Phage

The classic example would be genocide; suppose a political party (Nazis) decided to kill off an ethnic group (Jews) because... well, just because. Lets also assume that you don't personally know or are related to any Jews from there. Do you still believe that it is wrong? If you do, do you think violence in defense of your belief about the issue is justified?

Please understand that I am not arguing for an immediate violent conclusion to every conflict; that is a straw man that is often attempted in such discussions. I am all for a logical and peaceful conclusion to all conflics, but to profess that such solutions are the only moral way of doing things is not only naive but deeply insulting to those taking care of the failures you choose to ignore. Almost every soldier would prefer peace but they recognize that there are some people who cannot be persuaded or reasoned with; people who may not even allow an alternate viewpoint to be expressed. In the real world this failure is going to be encountered eventually and my point is how that should be resolved.

zen_tom

It's this that I'm making my point on. There is never a 'just because' - In the example of the killing of the Jews, the government of the day made the so-called jewish 'menace' out to be a threat - in the minds of those people carrying out the orders, they were justifiably protecting their families. Did the German people owe it to their country to carry these acts out? Their leaders would have told them so. And, according to your argument (were you to remove the part about solving problems in a non-violent manner) they would have been justified.

The Second-World-War was not fought because of the Nazi Regime's unpleasant internal policies. It began when Germany invaded Poland, and made steps towards a military domination of Europe. None of the countries involved in WWII did so because of their distaste of the Nazi ideology, they did so for political and economic reasons - and in order to protect their own interests.

Further examples of this include Rwanda where no military action took place to stop the open genocide, and little happened in the Baltic states untill the conflict began to destabalise other parts of Europe. While it is a noble ideal to say that people are sent into combat in order to protect the high moral ground, it has been shown that more often than not, it is issues of money and national security that spurs governments into sending their armies into action. Perhaps here we swap from our chairs of naievite (however it is spelt) and cynicism, but I find it upsetting to think that brave soldiers are being asked to die without knowing what it is they are really dying for.

zen_tom

As for your question about whether I would fight to reflect my belief that (for example) genocide is wrong - I guess the answer is no. I had the opportunity to sign up during Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia, and I didn't.

Phage

I didn't ask if you would fight, after all there are so many conflicts no single person can try to solve them all. If what you mean is that you still think violence by people not directly affected is immoral then I guess you have made your point.
Unfortunately this is still hypocrisy so long as you live in a country that has a military and/or police. You are expecting these people to defend you with violence if necessary while having no personal relationship, operating merely on the belief that they are doing the right thing by keeping you safe. You should not be in any country, but in a lawless territory with a sort of tribal community. Of course, total pacifism might be a tad hard to survive with.

asaris

Well, there are two ways I can go here. I'll stick with the Levinasian line about duties owed to the Other, I think, since that's a bit more general (even though I disagree with him in points). The duty here that we would be using violence to uphold is our duty to the Other, again, not duty to a belief.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

martinguerre

*nods

Luther has a lot to say about seeing God in the face of the other. he's not using post modern language like other, but it's strikingly precsient.

some of the smartest stuff luther says...ironically for the example, he also makes tragic contributions to the project of anti-semitism.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

zen_tom

Phage, at no point did I say I felt it was immoral - as it happens, I don't believe that there is such a thing as an absolute set of moral values (in fact there is a thread on this very subject) and with that standpoint, it is very difficult to state what might be moral or immoral at any given time without creating inconsistancies. However, what I believe we can do, is operate in a way that benefits the entire system, and ourselves as individuals. To operate in this manner isn't morally right or wrong, but it does reap the maximum benefits for everyone. I am quite happy to accept that there will be those people who are willing to take a gun and defend a border from being crossed. I don't want to do that job myself, and I certainly wont demean or disrespect that person doing that undoubtedly valuable job. However, I will question the motives that his political leaders might use to justify his walking over that border and imposing force on someone else. He as an individual will be protecting himself and the lives of his unit - hoping to keep himself and his friends out of harm. If that means killing others then so be it if the situation demands. However, that is not a situation he is responsible for. He and his squad are there because somebody decided they be there. They have been put in a position of danger that they must respond to on a survival level.

Responding to threats to ones own survival is a natural thing and is no more immoral that feeling hungry or having desirous feelings towards the opposite sex.

What I do object to is when the soldiers are told that they are defending their families, that they are upholding the law, that they are on the side of the righteous, when the decisions that are made that put them into such difficult situations have been made with very little thought given to the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of the action.

However, millitaries across the world have been told that theirs is on the side of God (whether it's the Armies of Napoleon, or Hitler, or Caesar or whoever) now obviously both sides can't be right can they? Does the right side win every time? No, it's the side with the bigger guns.

So don't misunderstand, I'm not saying it's immoral to go to war, but what I am saying is that it definately isn't moral either. And that where it is made out to be, that morality is often covering up a more mundane, economic set of motivations.

Once you've established that there's no way to defend the morality or immorality of warfare, you need to look instead at what course of action would be best in the long term. When you do this, it turns out that a pacifist approach provides the greatest rewards for all. Yes, perhaps put guards on your border to deter opportunists, yes have some form of deterrant, but aggressive action is very rarely justified.

archpaladin

I think there's an underlying point to this entire discussion that's been danced around but never really said. I don't know if I've really got my finger on it but try this out:

zen_tom's comments about the use of morality & personal beliefs to generate a fighting force got me thinking......what we really seem to be discussing here is the idea of faith/belief being used as a weapon. Whether it's used as an excuse to defend oneself in battle, or as a reason for starting one, the point is the same....there's always this element of personal beliefs tied to the act of war. Phage's comment that people should believe something strongly enough to go to battle is sort of a double-edged weapon: yes people should be able to believe something that strongly, but no people should not be short-sighted enough so that they start conflict at the drop of a hat. When it comes to engaging in conflict that's not just spur of the moment (ie. I've just been jumped in an alley) everyone has to examine their own personal ideas about what's right and find out how strongly they accept the cause that's presented before them.

__________________
This space not for rent.