Posts: 21362
-
Karma: 5,142
Quickflash, if you'd read my earlier post, you would've noted that I asked 'peaceful solution to what?' What is the problem we are confronting? What makes a problem adequately large for war should a peaceful solution to it not be found? Obviously not just any problem will do. As BigJ said, it needs to be a certain type of particularly important one. If people in your country go prancing about naked, and someone takes offense to this, it might be a problem they have with your country, but it isn't reason enough to declare war. This is the boiled egg problem (from Gulliver's Travels, wherein one nation declares war on another because of a disagreement in their manner of eating boiled eggs). Why is your problem more worthy of warring over than how I eat an egg? What is the moral rule that makes it so?
What I was looking for (and I now realize this might not have been clear enough) was some general principle that should be obeyed, which would justify a war. Something like 'We should do what will result in the well-being of the greatest number of people' (I'm not suggesting that's right, just an example). However, you say that no such general principle exists. Am I to take it, then, that there is no standard for judging what is a better reason to go to war and what is a worse one? Without some external standard, it seems we could not judge the U.S.'s counterattack on Japan as being any better a reason for war than the initial attack on Pearl Harbour was. This is problematic. But I'm getting ahead of myself, I'll deal with that later.
BigJ, thank you for the answer. i understand the problem of writing at work. I've dealt with this whole post while in class (I'm writing this to amuse myself as I go home on the bus), so I know where you're coming from. Anyways, your points...
''ultimently it is every option that is not violent and that does acknowlage the soviregnty of both nations and the power of there governments.''
Forgetting for the moment that the problem of who is to decide what fairly acknowledges the sovreignty of both governments (or if that sort of thing is even important), I'm confused as to what you're saying here. Is it that if we have used all of these channels and failed to reach a resolution to a 'clear problem', war is acceptable? This, again, begs the question of who is to decide what constitutes a 'clear problem', but let's take the sacrifice of babies as an example of such a problem; I think we can all agree that that's a bad one. Country A wishes to stop Country B, whose inhabitants sacrifice one baby every decade to their gods. They follow all the diplomatic channels, but cannot resolve the problem, Country B wants to keep sacrificing babies. Country A then declares war, justly, according to you. The losses of the resultant war amount to, oh, let's say, 20 million dead, including women and children. Was the war right? Most would say it was not. Being a deontologist, I'm not sure, myself... what do you think?
''here must be a clear problem that is being confrounted and not just anything.''
See above, begs the question of what factors make a 'clear problem', a problem sufficient enough for war.
''If we have war declaired on us, hense Germany. A few days after pearl harbor Germany declaired war on the US, thusly the US attack on Germany was justified.''
Suppose Germany hadn't declared war. Suppose they let the Japanese fight their own battles, and left the US alone for a while. Suppose, then, that the US intervened in Europe anyways, and helped to win the war. Was this not justified? Again, this may be an instance where resistance to attack was necessary, but that is not the same as declaring war, obviously.
Now your conclusion, an actual attempt answer my question. About damn time. Thank you. Unfortunately, you've basically said that there is no answer. This makes me sad. So i have to ask, if there's no specific thing, no underlying moral principle that we should be defending when we go to war, how do we decide which of our goals is most just? How do we decide WHEN each is justified, and when not? In essence, and here's the most important part: To use your words, why is it that 'threatening a nation's interests' is a good reason sometimes, but not others? What makes it right in situation A, but wrong in situation B? This implies a standard principle, and I want to know what it is. Without it, your judgments on when a reason is acceptable and when it isn't (and, moreover, your reasons themselves), are totally arbitrary.
That was only a response to BigJ's post up there. I'll try to deal with the others, though i might have addressed them here.
------------
In a haze
A stormy haze
I’ll be around
I’ll be loving you
Always
Always
Here I am
And I’ll take my time
Here I am
And I’ll wait in line
Always
Always...
