9 replies to this topic

[vestes22]

Is it possible for a war to be justified as being moral or ethical? If so, what type of war?

[kim luffy]

i don't think so. In my perception, all wars are immoral and unethical. The type of war i hate the most is the religious ones where people needlessly die for other people's view points etc. Religion teaches people to not kill yet they go out there and kill like no one's business. It's very stupid tbh. But anywho, that's what i think, no war is justifiable.

[vestes22]

Okay, another question: why is it that when someone murders an innocent person in thier sleep then they become a criminal and are persecuted for it. However, when a soldier goes off to war, the innocent people that they kill are written off as collateral damage, and the soldier comes back a hero?

[kim luffy]

Well that's a tough one. Hmm well, i may start saying crap that may not make sense but here i go lol, pardon me for any mistakes and what not. A soldier is valued more to a country and if they do something, it is seen as right in the eyes of the government and/or country because a soldier wouldn't kill for no reason since they're trained etc. The people who died are seen as collateral damage because at the end of the day, it's the country that needs to be saved and having a few people die for them, is nothing compared to their whole population suffering. It's pure selfishness.
Where as a person who kills someone while their sleeping, is considered to be a criminal because they don't have a valid reason for doing it. It's not like they killed the person to save their country or anything. I don't know how to answer this question lol. It's really tough
Human beings are weird creatures like that. I may be wrong about what i said above but that's what i think.

[Award Winning Boss]

Yes they can... using what they think is moral as morals are relative.

It's only unjustified to the person who disagrees with what the other person has said is ethical

[vestes22]

Ah, but there is a distinction between what is moral and what is ethical. Morality defines a specific person's character, while ethics define what is right and wrong within a specific social system. Therefore, a person can be morally opposed to something, but agree with it ethically and vice versa.

kim luffy, on Dec 01, 2011 - 21:59, said:

A soldier is valued more to a country and if they do something, it is seen as right in the eyes of the government and/or country because a soldier wouldn't kill for no reason since they're trained etc.
Where as a person who kills someone while their sleeping, is considered to be a criminal because they don't have a valid reason for doing it. It's not like they killed the person to save their country or anything. I don't know how to answer this question lol. It's really tough

I think that a war can't be justified morally, but is acceptable ethically. I think that's what Kim Luffy^ was kind of getting at.

[Award Winning Boss]

vestes22, on Dec 02, 2011 - 00:00, said:

Ah, but there is a distinction between what is moral and what is ethical. Morality defines a specific person's character, while ethics define what is right and wrong within a specific social system. Therefore, a person can be morally opposed to something, but agree with it ethically and vice versa.

kim luffy, on Dec 01, 2011 - 21:59, said:

A soldier is valued more to a country and if they do something, it is seen as right in the eyes of the government and/or country because a soldier wouldn't kill for no reason since they're trained etc.
Where as a person who kills someone while their sleeping, is considered to be a criminal because they don't have a valid reason for doing it. It's not like they killed the person to save their country or anything. I don't know how to answer this question lol. It's really tough

I think that a war can't be justified morally, but is acceptable ethically. I think that's what Kim Luffy^ was kind of getting at.

They can be justified morally. It's their morals that justify it.

What about the aggressor in a war. Surely their ethics justify it too. No two countries are the same. What you're doing is using your own morals to determine whether other things are justifiable or not.

So I repeat my answer. Yes it can.

[kim luffy]

well that may true but give an example situation where war can be justifiable?

[Award Winning Boss]

kim luffy, on Dec 02, 2011 - 12:28, said:

well that may true but give an example situation where war can be justifiable?

My country is being invaded. Without retaliating it isn't war its just oppression. if I retaliate to defend myself it is war.

There you go

[Sandwich]

AHiddenName, on Dec 02, 2011 - 07:11, said:

vestes22, on Dec 02, 2011 - 00:00, said:

Ah, but there is a distinction between what is moral and what is ethical. Morality defines a specific person's character, while ethics define what is right and wrong within a specific social system. Therefore, a person can be morally opposed to something, but agree with it ethically and vice versa.

kim luffy, on Dec 01, 2011 - 21:59, said:

A soldier is valued more to a country and if they do something, it is seen as right in the eyes of the government and/or country because a soldier wouldn't kill for no reason since they're trained etc.
Where as a person who kills someone while their sleeping, is considered to be a criminal because they don't have a valid reason for doing it. It's not like they killed the person to save their country or anything. I don't know how to answer this question lol. It's really tough

I think that a war can't be justified morally, but is acceptable ethically. I think that's what Kim Luffy^ was kind of getting at.

They can be justified morally. It's their morals that justify it.

What about the aggressor in a war. Surely their ethics justify it too. No two countries are the same. What you're doing is using your own morals to determine whether other things are justifiable or not.

So I repeat my answer. Yes it can.

It can only if you are a subscriber to moral relativism. The majority of people are not moral relativists (you need look at almost anybody being outraged or appalled by anything to see that they do not excuse other people's actions on the basis of relativism). To say that morals are relative is to absolve everybody of everything at every time. It's a ridiculous assertion, in my opinion - to me, relativity seems unrealistic, impractical and to fail to take into account in fact pretty much all human behaviour. If morals are not 'out there' in some way or another, then they don't exist as anything more than individual opinions, which would make them redundant concepts. Clearly however, they do exist, at least inasmuch as people perceive them and there's a universal concept of them.

I think that "do not kill people", for instance, is something which should generalise beyond me. Whole societies have laws regarding killing random strangers on the basis that this is a moral value approaching an absolute. Murderers go to jail, they don't get let off because 'morals are relative'.

In a similar way, what does or doesn't constitute a Just War (if such a thing even exists) is a discussable topic, not a mush of let-it-all-go relativism.