War. How much is enough?

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

In political philosophy, there are two important theories which dictate some level of ethics "for war" and "in war." These two integral theories are referred to as Jus in bello and Jus ad bellum.

Jus ad bellum (justice for war)
Jus ad bellum determines the just reasons before a war begins. Think of it basically as a list of criteria a certain country would have to meet in order to declare war on another country. Within this concept, there are issues of sovereignty, rights, obligations, etc.

Jus in bello (justice in war)
Jus in bello determines the just methods during war. Think of it as a list of things opponents can or cannot do during the conflict, like the Geneva Convention treaty. Within this concept, there are issues such as asymmetric warfare (guerilla warfare), heavy, biological, nuclear, etc. weapons usage, etc.

Are there any limits in war or is war an unlimited action?

I would say that the primary focus would be Jus ad bellum. Severe limitations and stipulations before war, which would make it almost impossible to declare war. But Jus in bello would in all honesty be unlimited in its scope if it managed to get to that point.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,076 • Replies: 46

No top replies

@VideCorSpoon,

The real issue in my mind is practical, not philosophical. War will happen. Any amount is too much. If there are conditions that justify war, like oppression, then the war may be a necessary evil but in this case it's the predisposing conditions that are most regrettable.

So how do we prevent it? And if it happens how do we ensure that the conflict is resolved as quickly, as definitively, as stably as possible and with a minimum of suffering?

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

So how do we prevent it? And if it happens how do we ensure that the conflict is resolved as quickly, as definitively, as stably as possible and with a minimum of suffering?

One way to prevent war--or at least reduce its likelihood--is to remove corporate influence from the U.S. government. War is big business and profit motivation moves weapons to other countries. It is a vicious cycle that has been repeating since the beginning of modern warfare.

1 Reply

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

In political philosophy, there are two important theories which dictate some level of ethics "for war" and "in war." These two integral theories are referred to as Jus in bello and Jus ad bellum.

Jus ad bellum (justice for war)
Jus ad bellum determines the just reasons before a war begins. Think of it basically as a list of criteria a certain country would have to meet in order to declare war on another country. Within this concept, there are issues of sovereignty, rights, obligations, etc.

Jus in bello (justice in war)
Jus in bello determines the just methods during war. Think of it as a list of things opponents can or cannot do during the conflict, like the Geneva Convention treaty. Within this concept, there are issues such as asymmetric warfare (guerilla warfare), heavy, biological, nuclear, etc. weapons usage, etc.

Are there any limits in war or is war an unlimited action?

I would say that the primary focus would be Jus ad bellum. Severe limitations and stipulations before war, which would make it almost impossible to declare war. But Jus in bello would in all honesty be unlimited in its scope if it managed to get to that point.

No one declares war anymore. The United States has not declared war since 1941.

If you mean, go to war, then that supposes that there are no occasions when it is right to go to war, and I don't think that is true. Most people agree that going to war against Germany in 1941 was the right thing to do, for instance. And people differ on the Korean War, Vietnam, and Afganistan and also Iraq.

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

One way to prevent war--or at least reduce its likelihood--is to remove corporate influence from the U.S. government. War is big business and profit motivation moves weapons to other countries. It is a vicious cycle that has been repeating since the beginning of modern warfare.

Hmmm... so aside from Iraq, which of the following "modern" wars / interventions would you characterize as primarily prompted by this corporate influence:

Spanish-American War
WWI
WWII
Korea
VietNam
Nicaragua
Granada
First Gulf War
Somalia
Bosnia
Kosovo
Afghanistan

I'd say that corporate influence was not a significant factor in ANY of those wars. You can levy a case for the First Gulf War, though the corporate benefit and the instigating factors seem much less important than in the present Iraq operations. In Iraq currently it's a different matter, though that conclusion comes from 1) the pervasive presence of corrupt / overpaid no-bid contractors and 2) the nebulous reasons why we're there to begin with.

2 Replies

@Aedes,

The corporate world produces the weapons and supplies used in a war. They are not just materialized from thin air. War is a business, thus the corporate world is behind the whole scheme. The government is cloak the machine hides behind, and the excuse is national security. After WWII modern warfare set in and became a business. Think of all the companies that made millions on the weapons used in war fare. DuPoint produced Agent Orange. Blackwater and other security firms provide mercenary services. To think that the governments choice of going to war is not influence by the money flowing through the war business is a failure to see the bigger picture involved in the flow of money.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes,Theaetatus,

I think that corporations bear a type of "scapegoat" status where blame can be attributed to them with relative ease. It's easy to blame a faceless corporation. But I don't know if they are the motivating factors in the sense you posit. Corporations are by nature not the CEO's, but the shareholders of that corporation. CEO's are the fiduciaries of the stockholders. The people have indirect control over everything (to some degree). If corporations are to blame, the people are to blame. Even if it is the personal actions of the CEO, officers, whoever, the people bear some responsibility.

Kennethamy,

Wars are declared, just not in the way they used be in the past. But your thought is interesting. When does the declaration of war begin? First strike? Retaliation?

0 Replies

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

Are there any limits in war or is war an unlimited action?

The dead are the only ones who have seen the end of the war.
~Plato, the Republic.

2 Replies

@Arjen,

Ike warned us - and ever since the second World War, the corporate factor has grown. But the corporate factor is only one side - even in Iraq and Afghanistan, corporatism is far from the only cause. Both conflicts are deeply rooted in Bush foreign policy.

But we have to recognize something - almost all wars are fought over wealth. Corporations or not, wealth is the driving factor behind armed conflict.

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

The corporate world produces the weapons and supplies used in a war. They are not just materialized from thin air...

You didn't answer the question. IG Farben produced Zyklon B because the SS needed it for its death camps. That doesn't mean that IG Farben was responsible for the Holocaust, even though they deserve a share of blame for their complicity. Just because some private party stands to benefit from war doesn't mean that these private parties have created them. War profiteering goes back much farther than modern warfare. The city of Venice owes its fame and fortune to mercantilism during the Crusades.

2 Replies

@Aedes,

:popcorn:

Isn't there something wrong with corporations gaining too much money and it being centralized to the CEO from a war. Corporations take advantage of economic opportunity and with other wars there is influential opportunity since there are many ties to religion, like the crusades.

Does war balance the scale between peaceful coexistence of societies relative to before and after, or does it disposition it. Because a war doesn't really end, so there is no scale to peace. It must come from everybody wanting it to, not from war, other than perhaps a realisation method.

Thats when we'll have had enough, but that will never happen, b/c it is part of humanity's evolution, like ironically, some sort of antiprogress.

The crusades did benefit in some ways, through realisation. The protestants came to see the hypocrisy of the Roman CC and wanted more rights. Perhaps the outcome of a war is the public in realisation of the need or wanting of rights. So the government shouln't be so keen as to start a war in the first place. Universal suffrage later became something real, and emancipation was a new idea. I wouldn't say moral progress was made in general though. The diaspora caused Africa to be the way it is today, right? A war leads to other wars. Except the crusades never had to happen, if religion wasn't there I'd hate to see what other lame excuse the political power would come up with for expansion, since feudalism was loosing it's sway (I'm only assuming, anyways).

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

The crusades did benefit in some ways, through realisation. The protestants came to see the hypocrisy of the Roman CC and wanted more rights.

The Crusades ended 400 years before the Protestant Reformation. The Crusades were water under the bridge by that point. The Crusades brought the virtual destruction of the Byzantine Empire and therefore the comparative elevation of the Western Church -- and Italy's port cities benefitted greatly. The ultimate beneficiary of the Crusades were the Seljuk Turks, who created the Ottoman Empire that subjugated all of the Middle East up until WWI. But the main benefit of the Crusades was that the cultural exchange between Christian and Muslim lands benefitted Europe hugely. This was Europe's first major exposure to some of the tremendous mathematical, philosophical, and technological discoveries from the Muslim world, as well as introducing Europe to most ancient Greek writing and philosophy. The Renaissance and the Enlightenment would have never happened otherwise.

Sorry, I digressed Wink

Quote:

Perhaps the outcome of a war is the public in realisation of the need or wanting of rights.

Think of it in terms of potential energy and kinetic energy. If I'm standing near the edge of a 1000 foot tall cliff, I have a tremendous amount of potential energy. And the closer I get to the edge, the more likely it is that some minor thing will turn that potential energy into kinetic energy. Think about any of these "first shot" scenarios -- like the first shot between the British and Americans at Lexington, or the assassination of the Archduke in 1914. These didn't cause the ensuing war. It was the extant conditions that caused them, and the lack of any meaningful intervention to cool things down before it all blew up.

Many people blame WWII on the unsatisfactory resolution of WWI. In other words, while the kinetic energy of WWI ended I guess at Versailles in the West and Brest-Litovsk in the East, that energy was transferred to other conflicts and revolutions (like the Russian Civil War and the rise of the Nazis and Fascists). It created a whole different potential energy that made another war almost inevitable.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Yeah I remember reading about how the German dollar was worth less than what a Mexican pence is worth now. People brought home their wages in wheel barrows. lol. (I saw a picture in my textbook).

I would blame the end of the WWI on the way the US handled the negotiations with Germany, treaty of versailles. Woodrow Wilson got a cold *cough* or something like that and couldn't be of any support when he clearly wanted a more sympathetic ending to resolve the matters. The US obviously hindered Woodrow's initiative.

It's too bad that Germany's economy was poor afterwards, and their military was limited; so that evokes citizens wanting change to the lifestyle, therefore advocating for the unknown reign of Hitler, being a dictator.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

I would blame the end of the WWI on the way the US handled the negotiations with Germany, treaty of versailles.

While Hitler used Versailles to much rhetorical effect, it probably was NOT a major reason why WWII happened. Furthermore, inasmuch as it was a contributor, the US gets a complete pass on Versailles. Why? Because the US never ratified the treaty. Britain and France wanted to impose a brutal treaty on Germany and that's exactly what they got.

Quote:

It's too bad that Germany's economy was poor afterwards, and their military was limited; so that evokes citizens wanting change to the lifestyle, therefore advocating for the unknown reign of Hitler, being a dictator.

Everyone's economy tanked after WWI -- the Great Depression was a worldwide phenomenon. And everyone was demilitarized after WWI. It took a tremendous effort on the part of every major combatant in WWII to militarize as they ultimately did. It so happens that Germany and Japan militarized themselves before everyone else. France threw their military into the Maginot Line, which was obsolete before it was even built. Britain, the US, and the USSR were grossly undermilitarized at the time hostilities began.

But don't think that Hitler came to power because he duped the hopeless people of Germany into looking for a dictator. Germany was in a state of virtual civil war, with Nazi stormtroopers terrorizing people. Hitler lost the election in 1933 but got himself an appointment in what was meant to be a power-sharing government. That is until Hindenberg, the old man of WWI, kicked the bucket and Hitler manufactured the Reichstag crisis.

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Furthermore, inasmuch as it was a contributor, the US gets a complete pass on Versailles. Why? Because the US never ratified the treaty.

Thats my point, if America was to be a part of the treaty, then Woodrow may have had positive implications.

And didn't Canada earn a "seat" in the treaty dealings.:a-ok:

Aedes wrote:

Everyone's economy tanked after WWI -- the Great Depression was a worldwide phenomenon. And everyone was demilitarized after WWI.

Yeah I know. :disappointed:
So what do you feel made WWII happen?:Not-Impressed: Surely Hitler would have been more apathetic if WWI did not happen.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Quote:

While Hitler used Versailles to much rhetorical effect, it probably was NOT a major reason why WWII happened.

Hmmm? I'm more than happy to submit to your knowledge and familiarity with the issue, but this one throws me.

As I understand it, Versailles forced upon Germany impossible economic demands. Those conditions, while they didn't force Germany to war, those conditions certainly pushed the German people to war. I understand that the Depression was a world wide phenomenon, but after the Great War, some nations prospered - the Roaring Twenties.

Help me out on this one.

Quote:

Hitler lost the election in 1933 but got himself an appointment in what was meant to be a power-sharing government. That is until Hindenberg, the old man of WWI, kicked the bucket and Hitler manufactured the Reichstag crisis.

I'm trying to avoid my copy of Rise and Fall... Vice Chancellor, Chancellor?

Quote:

Surely Hitler would have been more apathetic if WWI did not happen.

Hitler had a rough war. I know he received respectable commendation for his service, and if I recall correctly, he was at Ypres.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

he was at Ypres.

There's something I didn't know:eek:. Yeah!, Canada kicked their but morally:a-ok: in that one. That was the one where we got cheated by biological warfare, mustard gas. Not at all humane, though thats not what wars about. :not-OK:

As much as Hitler may have been motivated by other means, the people would have not advocated his view of change without the effects of the treaty that would have certainly provoked pessimism.

0 Replies

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

The dead are the only ones who have seen the end of the war.
~Plato, the Republic.

We have all seen the front end of wars, but few enough have seen the back end.
You know, the whole premise of this question, that law can some how modify the behavior of mankind in the area of war, neglects the obvious fact that for a thousand years we have had Western law, and it has ever caused worse wars, with wider pain, and greater bloodshed. In fact, law necessitates war, because when countries have law they have peace without the need for justice, but injustice grows in a society until neighbor wants to prey upon neighbor, but instead, nation preys upon nation. People cannot live with injustice, and injustice robs all people of their peace, and when their hatred exceeds their fear of death they fight. It would be better if each people could institute justice in their lands, and then maintain it. But what happens is that when people have instituted justice the institution is taken over, justice is denied, and law substitutes for justice, keeping peace by force, and frustrating the whole population. And frustrated people look to thieve from others, and only rarely turn on their oppressors.

1 Reply

@Fido,

As a quick aside on Hitler, I'd recomend the movie Max with John Cusack. The film's history is shaky, but the point is compelling. The last scene will have you in tears.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Thats my point, if America was to be a part of the treaty, then Woodrow may have had positive implications.

Woodrow Wilson, despite being more than a bit idealistic, was a genius who lived about 50 years too soon. It's only that the world wasn't ready for him that he's not considered one of the greatest leaders in modern history -- because much of what he wanted to accomplish never happened and the aftermath of WWI was a disaster.

Quote:

So what do you feel made WWII happen?

Radical nationalism and xenophobia in the setting of socioeconomic shifts (not only collapse) was the root cause. Not of WWII per se, but for the rise of militant expansionist dictatorships in esp Germany and Japan (but let's not forget Spain and Italy). This was counterposed by the rise of Communism in the USSR, which was ideologically different than fascism but functionally not too much different. Remember that Hitler's war was against the USSR. That was the only war he wanted. He wanted to take out Britain and France solely so that he could wage a one front war against the USSR, his idealogical enemy.

Thomas, I'd recommend the book Wars of the World by Niall Fergusson. The book is about the first half of the 20th century as sort of a single conflict that constituted a sort of massive civil war in Western Civilization (or perhaps a suicide attempt). He talks about many of the intrinsic problems in Germany in the interwar period, including economic change (including considerable growth in Germany later in the interwar period -- Germany was a lot more prosperous in the middle 1930s than it was 10 years previously). He argues with a lot of data that economic change was the critical factor, not poverty per se. And there were other factors involved, including interfaces between different ethnicities. I can give you a better synopsis tomorrow if I open up the book (it's been a while).

Quote:

Surely Hitler would have been more apathetic if WWI did not happen.

Hitler would have been a mediocrity forgotten to history if not for WWI. There is no separating the Hitler of history from his personal experiences in WWI and the history of his country. Lance Corporal Hitler was recovering from his injuries in the trenches when he learned about Germany's defeat -- and he was utterly crushed. And he became part of the general scapegoat movement that blamed the defeat on Jews and Communists. Yawn. But

1 Reply

War. How much is enough?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know