Is war wrong?
 

Is war necessarily wrong? If so, why?

Why is the suffering and killing of people for personal gain necessarily wrong?

Is your current DVD broken or something?

:winkwink:

Earth is overpopulated.
We need to get rid of a couple billion people anyway.

Actually, I'm hoping Punkworld or Labret has a good answer.

Labret, How would one view war through the glasses of "cultural relativism"?

Punkworld, anything interesting on the topic in that philosophy-filled big brain of yours?

It all comes together.

"equilibrium" through war?

Its basic natural behavior at a highly evolutionalized technological point. It shows how truely primative human kind still is. A more organized intelligent perfect species would never have to resort to violence. Or maybe not.:winkwink:

Yeah, I'm not sure at all that is true. We know nothing about it.

It may be a Universal principle that the civilization more willing to wipe the other one out is more likely to survive. Do peaceful civilizations perish?

The facts support aggressive civilizations as being dominate in our history. In theory you can assume that a vastly intelligent civilization would avoid destruction and set backs. But who really knows. I am drinking beer at 8:00 AM. Just to let you know where my head is.:1orglaugh

You're assuming there is such a thing, or has been. Does evidence actually exist that points to a truly peaceful civilization?

I feel honored :)

"Why is the suffering and killing of people for personal gain necessarily wrong?"

I think there are several answers possible to this question.

One could be empathy. One of the main characteristics of humans is empathy, the suffering of others is most often not seen as just an empirical fact, but rather something that includes a lot of emotion on the part of the observer. People also make a link of the kind of "it could be me" when they observe suffering, and obviously, most people wouldn't exactly like it if they themselves were subjected to suffering for the personal gain of others. One can derive the concept of reciprocity from this: only do to others what you would want them to do to you.

Another point is the selfish one, which in this case is very similar (I am mixing a few different ethical theories together here, but what the heck). For a society in which you yourself can live in freedom, happiness and prosperity it is necessary for all members of that society to cooperate and not kill eachother off for personal gains. You can see society as a "contract" between it's different members, which is mutually beneficial. Now, if you would break that contract, there would be no reason for the other parties involved to not do the same. That would lead to a situation in which you would most likely lose your freedom, happiness and prosperity. So, it benefits everyone to follow the rules and thusly create a relatively peaceful society. Ofcourse, it also brings along the enforcement of rules by society: the few people that do not follow the rules are exterminated or imprisoned by society as a whole in order to keep society intact. So, breaking the contract also has more direct consequences.

Besides these answers, there are ofcourse also a great deal of people who believe in an intrinsic worth of human lives. From this point of view it is self-explanatory that people shouldn't just be killed.

There are many other answers one can think of, almost as much as there are ethical theories. I myself - being a cultural intuitionist - tend toward the idea that not killing others for personal benefits is essential to succesful societies, and that because of that it is one of the basic "moral" values passed along to society's members.
Societies that feel differently about this would quickly fall apart, and wouldn't be able to pass on their cultural values, so those ideas (or rather, feelings) would die out eventually as dominant cultural values.
Ofcourse, cultures that reject war completely die out at least as quickly, so a certain balance between the two exists, where dominance sometimes lies on the side of war and sometimes on the side of peace, depending on the circumstances.

No, I'm not. I have absolutely no idea whether there even are other civilizations outside of Earth. Completely conjectural.

I wasn't referring to civilizations outside of earth, and didn't think you were either. I meant here, now, and throughout the history of this planet. Which is really the only thing that should be relevant at this point of human existance.

I say we kill ten million Americans and talk about it some more...

What do you think?

Punkworld,

As far as empathy, isn't it important how wide your circle of empathy is? Some people are empathetic towards their neighbors, some towards their countrymen, some towards all of humanity, some to all mammals and some extend it to everything that is alive. Why should one choose all humans rather than any of the other choices? Arbitrary or not?

A related note on the social contract. Isn't it important who one considers to be "in society" and who one considers to be outside? Can't one just define "Westerners" as "in society" and others as not? Again, arbitrary or not?

To quite an extent, Isn't this what someone that believes war should never be an option does, they extend their circle of empathy to include all people? Are they justified?

:glugglug

I think you have no interest in discussing the question. Why Americans? Are you trying to appeal to my empathy zone?

Southpark has ruined the name "Kenny" for me forever.

Yes, you fucking idiot.

You certainly thought war was wrong when 19 terrorists killed over 3000 Americans didn't you?

Or were you just humiliated that a raghead with 200 million to his name managed to humiliate your nation and turned your populace into a paraniod pathetic mess of humanity?

Tell me, are you a moron or do you just enjoy acting like one?

Fuck you and your empathy zone.

Very valid points.
I will reply later tonight, as I am now late for an appointment with my girlfriend.

Well, I was responding to Kenny who said "It shows how truely primative human kind still is. A more organized intelligent perfect species would never have to resort to violence". This I took to mean he was referring to a hypothetical non-human species since we are neither perfect nor "more organized" than ourselves by definition. Maybe he was referring to "a future evolutionary state" of mankind. Since we know nothing about this either, we might just as well talk about hypothetical alien civilizations that already exist with such features. Different species. Same conversation. At any rate, the aliens are in.

Cool, man. I look forward to it.

Exactly, all in theory.

Why is that? The only time I ever see my name cross referenced with south park is here on GFY. I think it is funny actually. Not ounce have I announced my name and the person I was meeting said "Like the kenny in southpark".:winkwink:

You're obviously angry about something that has nothing to do with me or the current conversation. That you are projecting that anger at me by calling me "fucking idiot" and "moron" is laughable.

Even though others understand the thread and you are the only one that doesn't, I'll take the time and rephrase it for you so that you may more easily understand what is going on.

Is the following easier for you to understand?

-REPHRASED QUESTION FOR THE SLOW KID
Is war necessarily wrong (even if it waged against Americans)? If so, why? Why is the
suffering and killing of people for personal gain necessarily wrong?
---------------------------------

If you still don't get it, let me know and I'll try again. I used to tutor middle school
students so I can probably explain it to you in a way you'll understand.

See, the conversation has nothing to do with "Americans" or "Iraq" or "terrorists" and I was
not interested in that conversation. It was a general conversation as you might guess by
reading what other people besides you are already discussing.

:1orglaugh

What fucking personal gain? How is the average American going to benefit from war with Iraq? Is the price of oil going to go down? The United States will not be setting the price of oil; This oil is owned by the Iraqi people. In fact, the price of oil is sure to go up. Check out the prices the next time you buy gas; We are already paying for this.

War is a horrible thing. No one in our armed forces wants this. The job of our armed forces is to prevent war just by their existence. Even the most hardened gung ho US Marine doesn't want to have bullets flying past their head.

War is the final option after all methods of diplomacy have been exhausted. I would say ten years of diplomacy and ten years of Iraq taking pot shots on our jets enforcing the UN no fly zones is more than enough diplomacy, isn't it?

Okay well lets talk about killing Americans.

Let's just say that a hypothetical nation wanted to bomb the shit out of the USA because you have (or possibly might have!) weapons of mass destruction. Lets say they wanted to kill millions of Americans?

Do you think that would be wrong? If so, why?

Where did I say ANYTHING about America or Iraq?

This is funny. Joe Sixpack is angry because he thinks my question is an argument for war with Iraq. You rant because you think I am against war with Iraq or that America would personally gain from one.

Philosophical question only.

Let's make it hypothetical. I'm in for a giggle.

I don't have a good answer to my question. That's why I am asking it. I'm interested in what others have to say and in particular what knowledge people might have about classical arguments regarding such - or maybe something a little "neo". I was particularly interested in Punkworld's and Labret's thoughts because they often have something interesting and thought-provoking to say.

I am really interested in hearing and discussing something about the subject that I have not already heard. You have already assumed my position and all my thoughts on the matter but are completely incorrect in your assumptions. Where you are leading with your questions is completely obvious and would only be interesting and novel if I held the particular viewpoint you assume I hold.

It'd be more useful if you told me what you think rather than telling me how I think.

Killing each other is a significant part of human nature.

We are, to my knowledge, the only species that does it in the rather random fashion in which we do it.

Its the price of sentience. Human beings are able to think in terms of the abstract. This trait is bound to produce som fucked up people.

To even consider the possibility that everyone just got along, and lived in harmony is ridiculous. The x-factor induced by our ability to think in terms of the abstract leaves out any possibility of reason, as reason is a relative term.

Interesting duroflex. Do you think it impossible then that we can ever create a society without murder and war?

Actually MANY species, including Lions, Tigers, Snakes, Apes, Bears, and many others, will kill other animals in their species in a effort to "protect and advance" their bloodline...


Did anyone ever see the movie Fightclub? War is just that on a Nation scale.....

With the money spent for military bullshit they cpuld have made a lot of fuckin miracles on this planet. Billions of fuckin dollars into some fucked up weapons. Reminder: sum ppl live with 1 dollar a day and some die cause they dont have that dollar ... Now ... how fucked up is this world!?
U tell me :)

I'm not telling you what you think.

I want to know what you'd think about killing Americans, lots of them, in the name of war - any type of war - by a hypothetical foreign power.

Would that be right?

Joe, do you purposely seek out threads to spew your fucking anti-american bullshit?? You have said before that you don't hate America, but you are calling us a "pathetic mess of humanity" ? Of course, this is your opinion and I despise it with every fiber of my being, but you're entitled to it.

You chose language that is hateful, whether or not you hate is trivial at this point. Your mouth is speaking volumes for your character.

:ak47:

I've heard you and many like you say "Bomb Iraq" and "Kill 'em ALL" many, many, many times.

Tell me, do you hate the Iraqi people?

If so, why?

Yes. That's exactly what I think.

There is not a single species on earth that isn't in some way either predator or prey. Even humans, who have the (theoretical) option of removin themselves entire from the food chain, still kill at their own leisure.

Any way you see it, someone is bound to end up dead in the hands of another. Total peace is an impossibility.

Even if human kind chose to enforce total peace, who decides who enforces it? And enforcing peace is a contradiction of terms, anyway.

Whether its due to emotions, insanity or anything else for that matter, people kill each other. Always have, always will.

Are you really going to tell me that you are not telling me what I think after beginning a sentence with "you certainly thought ... "?

Yes, you are telling me what I think and what I thought. When you called me a "fucking idiot" and a "moron" and said "fuck you" you had already assumed my position. It is obvious that you had already assumed my position by the following two questions:

"You certainly thought war was wrong when 19 terrorists killed over 3000 Americans didn't you?"

"were you just humiliated that a raghead with 200 million to his name managed to humiliate your nation and turned your populace into a paraniod pathetic mess of humanity?"

Those are really statements, Joe.

You are inferring that I was "humiliated" and that I thought "my populace" had been turned "into a pathetic mess" and that I am so angry about it that I think we should kill Iraqis .. or is it Afghani's?

Your question asking me how I would feel if X Americans were killed is transparent, assuming, and no deeper than what fourth graders discuss in their current events class. Please give up on the 10 year old "Sunday School" lesson.

The only one that ended up looking like an idiot and a moron is you, Joe. If you want to try and deny what you said in just the past hour go ahead. It's all there. You can re-read it.

Right and wrong are subjective concepts. Each person's response to such a question would be based on their own personal beliefs and value system.

Is war wrong? Is it wrong for the strong to dominate the weak? It happens every day in nature. If one country is stronger than its neighbour, is it wrong for the stronger to exert it's will on the weaker? Historically the natural response was for the strong nations to conquer the weak. This was perfectly natural behaviour up until the 20th century. By this time complex alliance systems had developed as this was the only way for the weaker nations to ensure their self preservation. As a result, these alliance systems triggered 2 world wars. This combined with modern warfare changed the public perception of war from a heroic struggle to that of an impersonal bloodbath where millions died needlessly. Before the 20th century war was romanticized and men looked forward to it as a way of making a name for themselves. So the concept of war being "wrong" is a very new concept, less than 100 years old. Is it wrong? It depends on which side you're on and your reasons for going to war.