War - Does the End Justify the Means?

I was having an interesting chat just now with some fellow Jedis about the ongoing crisis in the middle east, with regards to whether it is better to try and find an amicable solution or simply bomb the hell out of the place with little regard for any civillians there (a sort of kill the few to save the many approach). I was surprised to see how different some of our opinions were. It got me asking the question; just how far is it acceptable to go in the name of 'War' and is it always worth it/justified?

I was wondering what your opinions were, both on the approach to the current middle eastern conflict and on all wars in general?

In almost no cases do the ends justify the means ...

... we could almost assuredly say that simply bombing the hell out of any place - be it the Middle East or otherwhere - would be a disastrously immoral solution to a problem that is gravely misunderstood.

It has been a really long time since any war has had a truly moral foundation (if ever there was one). There are no "good guys" and "bad guys" in any conflict : only "good guys" from one and the other perspective of the subjective value judgement of whatever "good" they are fighting over. In the past 60 years, our most brutal conflicts have been over economic/religious ideologies rather than geographical or resource disputes. And upon such confusing foundations, it is not even always clear to the "good guys" why what they are fighting for is "good" ...

Now, before I begin this illustration using Kant's Categorical Imperative, I shall disclaim directly that there are some holes in his de-ontological reasoning that let some of the ooze seep through ... but by and large for this sort of question, the formula is still pretty reliable :

• Act only according to a law you give to yourself (autonomy)
• Act in such a manner as that your maxim could be a Universal Law
• Act in such a manner as it treats every individual as an end in him/herself, never as merely a means to an end

This is at odds with the Utilitarian approach which justifies any action according to the beneficence of its outcome. That is, if the consequences are good (moral), it does not matter what means were used to arrive at them. This is also the position we are taking when it comes to "killing a few to save many". This has more than "holes" ... this is a pit.

First of all, no one is a "few" nor a "many". In other words, everyone has but one life to lose. So, by killing a number of people, you have only saved a number of people : this can be said that everyone killed has lost one life and everyone saved has been saved one life. Irrespective of the populations, the ratio is still -1:1. Moreover, the lives lost in bombings of that sort kill many more innocent people than the innocent people saved by the side doing the bombing. Furthermore, only someone who feels relatively safe from such an event could even entertain the notion of doing it to someone else. How is that in any way fair (moral) ?

Back to Kant ... as I mentioned before, for the past few decades it has been difficult for the "good guys" to discern exactly why their side is the "good" one. As in any organised military structure, one has to follow orders, making basic autonomy to determine whether or not the action is moral pretty useless. In other organisations, this is the case as well : one is trained to "do" without thinking - receive order, execute order. Now, whoever finds themselves in that situation can still keep to the Imperative by not engaging personally with the order.

But, let's consider the order, notably that of bombing away a whole civilisation just get get a very limited number of dangerous people who may be among them (unless they are safely in London or Paris or Berlin or someplace ...) :

It is clear to begin with that this is an immoral order. As evoked above, this decision could only be taken by someone relatively safe from a similar decision taken by someone else. If the choice is based on "We have to do this because God, or preserving democracy, our market system, our way of life &c. depends on or demands it" -- then the whole mess is not autonomous. It is dictated by the illusion of the needs of an ideology. Funny enough, that could be a political decision based on public outrage - hardly autonomous ; it could be unilaterally decided by a government bureaucracy (bureaucracy doesn't know what 'autonomous' is) - again, hardly autonomous. Therefore, immoral ...

If one could imagine that genocide could become a Universal Law (meaning that everyone should do it) we're on the road to extinction. Once that precedent would be set - to insure the safety of (our) people, we wipe out a whole population - then (our) people will never be safe. And everyone will have to get going wiping out populations ... when there is only one 'population' left, factions within will (and had probably already started) wiping out their adversaries by the lot of them. Then, when there would be only few of us remaining, someone might get an idea that it hasn't gone so very well ...

Seeing other innocent peoples' lives as expendable just so one doesn't have to worry about somebody shooting up a newspaper office or a concert hall (or bombing an underground, or driving jet planes into office buildings -- for as frequently as these things happen) is only seeing these people as means. Bombing a whole population of peaceful people just getting on with their lives as a way of saying to the extremists of their faith that we don't like how they behave is not even a very good means. This perspective is buying into the objectification of the Other, making people who are just like I am an (alien) "it" that one feels one can do with as one deems fit. Honestly, this one is the most vulgar of distortions of reasoning ... that "those people" have to be slaughtered for "my security". That sort of thinking is just vile ...

So, that is how I measure up the morality of the question. That's just me though .... carry on ... :dry:

Wow! Thanks for taking the time to provide such a detailed response.

Whilst I believe that there is a time and argument for bombing certain places that may pose a threat to either a particular country or people, I also think it is absolutely imperative that one takes into consideration the threat to civilian life in that area and attempts to keep civilian casualties to an absolute minimum (one reason why I'm personally not a fan of military drones). To do otherwise would be not only completely immoral but also lessen our argument for being the 'good guys' as we would effectively be no better (and some cases worse) than the 'bad guys' we were trying to stop.

Please don't miss one of the central considerations of the question :

Who are the "good guys" ? Who are the "bad guys" ? Aren't both according to their own respective points-of-view the "good guys" ?

And what makes them "good" ? What "good-ness" is there on either side ?

One more consideration worth bearing in mind : who are "we" (as in "we were trying to stop.") ? "We" Americans ? "We" Christians ? "We" non-terrorists (sic) ? "We" -- what ?

Be very, very careful of the "we" mentality ... History shows all too clearly (as well as Solomon Asch's historic experiment) that when "we" are the "good guys", things go pretty far afoul of Justice ...

Wise words indeed. This is why I am here to learn, Thank you

Alexandre Orion wrote: In almost no cases do the ends justify the means ...

I strongly agree, consequentialism can never be justified because of convolution. I would like to see reasoning to prove otherwise. Furthermore, how can violence justify anything other than admitting the victim was right? War is humankind's failure as a thinking animal. If we are really seeking peace, we must prepare for peace more than we prepare for war. Otherwise, acts of war just disprove the false perception of peace seeking, and demonstrate concealment of an unjust motive.

Does the end justify the means.... no, but the problem is actually understanding the means and the end. Both of those things are pretty much secret in war, as they provide valuable information about the conduct of it. Some of it is obvious, but the details are often not.

So the best one can probably do is look at the strategic intent, operational efficiency and tactical conduct in relation to warfighting. Knowledge to these things can inform one to the reality and enable a clearer picture exactly about what 'means' are being employed and to what 'end'.

IMO, in that model the strategic intent is the planned 'end', and the operational efficiency and tactical conduct the 'means'.

Watching the news does not tell us much, as it misses out most of the important information to understand what we are looking at. There is a lot of complexity and a lot of error in it because of the things at stake and conditions of it, and these are broadly understood as the 'fog' of war. This saying represents the lack of clarity around trying to understand what is happening beyond ones own personal experience of it - such that the complexity and confusion that arises within war means it is very difficult for anyone to know what is going on. You cannot see past the hand in front of your face type of situation.

It's why the chain of command and command structures are so important in warfare, because the complexity of circumstance in war is overwhelming that each unit operates best if performing specific functions in specific ways. This also means their requirements can be specific also, which enables efficiency in the information and logistical supports. This is how orders are structured, so to integrate with their function in the clearest and most concise manner possible.... and then its up to the finger on the trigger to execute the order lawfully. The law is called the law of war , its history is quite interesting and represents efforts by the globalized world to try and avoid war.

Because quite simply any sane and informed person does not want war. Many people, myself included, trained and prepared for the possibility of going to war and the requisite motivations to confront such a thing.... but again what are the intentions for it, and the nature of efficiency and conduct of it - those are the things which to me determine if the effort is justified on an individual level - as quite literally it is what is used to justify ones commitment to it.

So in the theory of the application of warfighting (in the 'West' at least), it is meant to dissuade, disable or if need be to destroy, an aggressor's capacity to continue aggression. That is it and basically its about returning circumstance of unrest back to peace. So the intent sounds good I guess, then we look at the means. Things like rules of engagements and the aforementioned law of war are meant to permeate all levels of the military to ensure the means are also shaped in such a way to reflect that intent. That's why I'd answer in the negative.

War. Some have seen to full face of war. The good and the bad together. Every soldier I know will tell you the same thing. War is bad. Conflict is the direct result of not finding a peaceful solution and choosing to remedy not by a mutual understanding but by brute force.

Do the means justify the ends? For WAR,never. No amount of mandated sacrifice will ever compensate. Any loss wether financial physical or spiritual.

Truth be told we are judged by our fruits. A apple tree can only bear apples, sweet or tart, it depends on the seed.

We know many leaders by their force and strength to which dare I say "there's always a bigger fish"
The lasting change is when the "grass roots" takes shape...in random places. Little yards with green grass, little spaces with fresh ideas, the Temple is on of many places to find this. Feel free to look around and see what you find.

My own personal solution is easy...ME
I make the necessary changes, I start. If more people just took time to BE their own problem solvers they would have a very close Jedi mentality.

I just wanted to bring up the fact that the CIA=ISIS. It may be a mix of Mossad(Israel) and MI6(Britain) along with CIA but the net effect remains the same: destabilize the region and move in with forces. This has all been leaked and published under the code name "hornet's nest". If you're not a complete imbecile, you can look at history and see how the US created Al Qaeda and other terrorists to combat Russia through proxy wars. There is a long and extensive history of US support for terrorism in the middle-east including torture and every nasty thing you can imagine.

So yeah, it's like that. Deal with it. Pay your taxes and support the war or don't. It's your choice.

When we talk about war we have in our minds some points.

* Jedi are pacifists, war is not a way;
* In war there are no heroes, only survivors;
* There are no good guys and bad guys, just viewpoints and bodies scattered on the ground;

* Where there is war are diseases, poverty, orphans, widows, ruins and misery.
* Where there is war there are huge technological advances (most of the technology we have born in World War II) but are holding by a column of bones and rotting flesh.

* Where there is war, there is intolerance, whether intellectual, ethnic, extreme nationalism or religious extremism.

With all this in mind, we can read a book, "The Art of War, by Sun Tzu." Do you think he'll talk a lot about fighting and show you a way to always win and always motivated. You are right, and one of his poems and he says something definitive.

"The supreme art of war is to defeat the enemy without fighting."
Sun-Tzu

That is, the true art of war, lives in diplomacy and not in combat fields. This is a book that everyone should read because it explains a lot about what is war and what their consequences. Understand? There is no victory, no glory or honor. Unfortunately, we have to march in these death camps, often by intolerance of people who sit behind desks and wear expensive suits. Sometimes to defend us, but when the fighting is over, look into the eyes of his enemies, imagine their story, if someone loved him, when we put in place that person can see that there is nothing good in war, only death.