;)

And surely she'd favor it; it would have saved her Arab comrads a lot of grief. :rolleyes:

[mlyonsd]

However, doing so for right/just reasons still does not make it necessarily moral.

So are you saying all war is fundamentaly immoral, or can you give an example of a war that was fought for the right/just reasons that was moral?

Just trying to understand what you mean here.

[Mr. Kotter]

So are you saying all war is fundamentaly immoral, or can you give an example of a war that was fought for the right/just reasons that was moral?

Just trying to understand what you mean here.

Life is war between good and evil. The world is war between heaven and hell. The struggle between "the force" and "the dark side" wasn't invented by George Lucas....

War sucks, but the nature of the universe, sadly, makes it necessary. What's the country song? "You gotta stand for somethin', or you'll fall for anything...." or somethin' like that.

[memyselfI]

So to do the moral thing it would have been moral to allow Hitler and the Nazi's to pursue their Ultimate Solution?

Nope.

But by agreeing to a perpetuate a 'lesser' evil (in our view) in order to stop him we were willing to participate in war, also killing innocent people, ourselves.

Where does it stop?

Thus, war is immoral. Again, it's possible that it's the lesser evil and done for the 'right' reasons but there is no way in hell it's ever moral to choose who lives and dies and try to justify that choice by saying it's for the 'greater good.'

[CHIEF4EVER]

Machiavelli would say that, if you are going to make war, make it swift and terrible.

I would have to agree with Machiavelli and you bring up a good point with your quote. Look back on history at the successful civilizations and their response to threats. Take the Roman final response to Carthage for a prime example. They beat their enemy, sacked their city, and sowed salt in the soil to prevent it being settled again. That type of resolve made the Romans a feared enemy for over a thousand years. The Huns. Mongols and Saracens were also greatly feared because they were willing to completely destroy their opponent to make an example of them. War is not moral. Robert E Lee said it best: "It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it". War is a scourge but if employed must be prosecuted as violently and decisively as possible.