War - Does the End Justify the Means?

Religious beliefs aside, it's not often the case that war is justified. Countless lives taken without any justification beyond "he/she was born in another country". There are certain times, however, when ends do justify the means. For example, if "country X" were engaging in the slave trade, it should be the moral duty of countries which can overthrow such a government to do so. That doesn't mean it's right to nuke the place ten times over, but it does mean that "aggressive negotiations" may be necessary. If we could legitimately save millions of people by sending our military to fight a few battles over the course of a couple of months, I think that's our duty.

Khaos wrote:

Justification is not a necessity, it is a luxury I imagine.

justification is a necessity, otherwise an act is unjustified.

Khaos wrote:

With such subjectivity, can means ever truly be justified? Is that even a fair question to ask of something such as war?

definitely, and means are justified by the principles inherent in their actions - to serve justice for good. an eye for an eye makes the world go blind, and equates the retaliator the same with the offender


quote="Khaos" post=215573]

Would anyone except the simple notion that perhaps( I know not in all cases) all other attempts were tried and failed?

the notion is unacceptable because there are always ways around violence and war. and often the practice of attempts were inadequate so the attempts failed.


Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

everything Hitler did in Germany was made legal. let's think about this, such is the flaw of law.

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

when the monsters makes the laws the only crime is not being one of them

and hitler was defeated with violence, not with intellectual discourse

OB1Shinobi wrote:

when the monsters makes the laws the only crime is not being one of them

and hitler was defeated with violence, not with intellectual discourse

clearly are crimes seen.

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

by definition, a crime is a violation of laws or mandates set by those who rule

it was not a crime to beat a jew out passed curfew

it was a crime to be a jew out passed curfew

in any event, i am not sure what point youre addressing but what i am interested in is this: can you offer a logically plausible alternative to the use of violence in the the response to hitler and ww2?

an alternative that does not result in his successfully exttermiating the entirety of the jewish culture to which he had access?

OB1Shinobi wrote:

by definition, a crime is a violation of laws or mandates set by those who rule

actually by definition it's injurious to public welfare, morals, and interests to state and legally prohibited. so look towards international laws, and morality

in any event, i am not sure what point youre addressing but what i am interested in is this: can you offer a logically plausible alternatibe to the use of violence in the instance of hitler and ww2?

an alternative that does not result in his successfully exttermiating the entirety of the jewish culture to which he had access?

easily, diplomacy

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

exterminating jews is still a violation of international law because people used violence to resist hitler

Should the UN Declaration of Human Rights serve as the foundation of the concept of a just law, at least in regards to humans.... which makes me wonder how it might evolve to include animals (which gets tricky since we eat them!!) or droids/AI;
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/


Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.


This new site looks interesting, the 'Peoples Council'; http://yourhrc.org/

OB1Shinobi wrote: ... can you offer a logically plausible alternative to the use of violence in the the response to hitler and ww2?

The fact is that we need to see what events "created" Hitler. Of course there are a lot of variables at play. If there was no Hitler (as an idea), then world events would have turned out differently.

In this day and age, violent war may be necessary. I think we can develop throughout time a way to prevent wars though. This has nothing to do with technology and all to do with working within ourselves to reach consciousness. It is how we treat other people with compassion and dignity that will influence them in the future. This can work, but is not likely. That does not mean we stop trying to reach that goal as Jediism teaches us.

I think Adder and his post with the UN Declaration of Human Rights should serve as the foundation of just law. He also adds a new variable with AI, which is certainly worth a talk.

Sometimes I believe we cannot change the present or what is about to happen but if we learn from it, then we have a better chance of preventing it from happening again.