what is the justification for killing at the time of war?

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

what is the justification for killing at the time of war?

Let us define a war as a relation between "two"( obvious, there can be more) parties, such that the parties are "socio-economical-political entities". Let us define this long name as "govt". So, a war is a relation between two distinct govt. Back to our question, and be a little more explicit. what is the justification for person 1, or p1 from govt 1 to kill p2 from govt 2? A possible solution is the following. P1 is justified in killing p2 if p2 is blameworthy. In the same way that phillip can blame Matt for the act of murdering of phillip ` s aunt, so it seems to be justified for Phillip to kill Matt. So, it seems that if we can assign blame to an agent, then we can have a justification( note that i did not say "good justification") to kill the agent! You can ask " so what?" , and continues "how can we assign blame to p2 that justifies p1 `s act to kill p2?". What is the blame? Here is 2 possible ways to argue:

way 1:

P1 can blame p2 for the same reason that govt1 blame govt2. What is this blame? How can p1 blame the actions of govt 2 on p 2? I say, we cannot ,because we cannot assign blames to different entities. You can blame your mess up life on your eraser!

way 2:

P1 can blame p2 for some act that p2 did to p1 such that it justifies p1 to kill p2? How is that possible? P1 most likely never met p2 before the battle field? How can they? perhaps online games? What if this is an online game?

A reasonable solution is that p1 is never justified in the act of kill p2.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,926 • Replies: 7

No top replies

@TuringEquivalent,

Wars are fought between groups such as nations or organisations such as the Taliban, the IRA, ETA and so on and the moral issues that arise are similar to those between individuals. However, whilst we have a framework of laws to regulate the relationship between individuals, there is no effective equivalent to do so for relationships between nations or subnational groups, and so war is often the way in which conflicts are resolved.

Justifications for war are similar to that justifying violence between individuals - self defence, defence of property, or defence of legal or other rights, defence of cultures or religions, against attack from others.

When war is fought between volunteer bands of soldiers the moral issues are reasonably simple. However when conscripted troops are fighting things are less clear cut - and when civilians are in the firing line, yet more so.

1 Reply

@exile,

Turing:

You are ascribing too much responsibility to the individual. A nation must have an arm that is effective at excecuting its will. In creating an maintaining that arm it uses the human natural behavior of belonging to a group. If the individual thinks that the group is legitimately threatened or that the group is righteously (not necessarily in the religious sense) aggressive, his/her general responsibility for violence against sanctioned opponents is suspended. This is so for law enforcement agencies as well.

This could make one wonder why the same people who are upset about war casualties are rarely upset about domestic criminal casualties. Both the military and law enforcement are executors of the "law", whether projected upon one's own nation or outwardly.

0 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

When you fight, you fight for more than just doing what the goverment is asking. You can fight because if you kill one person you may protect many. You can fight for new opportunities, land and ect. You may fight because of your religion. When you fight, you must relize that the only way to get what needs to be done is to wage war. It is not as simple as one person killing another, but rather, the final solution. Nobody goes around looking for fights, thats a path to self destruction. War is a science, and like all sciences, it has its skeptics and ethical problems.

1 Reply

@Maud Dib,

Since the end of WWII, war has become the military arm of a government. It was like this before but the reasons for fighting were different.
For example, historically wars were fought to gain land and impose rule on the peoples of that land, and essentially, collect taxes from them.
Since the end of WWII wars have been fought primarily for commercial reasons and the resulting financial gain. The U.S. has been doing this alot. Over 70 wars since 1945. They have used the military to overthrow governments in South America that didn't let United Foods grow their bananas. They have also, more recently, invaded other territories to gain control of their natural resources.
To justify a military killing inhabitants of another country so that third parties can profit from capitalist enterprises is a lot harder to do than killing someone for revenge.

Also, when governments fail to diplomatically resolve problems between themselves, they start wars to validate their position with military might rather than peaceful justification.
As governments are primarily diplomatic bodies, there is an argument that they have failed if they need to declare war. This is not a failure of the population of a country, but a failure of the ruling parties to negotiate.
For this reason, I believe that the first people sent into a war should be the politicians that declared war.

2 Replies

@Uplifter,

Uplifter;169473 wrote:

Since the end of WWII, war has become the military arm of a government. It was like this before but the reasons for fighting were different.
For example, historically wars were fought to gain land and impose rule on the peoples of that land, and essentially, collect taxes from them.
Since the end of WWII wars have been fought primarily for commercial reasons and the resulting financial gain. The U.S. has been doing this alot. Over 70 wars since 1945. They have used the military to overthrow governments in South America that didn't let United Foods grow their bananas. They have also, more recently, invaded other territories to gain control of their natural resources.
To justify a military killing inhabitants of another country so that third parties can profit from capitalist enterprises is a lot harder to do than killing someone for revenge.

Also, when governments fail to diplomatically resolve problems between themselves, they start wars to validate their position with military might rather than peaceful justification.
As governments are primarily diplomatic bodies, there is an argument that they have failed if they need to declare war. This is not a failure of the population of a country, but a failure of the ruling parties to negotiate.
For this reason, I believe that the first people sent into a war should be the politicians that declared war.

Who would enforce that requirement? If you maintain democracy, the government is not the only one responsible in waging a war. Most modern wars are in response to military action or threats from undemocratic states. The leaders of those states are hardly going to volunteer themselves to face the bullets of their enemy.

How do you justify the killing of your enemy in war? with investigation into all the other possibilities that could have prevented those killings.

0 Replies

@Uplifter,

Uplifter;169473 wrote:

They have also, more recently, invaded other territories to gain control of their natural resources.
QUOTE]

Which countries has the U.S. taken over to gain natural resources? I must have missed those fights.

You olbviously have not heard of the Truman Doctrine, Uplift. What this is is the foriegne policy, set forth by Truman, that if a country asks for our help to, A; overthrough a tyrannical goverment, B; Push communism out of a country, or C; help regain territory that has been comprimised by a malicious aggressing country, then the U.S. will step in and put the thump down. The only place this didn't work was Vietnam, but out of those "70" conflicts we have a very good track record of getting the job done.

You are pointing fingers at the U.S. for things that haven't happened.

1 Reply

@Maud Dib,

Ah Just War theory, the justification for the war has to be first broken down. Jus Ad Bellum, Jus In Bello, and Just Post Bellum are in this idea are the parts that determine a just war.

Jus Ad Bellum, or the formulation of starting a war, is determined by these criteria: just cause, comparative justice (as there is injustice on both sides and to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice on one side must be greater than the other), legitimate authorities have waged it, right intention, success probaility, last resort (when diplomacy fails in other words), and macro-proportionality (anticipated benefits outweigh the expected evils or harms).

Jus In Bello, or the method of which the combatants ought to act, is determined by these criteria: distinction (only attack the enemy soldiers), proportionality (all operations and missions ought to contain minimum collateral harm to civillians), and military necessity, a.k.a. minimum force (no unnecessary, excessive destruction).

Jus Post Bellum, or ending a war, is the most recently made category and is determined according to these criteria: vindication for termination, right intention, legitimate declaration, discrimination (war crime indictment and prosecution by victor), and proportionality of original reason used to justify the war and the terms of surrender.

Well, so the justification is fairly difficult to attain, but this is the current formula for the determination.

For my opinion, as long as the war is in defense of a nation's security or rights, revolution, or proactive attack for the earlier reasons; then, the killing of enemy soldiers are fine.

0 Replies

what is the justification for killing at the time of war?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know