'Just War'

[Solnath]

Thanks, I honestly appreciate your effort. I enjoy a depthful discussion where all sides present their arguments well like you did. I'm sorry that I didn't seem to take a stance, even though my personal stance is to be as objective on matters as is humanly possible.

Soly, I didn't address your comments because I didn't see anything to really address. You played the typical philosophical game of not taking an actual stand on the issue. But, if you'd like me to go address points, I will.

Can someone define good and evil so that everyone and everything can agree on?

There is no need to answer, because you later said:

Christianity has no monopoly on moral values; not now, not ever.

By saying this you removed the possibility of talking about the basis of ethical beliefs in the West. I would suppose that, playing by your rules, you get to a point of moral relativism. So, there is no good or evil outside the eyes of the individual. I do not hold that view, but I also refuse to get into a religious debate and drag this thread further from its intended direction.

If your country attacked, then it's not in self defence but murder.

Not true, it would depend on the reason for the attack. If Germany were to attack France tomorrow because they are tired of snobby people that drink too much wine, there is no justification. But, if France attacks Germany tonight because they learned of tomorrow's pending attack, the action is in defense even if it appears offensive to outsiders. More importantly, the commandment is that you shall not murder- which means that killing the line of self defense AND war are both allowable. The act of killing in war is justified whether or not in is a defensive killing.

people have no moral upper ground over other people

That is true if you are a moral relativist, I am not so I disagree.

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

No, there is only one truth. Everyone may see things differently, but that does not give us different truths.

I hope those were the points you were wanting me to address. You can't say I didn't make an effort for you.

Am I misunderstanding you if I think that in your opinion killing is justified in war, regardless of the cause of that war?

As for moral relativism, that is a completely different argument altogether. Those who agree with it see that there is no actual God that has given commandments and affects our daily lives. Those who disagree with it hold a contrary view and they have their right to do so as much as anyone else. However, personally - being a Medeist as I happen to be, though I was raised as a Protestant Christian in a deeply religious family - I believe that everything and everyone is equal in rank with others of their kind and that it is their individual right to forge what they want out of their lives and possibly the lives of others if they are capable of doing so.

I must admit, I like your stance of believing and acknowledge that it is good in my eyes. Faith is a glorious device we have and we should not condemn it even though some may misuse it for purposes that are not classified as divine.

[The Empire]

Stillwaters, self defence ceases to be self defence the second you leave your own ground, just because someone might do something that could hurt you or even is likely to do something that could hurt you still don't ammount to any right to strike first, if you do, you are no longer in defence, period.

Also, on the theme of christian values, the right to judge and administer retribution has been reserved by the entity we call god, it is his, and his alone, we as humans do not posess any such right, as we don't own it, we can't delegate it either, thus 9/11 shouldn't have been followed by any military action outside the US as that crosses the lines of both what is self defence and what is god's domain. On the other hand you would have had all the right in the world to close your borders and declare that anyone trying to cross would be shot at first and asked questions later.

[The Abode]

Stillwaters, self defence ceases to be self defence the second you leave your own ground, just because someone might do something that could hurt you or even is likely to do something that could hurt you still don't ammount to any right to strike first, if you do, you are no longer in defence, period.

It's comparable to arresting and sentencing a person because you have good information he will commit a crime tomorrow. 

[The Empire]

Which is still not right as he hasn't done anything wrong. The only right thing to do would be to convince him to abandon those plans.

[Stillwaters]

Soly, I do not believe you have to be religious to avoid moral relativism. Right is right and wrong is wrong with, or without, any notion of a higher power. Example: Genocide is wrong. I took the extreme, but would make the same argument down from there. There is no gray area.

I believe that everything and everyone is equal in rank with others of their kind and that it is their individual right to forge what they want out of their lives and possibly the lives of others if they are capable of doing so.

I agree with the statement you made. However, in my way of thinking they must do it through moral actions. It is OK for a person to decide at an early age that they want to be President- study hard, go to good schools, and set their life on that path. It is not OK to decide that they want to rule the country and try to kill those in power to seize the position.

Empire, I disagree whole heartedly. Self Defense is defined by lawyers as:

Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the use of unlawful force.

Property and location are not limiting factors of self defense. Moreover, you miss the point that killing in a war is justified with, or without, the self defense aspect.

Your comments about war ring true if you only examine the New Testament. However, even a cursory glance through the Old Testament shows a different picture. I have mentioned Joshua in this thread, so I will use a different example. David, who is said to be a man after God's own heart and was so loved by God that the Messiah had to come from his lineage was a warrior. The story of Goliath can be summed up easily:
David left his home to visit family that was away fighting a war. Goliath was a problem, so David killed him. By your definition, this was wrong because it didn't happen where he lived- he had to travel to the fight.

And just to throw it out there, if it is known that a person is going to commit a crime, they are often arrested in advance and charged with conspiracy.

[Saletsia]

Wars can be justified.

[Delfos]

join with metaphysics and you have a religion.

Moral is not the only factor. If you want to survive there's no moral in it. it's immoral to fight those who want to survive or are in advantage...i guess...that's the basis of FAIR PLAY :p

[Khablan]

Since when does fairness even enter into war? 

[Delfos]

not in war but before, or is USA going to war with Lebanon in support to Israel?

[Khablan]

Let's not get ridiculous, please.

And if you honestly think 'fair play' even enters into things when politicians are deciding whether to go to war or not, then you truly are innocent about politics.

[Stillwaters]

is USA going to war with Lebanon in support to Israel?

Lebanon? Probably not. Syrian backed groups in Lebanon? Possibly is Israel can't do it themselves.

[Delfos]

Stillwaters, i don't know what Bible you studied

More importantly, the commandment is that you shall not murder- which means that killing the line of self defense AND war are both allowable

In any religion i know about, killing in ANY way is a sin. Only the catholics/islamics of medieval times did allowed the killing in holy war. Now only extremism allows, or i do not know the religion you studied, could you help me in this?

You shall not murder, that means you shall not kill, you shall not take life that has been given by 'god'. there's another popular commandment: every men (or women) are equal to god's eyes, so the infidels are men (or women) that shall not be killed.

---

And if you honestly think 'fair play' even enters into things when politicians are deciding whether to go to war or not, then you truly are innocent about politics.

yes, and no. Not the way you emphasize, plus 'fair play' was a joke. I doubt Bush ever thought about 'fair play', but UN exists for that: fair play regulation lol

Why do we aid countries that are willing to be independent if not 'fair play'? Like in Serbia, like in East-Timor, Lebanon, and like in other similar wars. US government (so that i don't use the term USA or else Americans would boil up) actually supported Indonesia, so there's no Fair Play...

I start to question if they ever thought about Fair Play...maybe you're right Khablan, but other governments think otherwise.

Why will New Delfos aid Jutensa? Because we want Prince Delfos to sexually engage Carlotta Bianchi?

Anyway war is not just offense, and don't forget the perspective.

and don't forget Fair Play in a nomination I'm using to describe morality.

[The Empire]

Yes, I know the old testament has a whole different view on the use of force, the thing is, if you are indeed a christian, the new testament overrules the old testament in EVERY SINGLE DIFFERENCE. Thus, eye for an eye is overruled by the golden rule of do only to others what you want them to do to you and so on. That's the whole point with making a new deal, to start over from scratch. A sincere cristian follows only the old testament where there are no guidance at all in the new one to set a precidence.

And no, killing in war is not justified by default, the taking of a life is NEVER justified by default regardless of circumstances.
And that may be how lawyers define self defence and I can agree with that, the point there being that use of force is NOT the same as killing.
Self defence is only defence until the agressor is incapacitated by the least ammount of nessesary force. If the aggressor turns and run away due to too heavy resistance then the defence has been sucessful and any actions on your part after that is NOT defence.
And in my definition of one's own ground I include the space a human occupies physically at any given moment, rough estimate a 3' radius.

[Khablan]

self defence ceases to be self defence the second you leave your own ground...

...And in my definition of one's own ground I include the space a human occupies physically at any given moment, rough estimate a 3' radius.

By that definition, then you're defending yourself if someone is standing close enough to touch and thrusting knife at you.  But if you attempt to stop someone who is 10 or 20 feet away and about to shoot you, or throw a ranged weapon, or trigger a bomb, then it is no longer self defense, but murder. 

[Solnath]

Soly, I do not believe you have to be religious to avoid moral relativism. Right is right and wrong is wrong with, or without, any notion of a higher power. Example: Genocide is wrong.

You have no moral upper ground here outside your own mind here. Nothing wrong with killing millions of people.