War - A necessary evil?

Post Reply New Topic

I see no reason why a war cannot potentially be the most efficient action for an actor to pursue for their interests. I think that the times when this is so would likely be very limited, but war is merely violence on a larger scale than usual.

I am not talking about interests. Some people do not view life a me versus the world situation. Some people believe that violence under any circumstances is inherently harmful and therefore wrong.

What interests? Does an individual's interests supersede those of the community or vice versa?

If it is the lesser of all evils, then it can be.


Who says that all options available will be considered good?


Arguably not, there is the notion of lesser of all evils as I mentioned in theh first response.


That which is needed to achieve the established goal.


A meaningless word.


I think that most people say that killing is "not necessarily wrong". They would justify shooting a man in self-defense and a number of other actions.

I am not most people. I would consider such an act to be immoral because one man is assuming his life has more value than another's merely because that person is trying to kill him.

Why shouldn't you?


The individual's interests are the only ones that exist. Communities do not have interests, they have interested individuals. As for whether more individuals are more important than less, does such a question have meaning? The individual determines the value of his own actions compared to other actions, nobody else has any more weight.


I think most people assume that their lives are more valuable than that of other people. Not only that, but if the argument is that life = life, then a person trying to kill multiple people would be worth killing to prevent his/her actions.

I understand and respect your intention since I have never been under pressure to kill anyone. I am not sure what I would do. But there are many minor acts that are immoral that most of us do every day. The famous remark that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing puts us all in a squeeze. Most of us do nothing.

Why would one conclude that one's life is more important than that of other people?

I don't think such a thing. My life is of equal (that is to say no) value compared to everyone else's. How can one's life have a value? Are we talking a monetary value? How does one measure this value? Is it a pre-requisite for existing to value one's existence more than others?

Because, it provides more personal utility.

How can one's life NOT have a value? In order to acquire that which has value, one must first exist, and in order to continue existing, many people are willing to give up things that have value. Sure, monetary value works, frankly, I do not know what value system under which you conclude that life has no value, but it certainly seems unlike that of other people and thus I don't know where it comes from or how it has any conclusion other than "nothing has value". It is practically a pre-requisite for living to value one's life more than others, I certainly at least, never see anyone who values other people in general anywhere near as much as they value themselves.

Believe it or not. Perhaps I am lying. Perhaps not. I do not care what opinion you hold of me or my ideas.

I do not value my life more than the lives of others. My life is of equal value to the lives of others. If this is true, then no lives have any value because it is impossible to say that one life is more valuable than another. So I conclude that all lives are equally worthless. However this does not mean that these lives can be taken by others. Harm done to others (especially physical harm) is wrong and cannot be practiced by myself if I am to remain moral. This is my moral system.

I have nothing more to add.

Ok. I simply mean that I do not think that such a view is consistent with most views.

Well, the issue is then a question as to why you are on the internet and not working another job, trying to get money to donate to the poor and suffering in some 3rd world country. I mean, to say your life has the same value as other lives, is to say that these other beings should be given life even at the cost of some of yours, at least given a normal interpretation of that notion.

So, if life = life, then life = 0? That doesn't make sense. Usually it is accepted that if life = life, and life > 0, as there is nothing about equal value that makes it have to be the same as no value. If life were of no value, then there would be no care about death for foolish reasons.

Hmmm.... yeah, I really don't think much of morals.

War is a classic symptom of this world, of how fallen from grace this world is.

Therefore you are a willing accomplice to murder. You would put your own ritual purity above the lives of others. This is disgusting and immoral to the core.

All that is necessary for evil to flourish is for people of good will to do nothing.

Therefore, if they are worthless, it cannot be immoral to end them. Worthlessness of life cannot be logically reconciled to preservation of life. If it is actually worthless, then there is no reason to refrain from ending it. You want to have your cake and eat it, too.

It is probably the case in many instances that men and women do not knowingly give their lives for others but who take grave chances to protect others. Firemen, policemen, medics in war situations certainly at least put their lives at risk for others. Suicide bombers undoubtedly give their lives knowingly but it is difficult to determine what each instance of that entails - whether it is self sacrifice or revenge or a true belief in a rewarding afterlife. There are certainly cases of soldiers throwing themselves on hand grenades to protect their fellows. And of course there are parents who risk their lives for their children. I wonder how their motivations should be evaluated.

But what they do very often carries the risk of killing the suspect, and at times the DO kill the suspect. Nice to know that you consider those police to be immoral. Better go up and tell them to their faces--they're not moral enough to be police, right?

How moral is it to trust your safety to people who may have to, in order to guard that safety of yours, undertake acts that you consider immoral? Is hypocrisy moral?

Are you like the people who are happy to eat meat but can't stand being confronted with the fact that they're eating muscle tissue from dead animals?

Think instead of your own motivations.