ARCHIVE: Fool is only fooling himself

[Balder]

Some here consider "war" to be a kind of "pass" -- an anything-goes time in which what is normally immoral, like stabbing an infant as it sleeps in its bed, or taking a mother and baby and shooting them down, or bombing families into oblivion, or perhaps sawing up prisoners and putting them in ovens -- is okay. This is a real danger of abstract thinking, in my view. It allows people to disconnect from what they are doing and view it abstractly, impersonally. It is easier to drop a bomb on a family you can't see than to walk through their front door and listen to them scream as you stab them, and perhaps the former seems all right under the veneer of "orders" and these abstract ideas about war.

War is justifiable in some circumstances, but people here seem to think war justifies anything, any sort of behavior and brutality. They certainly think it justifies targeting innocents, because (again through their abstractions) they view people not as precious living, breathing, sentient beings, but as abstract "parts" of this ruling concept of "corporately guilty nations."

Determine the reasons for the war before the war, and what goals you want to accomplish in engaging in war. If surrender of the enemy does not accomplish your goal, then it shouldn't be allowed to stop the war.
I have no problem with the Bible, you have a problem with it.

I have known people who think if you can come up with a good goal for your people -- say, getting more land, or perhaps seizing resources you want (like oil) -- then that's good enough reason and a war of aggression is justified. Once justified, this "war hat" gets put on, and then anything goes. If people object and say that people should not be indiscriminately killed, civilians should not be targeted, genocide should not be committed, or even question whether the cause for war is justified, they are called wusses and idiots. They are considered "in the way," they are accused of "undermining the war effort," and the influence of conscience on that nation is shamed into silence or shut out of public discourse.

 

[genuineoriginal]

But that's what YOUR book says. The inhabitants surrendered, the Hebrews killed them. I'm not making this up, man. Do your homework and know your Bible better.

Determine the reasons for the war before the war, and what goals you want to accomplish in engaging in war. If surrender of the enemy does not accomplish your goal, then it shouldn't be allowed to stop the war.
I have no problem with the Bible, you have a problem with it.

 

[Granite]

Determine the reasons for the war before the war, and what goals you want to accomplish in engaging in war. If surrender of the enemy does not accomplish your goal, then it shouldn't be allowed to stop the war.
I have no problem with the Bible, you have a problem with it.

You're damn right: killing children, especially after the surrender of a city, is an atrocity. It's barbarism. These days such depradations are referred to as "war crimes" and the perpetrators are hanged and shot. And not without good reason.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Some here consider "war" to be a kind of "pass" -- an anything-goes time in which what is normally immoral, like stabbing an infant as it sleeps in its bed, or taking a mother and baby and shooting them down, or bombing families into oblivion, or perhaps sawing up prisoners and putting them in ovens -- is okay. This is a real danger of abstract thinking, in my view. It allows people to disconnect from what they are doing and view it abstractly, impersonally. It is easier to drop a bomb on a family you can't see than to walk through their front door and listen to them scream as you stab them, and perhaps the former seems all right under the veneer of "orders" and these abstract ideas about war.

War is justifiable in some circumstances, but people here seem to think war justifies anything, any sort of behavior and brutality. They certainly think it justifies targeting innocents, because (again through their abstractions) they view people not as precious living, breathing, sentient beings, but as abstract "parts" of this ruling concept of "corporately guilty nations."

I am assuming you consider me to be one of those people.
I believe that war is about destruction, and should not be entered into lightly. I believe that the rules for a peaceful society do not apply to a war. It is easier to drop a bomb than to use a sword. That is not good. Soldiers need to see, hear, smell, taste, and feel the effects of war. Then they need to pass those stories on to their children and grandchildren. This way nobody views war abstractly and impersonally the way we do now.
There are things that are not justified in war, but those things do not include killing. Killing is always justified in war. War is about killing people. War is about killing precious, living, breathing, sentient beings. It should not be undertaken lightly. It should be entered into reluctantly, with regret, not with glee. Unfortunately, that is not how it works.
War should not be entered into unless the goals of the war are justified. When war is justified, then it should be entered into without pity. When the goals of the war have been met, then the war should be stopped.

 

[Balder]

War should not be entered into unless the goals of the war are justified. When war is justified, then it should be entered into without pity. When the goals of the war have been met, then the war should be stopped.

This is a dangerous line of thinking. Perhaps you underestimate the human power of rationalization and self-justification.

 

[soothsayer]

I have no moral issue with killing men, women, children, infants, and animals in war. This is what war is. I have no moral issue with hurricanes destroying cities. I have no moral issues with volcanoes erupting and burying cities. I have no moral issues with floods destroying cities. I recognize that war, hurricanes, floods, and volcanoes are sources of destruction.

War is a human institution, natural disasters are not. I don't see the correlation.

You, on the other hand, claimed that I think it is okay to keep killing infants after a city has surrendered. That is not my belief, it is the one your own mind is projecting onto me. I believe that reasonable effort should be made to avoid war,

Why? You have already said that you have no moral issue with war...why try to avoid it?

 

[Balder]

I have no moral issue with killing men, women, children, infants, and animals in war. This is what war is.

As I stated in my first post on this thread, this line of reasoning seriously undermines the moral position of those Christians who oppose abortion. Because it admits that there are conditions in which it is okay to kill babies; it just uses different conditions. Which reveals that what drives the thinking of such individuals is not concern for the infants after all, but abstract principles and rules.

 

[genuineoriginal]

War is a human institution, natural disasters are not. I don't see the correlation.

Why? You have already said that you have no moral issue with war...why try to avoid it?

You misunderstood me. I believe war should be a last resort, not a first option, but I have no moral objection to killing in war. War is about killing. War is the result of the wickedness of nations. When a nation or nation reaches a certain level of wickedness, war is the inevitable result.

 

[genuineoriginal]

As I stated in my first post on this thread, this line of reasoning seriously undermines the moral position of those Christians who oppose abortion. Because it admits that there are conditions in which it is okay to kill babies; it just uses different conditions. Which reveals that what drives the thinking of such individuals is not concern for the infants after all, but abstract principles and rules.

I disagree. You are comparing individuals killing babies in peacetime for the purposes of money and convience to the efforts of a nation in war to reach a successful conclusion of the war. Allowing individuals to kill babies in peacetime is wickedness and unnecessary. Killing everyone in a city during a war is regrettable, but often necessary.

 

[Balder]

I disagree. You are comparing individuals killing babies in peacetime for the purposes of money and convience to the efforts of a nation in war to reach a successful conclusion of the war. Allowing individuals to kill babies in peacetime is wickedness and unnecessary. Killing everyone in a city during a war is regrettable, but often necessary.

No, you are missing the point. You have accepted that there are some scenarios in which it is okay to take innocent life...here, specifically, the lives of infants. You have defended the actions of the Hebrews in cutting down infants. You are defending killing anyone at all during wartime, whether a combatant or not. Your position is inconsistent -- or at least morally on par with those who think it is okay to abort fetuses. (I think yours is even worse, personally.)

On a slightly different not (not directed specifically at you, G.O.), there is a book out called, "When Religion Becomes Evil." (Or something like that.) I think the reasoning exhibited on this thread is a living illustration of what the authors of that book describe. Not that the people here are evil -- I don't believe that; only that the thinking used here can lead very readily to religiously sanctioned atrocities.

 

[soothsayer]

You misunderstood me. I believe war should be a last resort, not a first option, but I have no moral objection to killing in war.

OK, but then you go on to say:

War is about killing.

If, as you say, there is nothing morally reprehensible about killing in war, and if war, as you also say, is about killing...then why should it be a last resort? If there is nothing wrong with killing in war, then war need not be a last resort.

 

[Granite]

I disagree. You are comparing individuals killing babies in peacetime for the purposes of money and convience to the efforts of a nation in war to reach a successful conclusion of the war. Allowing individuals to kill babies in peacetime is wickedness and unnecessary. Killing everyone in a city during a war is regrettable, but often necessary.

How the hell can you say that killing babies in the 21st century during wartime is OFTEN necessary?

 

[Granite]

Bump.

This is mostly to the baby-killing bunch out there. I mean, fire when ready. Stab away.

 

[fool]

Stab away.

:shocked: don't tell em that!

 

[genuineoriginal]

We seem to be having a problem agreeing on what war is.
I am seeing responses that indicate that some people in this discussion believe in the absolutism theory of war:

Absolutism - Absolutism holds that there are various ethical rules that are, as the name implies, absolute. Breaking such moral rules is never legitimate and therefore is always unjustifiable. The philosopher Thomas Nagel is a well known supporter of this view, having defended it in his essay War and Massacre. (LINK)

Others in this discussion believe in the pacifism theory of war:

Pacifism - Pacifism is the belief that war of any kind is morally unjust. One argument pacifists have made against Just War theory is that Just War theory advocates the protection and sanctity of innocent lives, yet during war the lives of innocent people cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, unless the lives of the innocent can be guaranteed, war cannot be justified under any grounds. (LINK)

Others in this discussion believe in the just war theory of war:

While Just War theory holds that killing is, in a general sense, morally unacceptable, it also recognizes that war is inevitable between states and will lead to deaths. Just War theory attempts to define conditions and situations in which the killing of others becomes a moral obligation. The main concerns of Just War theory are the protection of innocents (non-combatants), the creation of rules which can minimize deaths, and the waging of wars within defined rules. A Just War, therefore, is not merely defined by purely utilitarian criteria, but also by their means, principles and virtues. (LINK)

Some may hold to the realism theory of war:

Realism - The core proposition of realism is a skepticism as to whether moral concepts such as justice can be applied to the conduct of international affairs. Proponents of realism believe that moral concepts should never prescribe, nor circumscribe, a state's behaviour. Instead, a state should place an emphasis on state security and self-interest. One form of realism - descriptive realism - proposes that states cannot act morally, while another form - prescriptive realism - argues that the motivating factor for a state is self-interest. (LINK)

Some may hold to the total war theory:

Total war is a 20th century term to describe a war in which countries or nations use all of their resources to destroy another organized country or nation's ability to engage in war. The practice of total war has been in use for centuries, but it was only in the middle to late nineteenth century that total war was recognized as a separate class of warfare. (LINK)
Total war is essentially a war in which the homefront (that is, a state's political system, society and economy) is mobilised to a massive degree for the continuation and expansion of the war effort. It is characterised by civilian infrastructure and civilians themselves becoming highly involved in war as part of the military's logistical support system. (LINK)

My personal beliefs appear to be similar to the total war theory. I believe in a country or nation using all their resources to destroy another country, and that civilians are a major part of the war effort.

Some of my beliefs on war appear similar to the absolute war theory:

However, war itself does not contain inherent moral or political aspects. Rather, such conditions (for instance, the laws of armed conflict) are placed on war by those who fight it, and exist because the intelligence of the civilised nations involved exercises greater influence on their methods of fighting war than does their instinctive hostility (that is, the passion of hatred). Absolute war therefore, can be seen to be an act of violence without compromise in which states fight to war's natural extremes; it is a war without the 'grafted' political and moral moderations.(LINK)

I believe that the laws of armed conflict are nice sounding, but have no place in war.

 

[fool]

My personal beliefs appear to be similar to the total war theory. I believe in a country or nation using all their resources to destroy another country, and that civilians are a major part of the war effort.

Some of my beliefs on war appear similar to the absolute war theory:
I believe that the laws of armed conflict are nice sounding, but have no place in war.

How about the laws of decent human behavior?
Civilians are an asset for sure, but the case under disscusion regaurds finding an infant in the wreakage of a place you have conquered and smoting it as well.
Why wouldn't you make it your own asset?

 

[Balder]

G.O., do you think the total war theory is compatible with a Christian worldview? I take it you do, and I suppose I can see why, though I know a number of Christians who would disagree. Why do you support the total war theory? Why is it superior to other views? It seems awfully excessive and callous to me, but then so do the actions of a God who will wipe out a planet of living beings in order to punish a small portion of them.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

It seems awfully excessive and callous to me, but then so do the actions of a God who will wipe out a planet of living beings in order to punish a small portion of them.

Are you talking about the animals? He had Noah build the Ark -- what do you want?

 

[Granite]

How about the laws of decent human behavior?
Civilians are an asset for sure, but the case under disscusion regaurds finding an infant in the wreakage of a place you have conquered and smoting it as well.
Why wouldn't you make it your own asset?

"Decent" being awfully subjective, unfortunately, though I see what you're getting at.

This whole discussion puts the lie to the Christian emphasis on the "sanctity of life," as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Balder]

Are you talking about the animals? He had Noah build the Ark -- what do you want?

Oh, I don't know. How about finding a way to accomplish his aims that does not demand killing off millions or even billions of living beings?