Is War Ever Justified?

[Se7en]

Plus, I want to make another point..

Is violence ever justifiable? I guess most, if not all of us here on Interference think that physical violence in private households, which is mainly against women, is not justified. I go as far as saying it is never justified.

You maybe think the same, but I can tell you the thousands of men have and still do try to justify their violent actions.

You think, they are not right. Violence is not justifiable in a relationship. Also when the woman grabs a gun and shoots the guy, you ask yourself, is that justified? She acted in defense, and maybe she had every right, but still, she killed a man; can that be justified?

But still you justify the most cruel, most extreme violences of all: war. And why that? Because you think the cause is just and noble . You basically think so because the media and your government tell you. If they didn´t you´d neither acknowledge there is a problem.

But our governments tell us that it is just. And we believe them. And the soldiers jump into war, happy&proud, thinking they are defending "their" country.

Man, we must be brainwashed.

i am generally in agreement with you.

 

[yolland]

The 6th commandment says thou shalt not kill.

Of course you can--and should--take the 6th commandment to mean whatever you believe God intended, as informed by your own beliefs and your own relationship with God.

BUT, just as an FYI, the Hebrew text here--lo tirtzakh--actually means "You shall not murder" (or, more literally, "Murder not!") The Hebrew for "You shall not kill" would be lo taharoq, which is not what the text says.

There were some pacifist Jewish sects during the Roman era who maintained that lo taharoq was in fact the ultimate intended meaning of this commandment, and I *think* it was from their texts that Christian tradition took its traditional "Thou shalt not kill" translation. However, today there are several Christian translations that do defer to the original, lo tirtzakh. Couldn't tell you which ones they are, though.

That aside, I generally agree with you. There are, regrettably and tragically, times when war--and very occasionally other forms of violence--is the "best" of a bad slew of choices, the one most likely to protect human life and dignity in the long run. But, like you, I am not comfortable using the word "justified" to describe these awful occasions. "Justified" suggests that the moral necessity of doing the wrong thing (in the short term) somehow magically obliviates the wrongness done. It does not.

Above and beyond that, there is also the fact that most wars include acts by both sides whose moral necessity (even in the longterm view) is highly debatable. The Allied bombing of Dresden, for instance.

 

[anitram]

Re: what the Hebrew texts say...as Christians, are we obligated to follow Mosaic Law to the letter or do we take the teachings of Jesus to supersede it? I heard an interesting lecture about this very issue years ago.

 

[yolland]

Not that I'm qualified to answer ...but it's a foregone conclusion, isn't it, that Christians don't follow Mosaic Law? I guess I have heard of some sects that argue St. Paul was wrong about that, or that the "Thus he declared all foods clean" passage misconstrues Jesus' intention etc. etc., but I thought these were pretty fringe arguments.

Or did you just mean the Ten Commandments?

 

[nbcrusader]

Of course you can--and should--take the 6th commandment to mean whatever you believe God intended, as informed by your own beliefs and your own relationship with God.

BUT, just as an FYI, the Hebrew text here--lo tirtzakh--actually means "You shall not murder" (or, more literally, "Murder not!") The Hebrew for "You shall not kill" would be lo taharoq, which is not what the text says.

There were some pacifist Jewish sects during the Roman era who maintained that lo taharoq was in fact the ultimate intended meaning of this commandment, and I *think* it was from their texts that Christian tradition took its traditional "Thou shalt not kill" translation. However, today there are several Christian translations that do defer to the original, lo tirtzakh. Couldn't tell you which ones they are, though.

For Christians, Jesus extended the "You shall not murder" to matters of the heart.

"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment." Matthew 5:22



So, before questioning if someone believes in the 10 Commandments, they should consider the broader application for Christians.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Well, if war can be justified, what justifications are there for war? Someone answer me that, because I can't think of any.

 

[nbcrusader]

And again, justify it to whom? Who are we answering to in this question?

 

[yolland]

For Christians, Jesus extended the "You shall not murder" to matters of the heart.

"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment." Matthew 5:22



So, before questioning if someone believes in the 10 Commandments, they should consider the broader application for Christians.

Well, the Torah does say not to hold grudges or be vengeful towards your brethren, and to love your neighbor as yourself. And the school of Hillel, probably the most influential first century BC rabbi (he died probably c.20 BC, but possibly later) taught that this was the most important command in the entire Torah. But after Hillel died, the Sanhedrin was monopolized by the school of Shammai, who was definitely a crusty letter-of-the law type. As far as I know though, Jesus never directly referred to either of them.

Not sure what you're getting at with the last sentence.

 

[shart1780]

If no one fought for themselves or for the oppressed this world would be Hell.

And when God says "Thou shalt not kill" it's not as simple as that. If it was He wouldn't aid certain people in war in the Old Testemant.

Romans 13:1-7:
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

And again, justify it to whom? Who are we answering to in this question?

To anyone and everyone. To yourself. To your God. To the families of people who get killed. To the electorate perhaps. Straying this into a Christian debate about the interpretation of lines of scripture doesn't interest me, in that regard I'm happy with 'based on what you believe', but also in more earthly ways, I mean, at what point is it justifiable to send a nation to war - with all that involves, and ALL you have to answer to in regards to that. Anytime you are essentially ordering death, you are answering to, well, everything, and you'd better have a fucking good reason.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Is violence ever justifiable? I guess most, if not all of us here on Interference think that physical violence in private households, which is mainly against women, is not justified. I go as far as saying it is never justified.

If a burgalar broke into my home I would be justified in using reasonable force against them.

If a man was beating a woman to death on the street I think that it would be right to intervene with physical violence.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

If a burgalar broke into my home I would be justified in using reasonable force against them.

If a man was beating a woman to death on the street I think that it would be right to intervene with physical violence.

Of course, but the robber busting into your home has no justification and the guy beating the woman doesn't either. This is MY point. War is NEVER justified, defence IS.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I am defending on behalf of a presumably innocent party in the second case, my own person is not at risk.

Analogous to a humanitarian intervention against a group who is inflicting damage upon a good number of innocent people; e.g. Somalia or Iraq.

 

[anitram]

I think the point being made is more along the lines of - if the party inflicting the violence did not participate in it (because it is not justified), then there would be no reason for you to retaliate either.

That way, you can say, all war is wrong. Because if Hitler did not go to war, neither would the allies have gone to war subsequently. The notion of war being unjustifiable applies to all parties, and if you remove the originator of violence, you also remove everybody downstream.

Without an offense, there would be no need for a defense, I guess.

Just wanted to add that it's not necessarily what I believe, because I allow for huge errancy in the human psyche which probably makes 'no war' an impossibility. I do feel a great deal of empathy with women and children and anybody else who has no say, because it's always those people paying the biggest price for somebody else's ambitions. And they never have a choice, and on top of that, they are slandered by being equated to no more than collateral damage as the final insult.

 

[melon]

My "favorite" heretic, St. Augustine of Hippo, had a formal opinion on this subject, and St. Thomas ("I became a saint only because I wrote a book and claimed I never had a sexual thought in my entire lifetime") Aquinas expounded on the subject.

http://www.monksofadoration.org/justwar.html

I'd be interested if you all think such medieval theology has any points worth noting today. Needless to say, a lot of conservative churches tend to (subconciously) echo their reasoning.

Still, I find this part very interesting for different reasons:

Regarding Christian military service "before the year 172 there was none. . .Evidence of Christians serving in the Roman army before the third century is suspect. . . A study of tombstone inscriptions reveals that only 7 Christians out of 4,700 extant inscriptions were members of the military."(27) This evidence shows few served in the military. Of the 7 military tombstone inscriptions it is not clear whether these people converted in the service or entered already converted. In 298 Marcellus, a centurion, refused to continue military service. In front of the Emperor he claimed he would only serve Jesus Christ. Brought to trial Marcellus argued that "he could not inflict wounds."(28) He was executed for defying the Emperor. In the third century "Christians certainly served in the army; but their numbers were small, their service peaceful, and their testimony one of peace and not of violence."(29)

When we arrive at St. Augustine his justifications for war "are based on Cicero and other Roman thinkers. . . (with) Manichaean and Neoplatonic influences."(30) There is a dualism in his writings over the possibility "to love an enemy internally and still to kill him."(31) St. Augustine "seems never to have satisfied himself as to how it (war) is fully compatible with Christian charity."(32)

Interfice errorem, diligere errantem. That is, "kill the sin, love the sinner"--a quote attributed to St. Augustine. And then here we have the other end of his logic: the ability to kill a man and still love him, perhaps to reconcile Jesus' commandment to "love your enemies" along with your neighbors, with his macho bloodlust. And perhaps we can see why modern Christianity is nothing but "macho bloodlust."

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

The problem is that the concept of a world without unfair violence is utopian, it is virtuous to hope for a world without violence and universal human rights but there are always individuals and governments that will rob individual rights and commit violent acts. I think that under certain circumstances inaction can be as bad or often worse than action.

It is also tied up with the concept of sovereignty ~ can a government forfeit sovereignty through gross abuse of its citizens? What level does it take for that to occur.

Does the concept of just war extend into the age of genocide, rogue states and terrorism?

 

[melon]

Re: what the Hebrew texts say...as Christians, are we obligated to follow Mosaic Law to the letter or do we take the teachings of Jesus to supersede it? I heard an interesting lecture about this very issue years ago.

If you are to follow the logic of St. Paul, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament, and subsequently voided all of its authority.

If you are to follow the logic of St. Peter and St. James, you could not be Christian without following the entirety of Mosaic Law.

As I see it, the Ten Commandments are as null and void as the rest of the Mosaic Law. Any teaching they might have had are covered in Jesus' commandment to love one another. People who cling to some or all aspects of Mosaic Law in Christianity are merely looking for excuses to judge and hate segments of their fellow mankind.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

To anyone and everyone. To yourself. To your God. To the families of people who get killed. To the electorate perhaps. Straying this into a Christian debate about the interpretation of lines of scripture doesn't interest me, in that regard I'm happy with 'based on what you believe', but also in more earthly ways, I mean, at what point is it justifiable to send a nation to war - with all that involves, and ALL you have to answer to in regards to that. Anytime you are essentially ordering death, you are answering to, well, everything, and you'd better have a fucking good reason.

So, who do you answer to? If anyone and everyone, you can never act without getting universal permission.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

So, who do you answer to? If anyone and everyone, you can never act without getting universal permission.

Yep. That's what I meant. A permission slip from every single person on the face of the earth. Please remember that I am not talking about a response to an act of aggression. Country A attacks Country B. The leader of Country B in that case is answering to the people who elected him/her and trust that he/she will defend them. Easy choice. But what about the leader of Country A? Who do they answer to? If the answer is "Nobody" then that is probably why they thought it was justifiable to do it in the first place. If they feel they have to answer to the families, to the population, to their God, to their own morals and beliefs, to the themselves, then I can't see how they can justify it at all.

 

[hiphop]

If a burgalar broke into my home I would be justified in using reasonable force against them.

If a man was beating a woman to death on the street I think that it would be right to intervene with physical violence.

I agree, but that´s a clear defense, and has nothing to do with war. Like I said, the most inhumane and cruel violence is war. And our governments are very quick on labeling something as defense, when it is not.

Also, considering your example, governments are not intervening to help the women beaten to death, this would be a side effect. You are maybe nice enough to do it for free, but politicians/ countries aren´t. Governments intervene because the man has gold and diamonds in his pockets, and in return for help, the woman shall gladly hand all the precious stuff over to the government who helped her. Also, governments will not accuse the enemy (man) and see that he gets a fair trial for what he has done (beating up the woman), but they´ll put the man into a camp where he´s tortured. Also, governments will only help the woman to stand on her own feet if she pays 30%, or shall we say 70%, of her future profits. Also, don´t forget that by using a machine gun to "defend" the woman, you have not just saved her, but blew up a schoolbus that was passing by. You have killed five children, but you justify it, because thats collateral damage and your cause was just and noble.





You also haven´t replied to this part of my post.. I repeat:

Who are you (anyone) to justify 10,000 homeless people, crippled children, women who lose their husband, soldiers hanging themselves because they can´t take the pain no more? You can´t justify a war and ignore this.

 

[hiphop]

I think that under certain circumstances inaction can be as bad or often worse than action.

I agree, however I have the feeling you miss my point. Inaction can be as bad as action - and arguably action can also be worse than inaction - but this doesn´t mean violent action (that creates new violence) is justified.

A world with less violence is not utopian. I´m not talking about a world without violence. Also killing a chicken to eat it is not justified per se, and still we do it and will continue to do so when all wars have ended.

Thousand years ago, people didnt have all the ABC weaponry we have now, and arguably the threats of violence were not at the level of this century. Medieval age may have been bad esp. in Europe, but no one was threatened that at some point the whole planet would blow up.

People don´t need war. People never needed war. Economy, certain industries, like the steel industry - it can´t be emphasized often enough that Hitler would never have had any chance to rise in 1933, had he not been supported by the German steel industry - needs it, politicians need it, generals need it.

To the public, buying more weapons is sold as being more security, more defense, but to anyone with a clear head more weapons means more war, more aggression.

In reality, a country with borders is an utopian construction. It may be very real in this world, but in reality, all animals can only laugh their ass off at men who need a passport to travel from country to country, borders their leaders and kings have created, because they couldn´t get enough, borders that are now in the minds of the people. This is why a war can start. If people were intelligent enough to say "This land is not mine because I haven´t created it", there wouldn´t be any reason to fight wars.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Inaction can be as bad as action - and arguably action can also be worse than inaction - but this doesn´t mean violent action (that creates new violence) is justified.

Do you think that action can ever be better than inaction?

To the public, buying more weapons is sold as being more security, more defense, but to anyone with a clear head more weapons means more war, more aggression.

I disagree with your premise, having more weapons or more accurately better weapons is a great way to prevent war, I think the concept of detterence is sound when dealing with most foes and it has effectively prevented the Cold War ever becoming truly hot (apart from ongoing proxy wars), the calculus of it goes out the window when you are dealing with religious minded zealots.

 

[hiphop]

Do you think that action can ever be better than inaction?

I disagree with your premise, having more weapons or more accurately better weapons is a great way to prevent war, I think the concept of detterence is sound when dealing with most foes and it has effectively prevented the Cold War ever becoming truly hot (apart from ongoing proxy wars), the calculus of it goes out the window when you are dealing with religious minded zealots.

I know your point of view. First reply to my question, then I´ll reply to yours.

If there were no weapons at all, there couldn´t be any wars. The more weapons there are, the more wars can be fought. Like I said, I am seeing the whole complex issue not from your "realistik" point of view. My reality is different from yours. I do not accept the reality you are talking about as given.

"having more weapons or more accurately better weapons is a great way to prevent war" - only if you never use them.

Examples like the Cold War.. tsah, if all the money that went into that defense would have gone into eradicating poverty, what would our planet look like today. I dare say, less extremists, little terrorism and fewer wars.

 

[A_Wanderer]

If all that money was spent "erradicating poverty" I think that a good portion of the world would probably be ensalved today and a belligerent party would have risen to take advantage of the situation. The USSR was dangerously expansionist, if it faced no threat to its ambition it could have used brute force to subjegate a good portion of the world, there could have been more suffering as a result, so they were fought indirectly and power plays ensued ultimately creating the world we live in today, a world that is filled with a lot of suffering and poverty to be sure but by no means the worst of all world.

A leader must conduct their foreign affairs in a manner that is consistent with their own nations interests first and secondary concerns afterwards, there are times when to pursue the national interest, the greater good, sacrifices are made and these are inevitably made by the citizens of that country.

Who are you (anyone) to justify 10,000 homeless people, crippled children, women who lose their husband, soldiers hanging themselves because they can´t take the pain no more? You can´t justify a war and ignore this.

I agree, people suffer in war, people suffer for a long time after the war is over. I think/hope that any leader who makes that choice does/would so in the hope that the suffering caused by that decision is going to mean less suffering in the long term. I think that on those grounds a decicion of action. By the same token a concious decision of non involvement can be taken with the acceptance of those concequences.

In some ways it does not matter what choice is made because there will always be negative concequences for people regardless of what is done. It is weighing up the costs of an action and making a decision.

If we lived in a world where such principled selfless defence of human rights really existed then I think there would be an strongly backed intervention to protect the people of Darfur, but sadly that is not going to happen because the nations of the world have decided that steady energy resources trumps humanitarian concerns.

War being justified, just or a form of justice. I agree that war can never deliver justice as it inflicts violence upon innocent parties, but I think it can be justified when there is an act of agression or a mounting threat.

Simply put, 10,000 lives and many more ruined in the short term is balanced against the lives saved in the long term from facing down a growing threat.

 

[Dreadsox]

The thread question about War being Justified...

Yes

 

[hiphop]

Do you think that action can ever be better than inaction?

Yes.

If all that money was spent "erradicating poverty" I think that a good portion of the world would probably be ensalved today and a belligerent party would have risen to take advantage of the situation.

I don´t know how you connect eradicating poverty with enslavement. What does eradicating poverty have to do with the USSR and the example you mentioned? I am talking about water access, hospitals, meds, education, etc. - if just a portion of what had been invested in "defense" would have gone to basic human needs, directly to the people who live on less than a $ or 2 / day, this would have made a difference. Apart from all those people living in slums and suffering while we are cynically justifying the expenses for the newest smart bombs, the extremist groups find fine breeding ground in poverty and no education.

I agree, people suffer in war, people suffer for a long time after the war is over.

Thats what I´m talking about - that´s why you can only say it is inevitable, as I said. Action can be better than inaction, but only if you can guarantee that no one else suffers.

I think/hope that any leader who makes that choice does/would so in the hope that the suffering caused by that decision is going to mean less suffering in the long term.

Nice wish, but has nothing to do with reality. Show me a politician who thinks about the suffering of others before of filling his own pockets and I´ll show you a pink donkey.

In some ways it does not matter what choice is made because there will always be negative concequences for people regardless of what is done. It is weighing up the costs of an action and making a decision.

I disagree, it does matter - there are lots of possibilities of peace preservation instead of declaring war.

If we lived in a world where such principled selfless defence of human rights really existed then I think there would be an strongly backed intervention to protect the people of Darfur, but sadly that is not going to happen because the nations of the world have decided that steady energy resources trumps humanitarian concerns.

Agreed. Thats a case where action is necessary, but this would be a peace intervention instead of declaring war. That´s a big difference. I don´t think that would include bombing cities or napalm or 10,000s of civilians dying. Peace preservation has very different principles.

War being justified, just or a form of justice. I agree that war can never deliver justice as it inflicts violence upon innocent parties,
but I think it can be justified when there is an act of agression or a mounting threat.

Nope @ the "but". War can never deliver justice. It inflicts violence upon innocent parties. Same if we go back to our example of violence in families. If there is an act of aggression or a mounting threat in a personal relationship, some use violence. Others preserve peace. To take action may be inevitable, but that does not include a "justified form of inflicted violence".

Simply put, 10,000 lives and many more ruined in the short term is balanced against the lives saved in the long term from facing down a growing threat.

Thats a decision that should not be left to men. It is cruel to balance lives against lives. No God and furthermore no living being gave anyone the right to do this and it is not just. There is no justice whatsoever in this.



There is no justice in this world. It would be about time that mankind realizes what they have done to this planet. There is only justice in love.

 

[nbcrusader]

If they feel they have to answer to the families, to the population, to their God, to their own morals and beliefs, to the themselves, then I can't see how they can justify it at all.

Really, all you are saying is that the action cannot be justified to you.

And, if the measuring stick is families or population, then if you have a resolution pass, or find a majority support the action, do you not then have a justification for the action?

 

[A_Wanderer]

You said

if all the money that went into that defense would have gone into eradicating poverty, what would our planet look like today. I dare say, less extremists, little terrorism and fewer wars.

A logical conclusion is that there would be no military at all because all the money would have been devoted to erradicating poverty. If that was the case and it was only the western allies surrendering millitary spending to give "for the good of the world" then their weakness would be taken advantage of and the entire world would be worse off as a result.

I also think that if that was the case we would live in a state of peace, there would be no wars and there would not be as many threats to the world, the price of this would be freedoms that are only sustained because they are at times protected by brute force. Which I may also add is often a danger to the very freedoms that should be protected.

Action can be better than inaction, but only if you can guarantee that no one else suffers.

I disagree, other people may suffer as a result of action but if you have fewer people suffering then it may be less bad.

Nope @ the "but". War can never deliver justice. It inflicts violence upon innocent parties. Same if we go back to our example of violence in families. If there is an act of aggression or a mounting threat in a personal relationship, some use violence. Others preserve peace. To take action may be inevitable, but that does not include a "justified form of inflicted violence".

Violence will be inflicted upon innocent parties regardless in those situations, the leader has a duty to protect his citizens from harm, it is not analogous to personal relationships, It may be very un-Christian to fight and in the process kill in order to protect your own citizens but that in itself should not have bearing upon the decisions.

Thats a decision that should not be left to men. It is cruel to balance lives against lives. No God and furthermore no living being gave anyone the right to do this and it is not just. There is no justice whatsoever in this.

All that we have in this world is men, there is no divine authority to give us morals and I never said that those decisions were any form of justice (in fact I stated the exact opposite). I think there is a difference between justified action which infers legitmate reason and motivation and justice which is more arbitrary.

 

[anitram]

As I see it, the Ten Commandments are as null and void as the rest of the Mosaic Law. Any teaching they might have had are covered in Jesus' commandment to love one another. People who cling to some or all aspects of Mosaic Law in Christianity are merely looking for excuses to judge and hate segments of their fellow mankind.

I agree.

 

[hiphop]

It may be very un-Christian to fight and in the process kill in order to protect your own citizens but that in itself should not have bearing upon the decisions.

All that we have in this world is men, there is no divine authority to give us morals

I don´t know if you are Christian, I figure not. I don´t mean that a Christian has better opinions or anything,.. just:

Whew, when you follow the life of Jesus or read the Bible, and then hear things such as: "that in itself should not have bearing upon the decisions" - well, the Messiah the Christians believed in, clearly stated it different. There were interesting numbers posted before by another poster, implying that Christians refused military service for 300 years. If only all Christians had his virtue!

It is not true that all we have in this world is men. It is typically short-sighted of our race to be arrogant enough (not you, mankind in general) to forget animals, plants and all the mysteries of creation. This place belongs to them too, not only to us.

And I disagree again: for I believe in a divine authority giving us morals.