Can war ever be 'just'

In Britain for Armistice day the Royal British Legion 'sell' (for donations) paper/plastic red poppies to wear as a sign of respect. A couple of weeks before Armistice day I went to my Quaker meeting and one of the Friends had white poppies instead, the message being 'respect, but peace'.

In the light of increased attacks on ISIS in Syria in response for what happened in France, I believe we should be asking ourselves if war can ever be just. The 'just war' tradition suggets that war can be conducted in a moral manner... but when people are being killed, can there truly be a moral war?

Is war truly 'the final answer'?

from one perspective, yes it is a final answer as it seldom leaves many to question it afterwards...

in an ideal world it wouldn't even be considered...

can it be fought morally?....by whom's standards are the morals....moral and just for one, may not be for another...

a point to consider...to the islamic extremists the slaughter of non-combatants, women and children IS moral since they (the victims) do not share the extremists' views...to the rest of the world these acts ARE NOT moral....

Edan wrote: In the light of increased attacks on ISIS in Syria in response for what happened in France, I believe we should be asking ourselves if war can ever be just. The 'just war' tradition suggets that war can be conducted in a moral manner... but when people are being killed, can there truly be a moral war?

We've recently covered this topic in my Political Philosophy class. As a general rule wars are never or barely ever just. But there are instances in which one can be said to be fighting a just war. The most common is when you are fighting in self-defence (this could also be in defence of an ally who is also attacked).

There is also a case for humanitarian intervention, sometimes getting a country involved in a war may not actually be worse than the conditions the persons of that country are already suffering under... Humanitarian intervention can typically bring down a regime in a shorter amount of time than that regime will oppress its people. None of this is to say that it's ever been done correctly, but a war could be just in this way.

Edan wrote: Is war truly 'the final answer'?

I don't think so. I think self-defense is just, but war is a tragedy. I think the US and France now have a good reason for going to war with ISIS, but I don't think killing each other could ever be called "just". It's just "reason".

I'm not sure that made sense :dry:

Here's my 2 cents and you'd lucky to sell it for half that.

My personal opinion is yes and very often is, because right/wrong are probably not objective terms that exist beyond their creators. Judgement beyond those groups is moot, so we have to go with societal version of them.

Just is a subjective claim, but if you mean within our western view of justice, then yes. We have established a justice system, that system has oversights and previews for war crimes, therefore any war without war crimes or at least without them at the levels of leadership is just.

As for war...well again, if we mean the technical politically and socially agreed upon definition of war that varies from country to country. Then the US technically has been at war in decades, even though we call our conflicts like Vietnam, Iraq, Korea wars...they aren't. Not in the agreed upon way that the people of America have established.

Of course, we are going to have different thoughts and opinions on this. It could be argued a million different ways. That's the reason why we have these social and political things in the first place. It seems kind of dumb, because we won't all agree. But that's why we have them, because one person doesn't fight a war or declare justice. We have to make these kind of general agreements and concessions in order for higher level society to function, thus politics. IMHO, this kind of discourse is good, but it has be to put into democratic action (i.e. voting).

I have found in my years alive on this Earth that war is not just. Ever. It is the 'common' people fighting the rich (wo)man's fights for them.

For a change, I'd like to see the world leaders that desire war, for whatever reason, fight it out for themselves and leave the rest of us out of it.

War is an immature and juvenile method for solving problems; problems that are, in fact, not solved through war...war causes more war. Violence begets violence.

May the Force be with You.

Sure, war can be "just," it hasn't been in my life time, not that i am aware of anyways. Alot of people who would complain whether war is "right" or "wrong" miss the big picture, it's profitable, and as long as people are willing to fight and die for the greed of the 1%, or until mankind puts down his phone long enough to realize he is being lied to, and decides to do something about it, than it will continue. A war fueled by greed can only be stopped by those willing to wage war using information, convincing others on a massive scale somehow that the system is broken and must be started anew. So long as the rich are allowed to lead the masses, nothing will change. When mankind wakes up, and realizes that only by fighting together will improve the status quo, then that will be a "just" war...

I believe that war is just war, and that no war is just. The result of unresolved conflict is armed physical confrontation. There is no justification for war itself… but there is an explanation for it. Nor can the exchange of hostilities be just, or moral.

The moral obligation of conducting war is to do so in a manner that leaves the state intact and the populace untarnished. This of course is what makes conducting war difficult. Otherwise it would appear to be nothing more than opposing terrorist organizations having at each other.

War is the last step in the breakdown of negotiations and even uneasy co-existences. Once an outcome to the war is reached then the rebuilding phase, or reopening of lines of communication can begin to bring peoples back to the peaceful existence.

Two major issue that seem to repeat themselves throughout history is that either the war is considered resolved before all parties are content to end or the rebuilding process does not fairly consider all parties involved. And so further confrontation begins/continues.

But these are just my opinions based on research and observation. Take them for what they are.

I think the ocean makes waves, ideas contend, and people are as they are. By virtue of its existence war is as just(or unjust)as anything else. A person can ascribe it a value, and a group of people can all agree on that value if they want. If the purpose here is to find out what value we answering Jedi would ascribe it, or more directly, what circumstance would be required to ascribe it the value of "just" I personally can not...but nor can I ascribe it unjust.

Perhaps one day I will be in a situation where I need to go to war. When I do, my opinion might change...at least in that moment if not permanently.

ive never been to war

as i understand it war tends to bring the very worst out of individuals and societies

i belive that there are people and organizations and even families that have, over generations, gotten very good at exploiting the war scenario for their own financial and political ends

i think there is a distinction between JUST and JUSTIFIABLE

inherent to war is injustice, i dont think there ever has been, or could ever be a war that is JUST by my interpretation of JUST and WAR

but in some situations war is justifiable

the nazi regime was such a case

had usa involved itself in the darfur genocide i would likely have been supportive

others examples can be found, and it certainly appears to like this daesh situation is or will turn out to be the most current, although i am still not informed enough to be certain

before engaging in any kind of war i belive it is mandatory to understand who "the enemy" is, what they want, why they choose to do what they do and if there is any agreeable peaceful compromise - but there is a seriously flawed logic which concludes that we should attempt to peacefully coexist with genocidal groups or nations/states who intend our own destruction - in such a case it is not a coexistence but a contest of resource aquisition, and the longer that contest goes on the more desructive it may be when/IF the one side develops the resources to implement their own will

legitimation can be an effective tool in some instances - legitimate the enemy, bring them in to the global dialogue as equals, offer them the means to flourish peacefully and let them see that cooperation works in all of our interets

but "live and let live" is a policy that only works if everyone agrees with it

when one group decides that the other MUST DIE, or must be dominated and made to submit, then war is justifiable