Is War Necessary?

Posted by: ShaneO

Is it necessary to harm another man in vein?

Poll closed on 1/1/2015 at 12:00AM.
  • Absolutely

  • Absolutely not

53% 18 votes
47% 16 votes
  • Let me know when you think of another solution to the global crisis of the late 1930's.

  • If by late 30's you mean WWII, then I don't get why so many people said no.

  • Human nature

  • War is absolutely necessary, but not for humans. There are many species of animals and insects that if they did not have war, the planet would be overrun.

  • UMG..... I can't beleive these people are winning. That world would be heaven. I wish that a world existed like that. But it is completely unrealistic.... The world will never work without war. We will constantly be fighting, and that is just how it is. And still I am disappointed by the minds of people...... AND THEY ARE WINNING... No wonder the average American IQ is so small....

  • Yes. War is necessary to defend sovereignty or for humanitarian reasons. Admittedly, war is not good as it can results to millions of casualties. But if you're just defending your country from invaders or you go to war because you want to protect people for humanitarian calls, then war not only becomes necessary but also inevitable.

    Posted by: Juris
  • Yes it is in some cases like the Revolutionary war and Civil war and world war 2 as far as our country .Wars of oppression are fought all over the world how else would you deal with those things.Of course the world fights a lot of needless wars this country doing it when Republicans are in office

  • War is for control over resources most if not all of the time if the resources and money used to further the war effort were used in establishing sustainability we would be better off.

  • Not necessary but inevitable in a flawed world in which we live in.

  • To defend when attacked is something quite different, I'm not a total pacifist, I will not let someone kill me without a fight. Beyond defense, primitive.

    Posted by: vinter
  • Diplomacy works

  • As long as we human have guilt, fear, jealousy, there will always be war. It is however can be stopped by respecting all countries and stopping jealousy.

    Posted by: anish
  • Just War Theory Just war theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. The justification can be either theoretical or historical. The theoretical aspect is concerned with ethically justifying war and the forms that warfare may or may not take. The historical aspect, or the “just war tradition,” deals with the historical body of rules or agreements that have applied in various wars across the ages. For instance, international agreements such as the Geneva and Hague conventions are historical rules aimed at limiting certain kinds of warfare which lawyers may refer to in prosecuting transgressors, but it is the role of ethics to examine these institutional agreements for their philosophical coherence as well as to inquire into whether aspects of the conventions ought to be changed. The just war tradition may also consider the thoughts of various philosophers and lawyers through the ages and examine both their philosophical visions of war’s ethical limits (or absence of) and whether their thoughts have contributed to the body of conventions that have evolved to guide war and warfare.

  • war is for gaining resources, but there are so little resources nowadays that it would be better to combine 2 countries resources than war with one another

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Actionsspeak says2014-04-04T01:45:43.9852573-05:00
Diplomacy, sanctions, non-interventionism, humanitarian beliefs, etc.
IamPlato says2014-04-04T04:49:31.0270556-05:00
War should always be a last resort. This connects intimately with presenting a just cause – all other forms of solution must have been attempted prior to the declaration of war. It has often been recognized that war unleashes forces and powers that soon get beyond the grips of the leaders and generals to control – there is too much “fog” in war, as Clausewitz noted, but that fog is also a moral haze in which truth and trust are early casualties. The resulting damage that war wrecks tends to be very high for most economies and so theorists have advised that war should not be lightly accepted: once unleashed, war is not like a sport that can be quickly stopped at the blow of a whistle (although the Celtic druids supposedly had the power to stop a battle by virtue of their moral standing) and its repercussions last for generations. Holding “hawks” at bay though is a complicated task – the apparent ease by which war may resolve disputes, especially in the eyes of those whose military might is apparently great and victory a certainty, does present war as a low cost option relative to continuing political problems and economic or moral hardship. Yet the just war theorist wishes to underline the need to attempt all other solutions but also to tie the justice of the war to the other principles of jus ad bellum too.
IamPlato says2014-04-04T04:50:25.0346018-05:00
Walzer, in his Just and Unjust Wars (1977) claims that the lack of identification does not give a government the right to kill indiscriminately—the onus is on the government to identify the combatants, and so, the implication goes, if there is any uncertainty involved then an attack must not be made. Others have argued that the nature of modern warfare dissolves the possibility of discrimination: civilians are just as necessary causal conditions for the war machine as are combatants, therefore, they claim, there is no moral distinction in targeting an armed combatant and a civilian involved in arming or feeding the combatant. The distinction is, however, not closed by the nature of modern economies, since a combatant still remains a very different entity from a non-combatant, if not for the simple reason that the former is presently armed (and hence has renounced rights or is prepared to die, or is a threat), whilst the civilian is not. On the other hand, it can be argued that being a civilian does not necessarily mean that one is not a threat and hence not a legitimate target. If Mr Smith is the only individual in the nation to possess the correct combination that will detonate a device that could kill thousands, then he becomes not only causally efficacious in the firing of a weapon of war, but also morally responsible; reasonably he also becomes a legitimate military target. His job effectively militarizes his status even though he does not bear arms.
IamPlato says2014-04-04T04:52:57.8356687-05:00
References Aquinas, St Thomas. (1988). Politics and Ethics. Norton. Augustine, St. (1984). City of God. Penguin. Dockrill, Michael and Barrie Paskins (1979). The Ethics of War. Hobbes, Thomas (1988). Leviathan. Penguin. Locke, John (1963). Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge University Press. Machiavelli, Nicolo (1988). The Prince. Cambridge University Press. Tolstoy, Leo (1992). War and Peace. Everyman
jery1569 says2014-04-04T23:44:46.6102949-05:00
It depends.
jery1569 says2014-04-04T23:45:56.3072544-05:00
@Debate.Org-Why was I allowed to post on here, but not the abortion poll?

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.