Total Posts:75|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What justifies war?

Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 11:34:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
This ot to start a fire storm.

I'm actually unable to answer it myself completely.

Sway me to your stance.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 11:35:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Stop making new threads.

And I think I know where you got this from. Rothbard had a lecture series over this.

Anyways, a war is just if it serves to improve the general welfare, usually by eliminating unnecessary coercion.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 11:37:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"He started it" is the most succinct possible summary.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 11:39:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 11:35:58 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Stop making new threads.

I'll make as many threads as I want, I'm a guy with lots of questions.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 11:41:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 11:39:30 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 11/28/2009 11:35:58 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Stop making new threads.

I'll make as many threads as I want, I'm a guy with lots of questions.

Well, stop making them in such rapid succession. It's quite annoying, and seems more like spam than anything. The more threads you create, the less value each topic of discussion retains.
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 11:45:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 11:41:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/28/2009 11:39:30 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 11/28/2009 11:35:58 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Stop making new threads.

I'll make as many threads as I want, I'm a guy with lots of questions.

Well, stop making them in such rapid succession. It's quite annoying, and seems more like spam than anything. The more threads you create, the less value each topic of discussion retains.

Sorry, sorry, I'm really hyper and need more stimulus. And it's cold outside.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 11:48:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 11:44:26 PM, Nags wrote:
If you're attacked.

A war of rebellion against a tyranny is justified too, Nags.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 11:49:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 11:48:46 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 11/28/2009 11:44:26 PM, Nags wrote:
If you're attacked.

A war of rebellion against a tyranny is justified too, Nags.

Are you saying that tyrannies don't attack?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 11:51:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 11:49:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/28/2009 11:48:46 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 11/28/2009 11:44:26 PM, Nags wrote:
If you're attacked.

A war of rebellion against a tyranny is justified too, Nags.

Are you saying that tyrannies don't attack?

Not all of the time, no. There are counter-examples. Like the USSR. They didn't directly attack their people.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 11:52:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 11:48:46 PM, wjmelements wrote:
A war of rebellion against a tyranny is justified too, Nags.

An act of rebellion against a tyranny is revolution, not war. Sure, "war" might come with, but the act wouldn't be war, it would be revolution.
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 11:53:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Normally I'd go with the whole retaliation thing but..

Let say there was a nation who was torturing children but didn't do anything to us; is war justifiable?
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 11:54:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 11:53:02 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
Normally I'd go with the whole retaliation thing but..

Let say there was a nation who was torturing children but didn't do anything to us; is war justifiable?

It isn't necessary for us to intervene for the most part. The people are (usually) capable of rebelling themselves.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 11:54:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 11:53:02 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
Let say there was a nation who was torturing children but didn't do anything to us; is war justifiable?

No. Why would it?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 11:55:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 11:54:34 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 11/28/2009 11:53:02 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
Normally I'd go with the whole retaliation thing but..

Let say there was a nation who was torturing children but didn't do anything to us; is war justifiable?

It isn't necessary for us to intervene for the most part. The people are (usually) capable of rebelling themselves.

Of course, if there was nothing the locals could do to protect themselves, and the people there wanted to be liberated, we'd be doing them a favour.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2009 12:00:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 11:51:53 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 11/28/2009 11:49:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/28/2009 11:48:46 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 11/28/2009 11:44:26 PM, Nags wrote:
If you're attacked.

A war of rebellion against a tyranny is justified too, Nags.

Are you saying that tyrannies don't attack?

Not all of the time, no. There are counter-examples. Like the USSR. They didn't directly attack their people.

So, you're saying that shooting dissenters and businessmen and anyone who happens to be walking near a border isn't an attack. For starters.

Let say there was a nation who was torturing children but didn't do anything to us; is war justifiable?
Children has nothing to do with it. Torture is an attack. The relevant criterion is whether the target attacked someone else, and whether that someone else attacked someone else, and so on and so forth.If the count, including your target, is odd, you are unjustified. If it's even, you are justified. You may not be being prudent, but that is a separate question.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2009 12:01:07 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 11:55:35 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 11/28/2009 11:54:34 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 11/28/2009 11:53:02 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
Normally I'd go with the whole retaliation thing but..

Let say there was a nation who was torturing children but didn't do anything to us; is war justifiable?

It isn't necessary for us to intervene for the most part. The people are (usually) capable of rebelling themselves.

Of course, if there was nothing the locals could do to protect themselves, and the people there wanted to be liberated, we'd be doing them a favour.

If it's ethical it's justifiable, so if you think that torturing children is inherently wrong, then stopping it would be ethical and war to do so would be justifiable.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2009 12:04:33 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/29/2009 12:01:07 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
If it's ethical it's justifiable, so if you think that torturing children is inherently wrong, then stopping it would be ethical and war to do so would be justifiable.

No way. What fallacy is this? I don't know, but I know there's a name. An ethical act is not necesarrily a justifiable act. For example, donating money to Africa is ethical, but the US donating $3 trillion to Africa is not justifiable.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2009 12:08:09 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/29/2009 12:04:33 AM, Nags wrote:
At 11/29/2009 12:01:07 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
If it's ethical it's justifiable, so if you think that torturing children is inherently wrong, then stopping it would be ethical and war to do so would be justifiable.

No way. What fallacy is this? I don't know, but I know there's a name. An ethical act is not necesarrily a justifiable act. For example, donating money to Africa is ethical, but the US donating $3 trillion to Africa is not justifiable.

Donating money to Africa willy-nilly isn't ethical. Least in my ethics.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2009 12:09:46 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/29/2009 12:08:09 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/29/2009 12:04:33 AM, Nags wrote:
At 11/29/2009 12:01:07 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
If it's ethical it's justifiable, so if you think that torturing children is inherently wrong, then stopping it would be ethical and war to do so would be justifiable.

No way. What fallacy is this? I don't know, but I know there's a name. An ethical act is not necesarrily a justifiable act. For example, donating money to Africa is ethical, but the US donating $3 trillion to Africa is not justifiable.

Donating money to Africa willy-nilly isn't ethical. Least in my ethics.

Correct. It undercuts local businesses, stinting their growth. It insures that Africa will remain dependent on the rest of the world and never grow in wealth.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2009 12:11:22 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/29/2009 12:00:12 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Children has nothing to do with it. Torture is an attack. The relevant criterion is whether the target attacked someone else, and whether that someone else attacked someone else, and so on and so forth.If the count, including your target, is odd, you are unjustified. If it's even, you are justified. You may not be being prudent, but that is a separate question.

Soo, America being a world policeman is justifiable? I don't think so.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2009 12:14:34 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/29/2009 12:08:09 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Donating money to Africa willy-nilly isn't ethical. Least in my ethics.

Not ethical in my opinion either. It's a majority opinion though, and I was just using it as an example. Donating money to Africa can be ethical in your opinion however - if the donating is in the donator's rational self-interest. :)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2009 12:15:20 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/29/2009 12:11:22 AM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 11/29/2009 12:00:12 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Children has nothing to do with it. Torture is an attack. The relevant criterion is whether the target attacked someone else, and whether that someone else attacked someone else, and so on and so forth.If the count, including your target, is odd, you are unjustified. If it's even, you are justified. You may not be being prudent, but that is a separate question.

Soo, America being a world policeman is justifiable?
At present, every country on the planet is justified in making war against every other country. Why? Because all the countries are just that bad. It is in my interests as a powerless libertarian fanatic to see various states exhaust themselves. Personally, I'd rather keep the American involvement minimal until the endgame, as it is one of the least horrific governments, but that is a consideration of prudence, not of whether it is particularly unjust that the American government meets the fate that will come from such a path.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2009 12:15:33 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/29/2009 12:11:22 AM, Freedomaniac wrote:
Soo, America being a world policeman is justifiable? I don't think so.

How did you possibly arrive at that conclusion from what Ragnar just said?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2009 12:16:34 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/29/2009 12:14:34 AM, Nags wrote:
At 11/29/2009 12:08:09 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Donating money to Africa willy-nilly isn't ethical. Least in my ethics.

Not ethical in my opinion either. It's a majority opinion though, and I was just using it as an example. Donating money to Africa can be ethical in your opinion however - if the donating is in the donator's rational self-interest. :)
Such a subset of the broad category "Donating money to Africa" completely excludes the US government from consideration, as the US government forces donations from donors deliberately made unable to calculate their self interests into the decision.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2009 12:17:41 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/29/2009 12:16:34 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Such a subset of the broad category "Donating money to Africa" completely excludes the US government from consideration, as the US government forces donations from donors deliberately made unable to calculate their self interests into the decision.

Gah gah gah, I know, whatevs. I was just refuting matt's weak analogy and false logic.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2009 12:20:15 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
But you weren't refuting it. A counterexample only works if valid.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2009 12:24:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/29/2009 12:20:15 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
But you weren't refuting it. A counterexample only works if valid.

You get my point. Matt posited that if Action X is ethical, then Action X is justifiable. Non-sequitur first off, but I think there's a more proper term.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2009 12:27:40 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/29/2009 12:24:30 AM, Nags wrote:
At 11/29/2009 12:20:15 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
But you weren't refuting it. A counterexample only works if valid.

You get my point. Matt posited that if Action X is ethical, then Action X is justifiable. Non-sequitur first off
It's not a non sequitir, he just didn't make a complete argument-- he phrased it in the form of a major premise, to accept or reject at will. He made no case for the assertion-- if you disagreed with the premise you should have A. come up with a better disproof -- or B. Reminded him of the burden of proof. It's a premise I rather think he was expecting to be accepted, so you might have some luck with B.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2009 12:34:33 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/29/2009 12:24:30 AM, Nags wrote:
At 11/29/2009 12:20:15 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
But you weren't refuting it. A counterexample only works if valid.

You get my point. Matt posited that if Action X is ethical, then Action X is justifiable. Non-sequitur first off, but I think there's a more proper term.

How do you think that people justify action, at the end of the day it's based on their idea of ethics. Ethics is how the worth of actions are ultimately judged.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."