|
| Thread: Is war evil? And if so, is it nesscissary? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
posted January 07, 2011 04:06 PM |
|
|
Seeing that modern war is primarly about killing civilians (usually after branding them this or that - "terrorist", primarily), and doing ethnic "cleanups" (since 2nd world war)... yeah, that can't be good. Then again, only certain member may perceive something truly black and truly white, and because of that I agree with JJ.
Most past-decade wars were actually army against their own nation. Cambodia, Uganda, Birma, to name a few. Also Vietnam and Korea.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
kodial79
Promising
Supreme Hero
How'd Phi's Lov't
|
|
posted January 07, 2011 04:12 PM |
|
|
I don't believe that concepts such as good and evil are absolute. What might be evil for one, could be good for another and vice versa. I don't think war is necessary either, as everything can be solved with good will and intentions if all sides have enough for it. The same person is able to commit both good and evil. On a bigger scale, as a man is part of nation or any group of people, said group can both commit good and evil. If all groups of people were bount to commit only good which is in their capabilities, then war should not exist.
However, it's unrealistic, because as we all know the only things that motivate men to act are his wrath, his lust, his greed and his egoism. Even when a man commits good, he does it only to feel good and righteous and proud of himself, better than others. Such devils, we are! 
____________
Signature? I don't need no stinking signature!
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 07, 2011 04:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Funny how Elodin has to bring raping babies into every discussion. I worry about him.
I don't bring raping babies into every discussion. However, baby rape is an excellent illustration of the folly of any philosophy that claims the concepts of good and evil are a farce.
I worry about anyone who hesitates to call baby rape evil.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted January 07, 2011 04:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't bring raping babies into every discussion.
Yes you must have missed a few 
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted January 10, 2011 07:11 PM |
|
Edited by moonlith at 19:14, 10 Jan 2011.
|
Quote:
Lol!
Sorry, but I must disagree. Raping a baby is evil. Cutting of the fingers and toes of babies is evil. I could name any number of evil actions.
I find philosophies that can't account for good and evil to be nonsense.
Trust me buddy, philosophers find your opinions and thoughts to be nonsense as well.
Quote:
Quote:
War is evil. No dicussion about it. Defending in a war means, that (the) evil (aggressor) forces you to use the same evil means in order to prevail, not be oppressed or killed or enslaved or whatever. But since this will invariably lead to innocents suffering, it's "evil" as well.
Sorry, but self defence is not evil.
It is not evil for a nation to defend itself from a nation that is invading it. It is not evil for me to defend my family from a home invader. If someone invades my home and I blow his off with my shotgun I have done a good thing, not an evil thing.
Odd, because I'm pretty certain you denounce Iraqi and Afghanistan resistance fighters, who defend themselves against the invading NATO, as evil.
Don't kid yourself and others, your definition of "good" and "evil" is nation-based, not moral-based.
Or simplified: In your mind America and its allies are always "good" and its enemies are always "evil".
Quote:
However, baby rape is an excellent illustration of the folly of any philosophy that claims the concepts of good and evil are a farce.
Uuuhrrr not really? Because philosophy doesn't look at babyrape from a subjective viewpoint and doesn't denounce it as either evil or good. Philosophy is more concerned with definining evil and good on itself.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 11, 2011 03:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What might be evil for one, could be good for another and vice versa
that's the point. in the case of a war, what a side defines as good is evil for the other side and vice versa. that's the problem.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted January 12, 2011 05:29 AM |
|
|
Now for my opinion
War is evil, but it is necessary for the human race to continue to have war. Why? Because war jolts humans out of any slumps they have, it causes humans to become more inventive, more creative and far more cunning. War injects that small bit of chaos into the boring order of life that allows us to make things such as vaccines for small pox and polio, since these were being developed as biological weapons (Yes, to wage more war... but the cycle is self propagating).
Many of the modern mechanical inventions that we have made were either created for or perfected by war. For instance, the automobile. If it can withstand a grenade, do you think a minivan will cause too much damage? Didn't think so. That automatic gear shift? So that the driver didn't have to worry about it in the middle of a combat situation. Steele ships were made to defend the crew better then a wooden ship could. Atomic power? Made to at first supply the factories to produce the weapons and equipment produced with more power, then the bomb was made from them. The list goes on and on.
Also, though most people might think this is a paradox, war brings order. After a period of combat and innovation, a culture will naturally try to settle down and give its economic and military machines a rest, causing a temporary peace. If the country had fought (and won) a defensive war, then it will rebuild. If the country had won an offensive war, then it will consolidate its power and spread its influence to the conquered state and camp there, taking little or no offensive campaigns against another country.
Fighting for your life is no evil, self defense is completely natural and healthy. If you have to go extremely far to make sure your enemy doesn't come back to fight you again, then so be it. To feel safe and secure is a natural reaction, and every creature has it.
As Del stated,Quote:
war is human
. Sure there are the black and white areas of war, but there are also these areas in humans. We humans spread horrors, but out of those ashes that we leave behind we find wonders and masterpieces. So yes, war is evil, but, in my humble opinion, we humans need it. To be, well, human.
Quote:
To be where the rising god meets the ape. To be where the setting sun meets the earth.
-Death, from The Hog Father
Also, The Balkan pie made me LOL a few times 
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 12, 2011 12:24 PM |
|
|
I'll repeat the question:
How can something necessary be evil?
And how can something evil be necessary?
I would say: If something is really necessary, it can't be evil, and if something is really evil it can't be necessary - otherwise, what would that make of the definitions?
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted January 12, 2011 02:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If something is really necessary, it can't be evil, and if something is really evil it can't be necessary
Sure it can. Classic scenario where you allow an attack to happen on unprotected civilians so that you can gain support and take action. You know it will bring harm, you can prevent it but it is very possible that the alternatives are worse. That does not make the action any less 'evil', however it is practical.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 12, 2011 03:12 PM |
|
|
|
Practical isn't necessary. Pragmatic isn't necessary either. No point, Elvin.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted January 12, 2011 03:54 PM |
|
|
I agree with JJ on this one.
If a person is in a situation where there's no other choice in the matter but to cause some amount of harm, then it's not really an injustice in the first place. It's an unfortunate situation, but they shouldn't apologize or be taken to a court. A better option wasn't within their power, so there's no reason they should be held accountable for not using it.
It's interesting how the coined phrase "a necessary evil" has somewhat changed over the centuries for English. Once upon a time, the word 'evil' was also frequently used to mean 'misfortune' or 'disaster'. (I.E. There is an evil wind blowing today). In that context, "a necessary evil" makes a lot more sense.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 12, 2011 05:47 PM |
|
|
War can have many reasons. A defensive war for the survival (you can extrapolate this notion to survival of mankind to make it easier) for example cannot be called evil. It is necessary!
I agree with JJ. Something that is necessary can't really be called evil because there is no point.
However wars can have many reasons and definatly most wars are either on greed, more power or more land or more influence on an area etc. Harming others, killing and deliberate destruction or taking by force something is morally wrong (evil)
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 12, 2011 06:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
However wars can have many reasons and definatly most wars are either on greed, more power or more land or more influence on an area etc. Harming others, killing and deliberate destruction or taking by force something is morally wrong (evil)
I may be playing devil's advocate, but I'd like to ask: WHY is harming others, killing, deliberate destruction or taking something by force is morally wrong?
Isn't that just a different form of "competition" for posession of land, wealth, power and so on?
I mean, does it matter, whether you come with a sword and leave someone the option to flee his land or die, or whether you force him into bancruptcy, buying his land for a copper and send him running?
Does it matter whether the opponent in a war has a different moral, law, society, government, god and so on? Who says hat is morally wrong and why?
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 12, 2011 06:48 PM |
|
|
It is morally wrong because we are all humans, even the ones at the other nation. And I can relate to another persons suffering. I can deduce that causing such suffering is morally wrong. It would be wrong to do so to me - hence it MUST be wrong to do that to anyone.
Surely any society can base IT'S morals on anything, but I won't accept morals that only apply to that said society. I believe if there be any morals, they should apply to all humans the same way.
Humanity could have evolved in a way that we had no empathy at all, surely our "morals" would be different then. But it didn't, and even the other nation that you are waging war against, is consisting of same flesh and blood as you are.
Not saying that morals make any sense from the point of view of evolution, surely the one enforing his right has had a good change of reproducing in the past at least. My sole point is empathy, which at least in my case makes it impossible to kill or harm another human deliberately just to make MY life better or MY NATION stronger.
That is simply my point of view, as we all know there are thousands of views on morals.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 12, 2011 09:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So yes, war is evil, but, in my humble opinion, we humans need it. To be, well, human.
ok, say it again when war reaches your country
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted January 12, 2011 11:40 PM |
|
|
War... necessary..? Necessary to achieve what purpose exactly? Necessary to become rich? Necessary to survive?
I am certain you can mention any criteria you wants to ask if war is necessary for and with a throughout definition of war, the criteria and any possible self decided environment, I'd guess that it may very well be possible to always find an environment that satisfies the criteria for when war is necessary.
Wouldn't it be more interesting to find which environments makes war unnecessary for any given criteria? Isn't that one of the main ideas of government, to be able to influence the environment people live in to make freedom limiting acts unnecessary, if not even, impossible?
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted January 12, 2011 11:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Practical isn't necessary. Pragmatic isn't necessary either. No point, Elvin.
I wasn't talking in absolute terms. If there is a possibility that many deaths can be averted but you believe that the safest way is to let them die would that still be alright?
Or in the typical D&D scenario where a paladin has to kill 10 babies to save 100 innocents, is that not an evil act? I know, I couldn't help but post it with all the rape baby talk 
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted January 12, 2011 11:54 PM |
|
|
Excuses, excuses, admit your evilhood and cynicm Elvin and we'll find a baby you can rape as well.
On the matter of the "If you could help a number of people greater than N, by sacrificing N people, would you do it?" I know the question wasn't adressed to me, but I'll give my answer anyway.
I personally don't think it's up to the person who gets the choice to decide. The people who're to be sacrificed are those who should be deciding if they're willing to sacrifice themselves to save those other people.
In the case of babies were they can't really determine such a thing the answer, I'd say, is no, you should not sacrifice 10 to save 100.
Then again, I'm not to decide what others should or shouldn't do.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 13, 2011 01:07 AM |
|
|
but if one of the 10 people doesn't want to sacrifice, you are then asking the 100 others to sacrifice. and it's very unlikely they will be all willing.
Quote:
Isn't that one of the main ideas of government, to be able to influence the environment people live in to make freedom limiting acts unnecessary, if not even, impossible?
their main ways seem to be limiting the freedom and make wars, which is basically limiting the freedom too...
people always come with "great ideas" to make everyone happy. the problem is to make them work, they need to kill anyone who disagrees first.
well, no men, no problems...
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted January 13, 2011 01:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
but if one of the 10 people doesn't want to sacrifice, you are then asking the 100 others to sacrifice. and it's very unlikely they will be all willing.
I disagree because the 100 people were already in a situation of which if you had not been present they'd certainly not be able to save themselves. They are not sacrificing themselves for the 10 people as I understood it.
Hmm in a way it's like asking the following:
Can you make up a situation of which I ask you to choose one of two outcome of which you'd not be able to choose either as both goes against what you wish and yet not choosing is even worse? I think this is exactly such a situation, especially if you go the extra step and it becomes a sacrifice vs. sacrifice event (and not a save and sacrifice event).
Quote:
the problem is to make them work, they need to kill anyone who disagrees first.
I disagree with this, but I'm not gonna kill you or anything, hehe.
|
| |
|
|
