Justice, ending injustice, right and wrong, and death

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adam
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Death
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the ethical implications of military intervention, specifically whether it is justifiable for one nation to invade another to prevent mass atrocities, despite the potential loss of innocent lives. The scope includes moral reasoning, political implications, and the complexities of international law.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that a simple yes or no answer to the question of whether Nation Y should invade Nation X is impossible due to the complexities involved.
  • One participant suggests that a more efficient method of removing the government of Nation X could be through mass assassination and support of rebels, rather than a full invasion.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the question should be framed within the context of international law and the role of the United Nations, citing historical examples like Kosovo.
  • Several participants express that the example presented is overly simplified and does not capture the nuances of political decision-making.
  • One participant explicitly states their position as a "NO" to the invasion based on the way the question is framed, while seeking clarification from another participant regarding their stance.
  • Another participant expresses frustration at the difficulty of reaching a consensus on a straightforward answer, suggesting that the focus should solely be on the ethical implications of lives lost.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the question is too complex for a simple yes or no answer, indicating a shared understanding of the intricacies involved. However, there are competing views on the justification of military intervention and the implications of such actions.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the framing of ethical dilemmas, including the dependence on definitions of right and wrong, and the unresolved nature of political motivations and consequences.

Is it right for Nation Y to invade Nation X?

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 40.0%

  • No

    Votes: 3 60.0%
  • Total voters
    5
Adam
Messages
65
Reaction score
1
A simple yes or no, to satisfy my personal curiousity.

Nation X has been killing its citizens by the thousand, stuffing them into mass graves. The estimated death toll is 500,000, and looks like it will reach a million within ten years.

Nation Y wishes to invade. For the purposes of this question, let's assume Nation Y's motives are entirely to do with saving lives, and there is nothing else to be gained from invading. Heck, maybe it will even be a financial loss for all involved. Either way, Nation Y wants to invade, destroy the government of Nation X, and prevent further murders. However, Nation Y predicts that the invasion will cost the lives of ten thousand innocent citizens of Nation X, plus or minus 25%.

Is it right for Nation Y to invade Nation X?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A more efficient way of removing the government would be mass assassination and support of rebels, seeing as with all likely hood its a dictatorship it will be vunerable to this kind of influence.
 
Adam said:
A simple yes or no, to satisfy my personal curiousity.

Nation X has been killing its citizens by the thousand, stuffing them into mass graves. The estimated death toll is 500,000, and looks like it will reach a million within ten years.

Nation Y wishes to invade. For the purposes of this question, let's assume Nation Y's motives are entirely to do with saving lives, and there is nothing else to be gained from invading. Heck, maybe it will even be a financial loss for all involved. Either way, Nation Y wants to invade, destroy the government of Nation X, and prevent further murders. However, Nation Y predicts that the invasion will cost the lives of ten thousand innocent citizens of Nation X, plus or minus 25%.

Is it right for Nation Y to invade Nation X?
This is Nation X and Nation Y in this "hypothetical" and NOT America versus Iraq... so, where there IS a United Nations there is a forum and authority outside anyone nation for such matters to be addressed. If this was about Iraq versus America then I would have to say, NO... because our overriding stated reasons within the UN were NOT about mass graves and genocide, they were about self perservation of our own society in the face of some trumped up threat...genocide by nerve agents was an aside in this argument presented both by Powell and Bush at the UN.

In the real world this question belongs in the United Nations just as the example of Kosovo illustrates. Any one nation taking it upon themselves outside of international law is itself risking a dangerous precedent that threatens to eventually find visited upon itself.
 
Adam said:
A simple yes or no, to satisfy my personal curiousity.

Nation X has been killing its citizens by the thousand, stuffing them into mass graves. The estimated death toll is 500,000, and looks like it will reach a million within ten years.

Nation Y wishes to invade. For the purposes of this question, let's assume Nation Y's motives are entirely to do with saving lives, and there is nothing else to be gained from invading. Heck, maybe it will even be a financial loss for all involved. Either way, Nation Y wants to invade, destroy the government of Nation X, and prevent further murders. However, Nation Y predicts that the invasion will cost the lives of ten thousand innocent citizens of Nation X, plus or minus 25%.

Is it right for Nation Y to invade Nation X?
A simple YES or NO is impossible. This is not a Do you like Cinnamon or Spearmint question.
 
I do agree that a simple yes or no to the question is impossible
 
The problem is that the example is over simplified. In politics everything is overly simplified, that is why candiates make it seem like there is one clear answer... if there was one simple answer don't u think everybody could agree on it.
 
Tom McCurdy said:
I do agree that a simple yes or no to the question is impossible


Okay, okay, but its not exactly what you'd call a 'soup question.'

My answer then to the way this is presented is NO.

Tom, did you mean to say in your reply to me that you DO NOT agree, or is the way it appears now correct? Cornfused.
 
Last edited:
Tom McCurdy said:
The problem is that the example is over simplified. In politics everything is overly simplified, that is why candiates make it seem like there is one clear answer... if there was one simple answer don't u think everybody could agree on it.
Wouldn't it be grand if politicians and attorneys all went to some other planet to live.
 
It's based on the USA-Iraq events? Well, duh. I wished to abstract it out a bit and focus solely on the issue of lives lost. Forget about the UN and other such forces. Focus only on whether it is right or wrong to invade Nation X. How hard can it be to pick yes or no, right or wrong? Pick one, then please supply a reason down here, so others might consider it.
 

Similar threads

News Should the US intervene in world problems?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
11K
News Is a Standing Army Necessary for a Peaceful Future?
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
7K
News Is War Sometimes Necessary to Achieve Peace?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
News Ahmadinejad's speech at Durban II
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
8K
Is Scotland's Ban on Guns the Solution to Ending Violence?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
8K
News The Roots of Terrorism and US Foreign Policy
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
News Patriot Act 2: Summarized by Alex Jones
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
What are some interesting facts about America's history and government?
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K