As resident philosopher, I'd like to point out that if any single war can be defined as "just" - even though such a term in itself is ridiculous when you think about it - then the justness of the concept of war is negotiable and it can be argued that, from a certain perspective, any war is just.
However, of greater interest to me in this conversation is actually the definition of the word "just." To quote an over-rated lyricist, "who made you God to say, / 'I'll take your life from you?'" People have no inherent right to decide on whether something is good or evil, because at this level of definition, such things do not exist. They are words, maybe even concepts that fall into the neato-category, but as such and nothing more, they are very vague and hold very little real value. Can someone define good and evil so that everyone and everything can agree on?
From the point that Stillwaters brought up in which they state that God allows killing for the sake of personal survival or in war. The latter, though, raises a curious point. Why is there a war in the first place? If your country attacked, then it's not in self defence but murder. If they attacked, it's self defence. The former in this case is quite clearly breaking a commandment. Not to mention that that's only the opinion of one God's followers. Islam, Taoism, Shintoism, the Church of Pha and the Followers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn might very well have drastically different views on the matter. Christianity has no monopoly on moral values; not now, not ever.
But anyways, to return to my earlier point now that I'm rambling off, people have no moral upper ground over other people. Or animals for that matter. Or plants. None, zip, scratch, zero, nada. We made morality up and because we, as finite creatures, are its creators, it is finite and, when you look at it for what it is, it isn't all that impressive. No one outside the planet cares, no one on it really agrees. It's just a way for us to cope with reality because we simply can't handle the great various nature of existence. We have to look at everything from a personal, subjective light because we are not physically, mentally or spiritually able to do so in an objective one. It might be genetic, it might be behaviouristic, who knows?
The main point about it is that each of us sees the world in their very own way. They're always right if they're honest with themselves and they're always wrong toward everyone else. Saying something you think, do or say is justified in any way applies only to you and you alone, you're just a small fragment of the mass of humanity. Whether or not anyone likes it, we're all equal in the sense that all that we can even experience is so insignificant that it matters to ourselves only. People live and die all the time and the universe will do its thing, not giving the slightest Planck's damn about any of us while it does so. Life's a beach and then you die - we round down to zero if you bother to think about it.
Also, if anyone read that and still believes that they can point out an unjust war, let me know and I'll tell you why it's just. Works vice versa as well. (just -> unjust)
Posted on: 23 May 2007, 04:33:37
Back to the subject of a Just War, if you can honestly say that World War Two wasn't just, then we just have a totally different view of the world. It meets any criteria for a just war that I have ever seen, or that I could possibly come up with. Total aggression and murder by one nation against others would seem to compel anyone that believes war can ever be just to believe that it is just in that situation.
My question is to those that claim there is no just war. If your family would have been in the World Trade Center on 9/11 or in one of the concentration camps, would you honestly believe that the proper response would be to do nothing?
Concerning WW2:
1. It wasn't just, the Axis lost. And they had every right to want Lebensraum and what not.
2. What on Earth are these criteria?
3. Ever heard the phrase, "they had it coming?"
Concerning response:
1. They are people. We have too many of those already, there is no logical reason for a grown-up, functional adult to fall into emotional shock if the ones that die are ones they know closely. People die at a continuous, accelerating rate. It's a fact of life. Move along, they're dead, no longer in this world, maybe in the next if there is one.
2. The proper response would have been to either pacify the aggressors for the sake of personal survival or to accept that population culling is in fact appropriate and join them.
