Is Superior Violence Necessary for Civil Society to Exist?

[Moore1879]

I war right? Please post explanation.

 

[olde drunk]

as long as you/we believe in violence to solve our problems we will not find other solutions.

historically, war has never proved to be a legitimate, long term solution to any problem.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[etc]

it's not "right," but sometimes necessary. .. second though, i suppose one may postulate that a reasonable way of measuring "rightness" is if, you know, the end is justified by the means.

 

[pikapika!]

Winston Churchill once said the only just war is a war of deffence.

But I often hard to see weather a war is carried out on the grounds of defence or for greed.

In medieval times a kingdom would often attack another often on the grounds of a pre-emptive attack. The versailles treaty crippled germany so harshly retalliation was
unescapable(obviosly it was greed as the war progressed). The threat of Iraq and its WMD's is highly debatable.

War is a natural occurance between civilizations. If a bee colony looses its hive it often attacks another to take it over. If I was a leader. I would try to promote peace as much as possible but understand it is not escapable. People often think of an ideal utopia with a single government and no confilt but people will always have desires jealousies and get angry.

If you think of the governments of the Earth as individuals it would be like every in a room getting along with everyone agreeing on everything.

The way to reduce war is to improve communication between countries like what the EU is doing and the UN is trying to do. Countries however still go rouge to there duties and cause trouble.

 

[russ_watters]

historically, war has never proved to be a legitimate, long term solution to any problem.

Well, I don't know - WWII solved the Hitler problem pretty decisively.

 

[PerennialII]

Winston Churchill once said the only just war is a war of deffence.

Yeah, I'd see this similarly ... one is entitled to fight for existence defensively, but that is as far as it goes, all other scenarios have other options making war unjust.

 

[marlon]

YES WAR IS RIGHT...Because in our world, we will always have to deal with them socalled extremists or fundamentalists. The problem with these people is not their convictions, but the way they translate their convictions into everyday life. The problem is that you cannot argue with such individuals in a decent rational manner and therefore diplomacy will never work on these guys. Only war remains an option. Besides, we are better off without them...The problem with the world is that intelligent people think too much sometimes and are therefore quite uncertain. It is the dumb, extremist, individuals that are always so damn certain of themselves and their "convictions"


That's the way i see it...

regards
marlon

(should i run and hide because of my vote here ? )

 

[Esnas]

In most cases war is not right. On the other hand, there would have to be an entirely different kind of human consciousness to deal with the conditions that lead to wars. There would have to be a new kind of perception and sensitivity on a very subtle level (for a significant portion of humanity).

 

[marlon]

In most cases war is not right. On the other hand, there would have to be an entirely different kind of human consciousness to deal with the conditions that lead to wars. There would have to be a new kind of perception and sensitivity on a very subtle level (for a significant portion of humanity).

Untrue,

these concepts only apply to rational, moderate thinking people who are willing to give explanations and justifications for the actions they take...they are willing to take responsability in a logical and diplomatic manner...Extremists and other "sorts" will never resort to such techniques when making a point...they will just do it and that's it...


marlon

 

[Esnas]

Good point marlon. What about extremist fanatics? What can be done about psychopathic and sociopathic people who come to power? I think that we have to take an honest look at situations that give rise to extremism. This would include conditions that are psychological, emotional, social, economic, etc. (Not that these are separate.) I am talking also about preconditions to those conditions. These are conditions (and preconditions) that do not just exist "over there" but quite near. In fact, we may find that we are a part of the situation that perpetuates these conditions.

 

[jammieg]

Yes

I generally feel like I shouldn't tell other people they can't go to war for any reason of my own, I mean basically it's their life but then everything we do affects everyone sooner or later to some extent. It would probably be really nice if we never had a need for war.

If war is wrong, then we should not make war, but then what would we have if we didn't have war? What purposes does war serve? Would people love more, or would people hate each other more? Does war beget hate or does hate primarily beget war?
If hate is the primary cause of war then what leads to hate? What is hate anyway? I have a feeling that as one understands more of what hate is they are less able to make war of any sort, or at least more likely to be on the right side when they do make war.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Here we go... a relevant question would be "right to who ?" Then we have to find the who that benefits the most and I guess that's the civilization that eventually survived. The question then could become " would this civilisation ever have come this far without war ?". Since its made up by selfish entities my guess would be... no !

If we were to view war as evolution of societies and we like the outcome then the answer would be yes allthough we have no idea how we would have thrived without war

 

[Justinius]

Sometimes

War is right in some cases. It was said above that he only good war is a war of defence. It makes sense. For example, on a family scale:

Hypothetically, a burglar breaks into my house and begins to sexually assault my wife. I am not going to just stand there and tell him "go for it I have no reason to defend my wife and family." Instead, I will defend them by waging what would be a small war on this burglar.

Therefore, war is right in the case of DEFENCE of something. WW II defended those who were being persecuted wrongly by Adolf Hitler. WW I was a defence of France from invasion by the Germans. Those wars were legitimate. I hate to bash George Bush here, but can anyone tell me how America is being defended by his invasion/overtaking of Iraq?

 

[Sho'Nuff]

anyone tell me how America is being defended by his invasion/overtaking of Iraq?

Some would say the best defence is a strong offence, allthough in the end noone'll ever know for sure if this were nessesary.

 

[Undomiel]

The problem is that you cannot argue with such individuals in a decent rational manner and therefore diplomacy will never work on these guys. Only war remains an option. Besides, we are better off without them...The problem with the world is that intelligent people think too much sometimes and are therefore quite uncertain. It is the dumb, extremist, individuals that are always so damn certain of themselves and their "convictions"

You're right, Marlon ... I can't help my intrinsic desire to be a pacifist, and aggression makes me sad and tired ... but what to do when others impose themselves on us? I myself tend towards introspective ruminating, which just leaves me as their victim ... I empathise with Hamlet, for instance, where his philosophical, introspective ruminating led to his inability to act. Sometimes we do indeed need to act against aggressors and persecutors. But does that mean we've sunk to their level?

 

[pikapika!]

"I have a feeling that as one understands more of what hate is they are less able to make war of any sort."
-jammieg, I believe you are correct.

"It is the dumb, extremist, individuals that are always so damn certain of themselves and their "convictions" "
-marlon, I have to object to your way of thinking. It puts lables on things that cannot have labels on. Its very subjective.

 

[Mahler765]

I have a friend who is trying to create a theoretical perfect society. He believes that war is bad and unnecessary and is therefore trying to keep war out of his perfect society. He believes that the main cause of war is a strong feeling of nationalism and other such sentiments. His solution is basically to attempt to sublimate these feelings of aggression and nationalism into such things as sports and productive activities rather than war. He argues that if his society is composed of people who do not believe in war or fighting in general, then no one will attempt to fight anyone else, especially when that aggression is directed into other activities.

I don't really believe that this society is possible. This is mainly because I believe that war is in human nature. In a relationship between humans, a social hierarchy always establishes itself. In my friend's society, everyone does not believe in war, fighting, or conflict in general. What's going to stop an aggressive, dominant(and possibly a dictator) person from coming to power in a society of people who do not believe in aggression? War is not a good thing by any means; however, it can be a necessity not only because aggression and dominance is in human nature, but because a just war is for the greater good of society. That should be what determines whether a war is just or unjust: whether it is for the greater good of society. There are exceptions to the rule as there are with everything in this world. For example, the war in iraq could be considered just because no one can say that taking a known dictator out of power is a bad result of a war and is for the greater good of the global society; however, it could also be considered unjust because the war has a negative effect on the local(U.S.) community. I suppose your judgement on this question would depend on your view of what the purpose of government really is and to what extent. As for the extremist, everyone has to decide where to draw the line. How much do you let yourself be pushed around before retaliating? I believe that the extremists are very insecure concerning their beliefs, so insecure that they feel threatened by the very existence of contrary beliefs. Because they feel threatened by beliefs contrary to their own, they strike out against those beliefs, to eliminate their insecurity. So in a way, they are not certain of themselves at all. Back to drawing lines - everyone has to decide on things they are willing to die for. It may the right to practice a religion, human rights in general, something as simple as the right to smoke. They will die for that because it was what they believe in. When a government or another person threatens what they have decided to die for, then it's time for war. Everything comes down to what you are willing to fight for. Everyone will fight for something so war is inevitable, whether it's just, unjust, right, or wrong - it's human nature.

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

I war right? Please post explanation.

"Right"... Right on. Right is cliche per se(with the apostraphy or whatever [SIDE DISCUSSION: does it matter that I spell a word wrong if you can understand it?----> is language a math or art or neither?])

Right is a word of society. So, this is simple opinion. If we are talking good or bad (evil), we can go more universal.

War overall is not Good. But, neither are all other Evils. So, I would say the altimate Good would be to not fight back (Much like Gandhi did). But that hurts, literally, even if you win the war and bring back peace and goodness. That said, war should not be looked down apon if fought for goodness, which can be achived through wisdom. Goodness is not killng because it "hurts" neither is a pin prick. But if one needs to die or get a shot because they are causing an insurmountable amount of evil or has a disease per se, the I would say God has given us the right to cause that bit of evil in order to bring a larger amount of good.

No one like getting their arm amputated bacause of gang green, but if it results in more good than evil (saves ur life) than why not go ahead and do it? You choose...


----- nwO ruoY evaH ,deeN oN <----?eeS I tahW eeS uoY oD

 

[Cosmo16]

I said somtimes.
Somtimes you must choose the lesser evil.

 

[Mahler765]

Civil Disobedience works only because it challenges what extent the individual is willing to go to. In Ghandi's situation, large groups of people would simply allow themselves to be hurt but the idea is that you can't stop them just by hurting them, you have to actually kill them. It worked because the individual soldiers of the british military were not willing to slaughter thousands of people. The individual people had to choose whether the orders of their superiors were more important than their own morals and values. In most cases, the soldiers chose their own morals and values. What happens when soldiers decide otherwise? A massacre happens. This then shows the protesters enacting civil disobedience that the military is willing to kill them if the need arises. Then the protesters really have to decide whether it is better to be dead or alive. The ball is in their court now. Look at the Jews in the Holocaust. Which method do you think would work better? A) Jews forming a military resistance to the Nazis or B) Civil Disobedience

The Nazis were already looking for new way to kill Jews more quickly and efficiently. It would only be helping the Nazis to enact civil disobedience because it would actually give them a reason(besides the fact they were Jewish) to kill the Jews. When the organization, people, government, etc. has the power to kill you and the will to do so, civil disobedience does not work because they are willing to go all the way whereas you may not be willing - and even if you are willing to do so, few others would follow you, you'd be dead in the end, and the organization, etc that you were protesting against would still be in power(and possibly have even more power).

Civil disobedience(not fighting) is not the wisest choice in many situations. Not fighting back is not the ultimate Good by any means. When the good people make stupid decisions(like not fighting) and die because of them, there is no one left but the evil.

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

Good point... I do agree. And thankyou for explaining more thoroughly.

----- nwO ruoY evaH ,deeN oN <----?eeS I tahW eeS uoY oD

 

[Bystander]

"Right?" No. 'Tain't the way to resolve disputes. That said, is it unavoidable? Yes. If you got to do it, should you go ahead and do it? Yes. WP? Napalm? Flatten designated global heritage sites? Yup. Yup. Yup. Displace millions of non-combatants? Xin loi.

Google "Grotius" and "Quincy Wright." jus ad bellum and causes of war have been popular subjects of study for many moons --- nothing particularly definitive in all the verbal mauling they've been given, but G & QW should broaden perspectives on the issue/problem/question.

 

[marlon]

"It is the dumb, extremist, individuals that are always so damn certain of themselves and their "convictions" "
-marlon, I have to object to your way of thinking. It puts lables on things that cannot have labels on. Its very subjective.

Sorry but, what is your point ?

Should i give you some examples : Hitler, Pol Pot, Ide Amin, Saddam Hoessein, Franco, the nice guys from Pyong Yang...i dunno...

regards
marlon

 

[PerennialII]

"Another" point would be that by solely making the classification, one could see you falling within a similar group. The subjectivity of it is that the classification depends highly on who makes it, and after that, who is to decide which view is the "right" one (which likely is unattainable to begin with). When making choices you usually don't have the luxury of waiting tens of years and having historical perspective as your aid.

 

[marlon]

"Another" point would be that by solely making the classification, one could see you falling within a similar group. The subjectivity of it is that the classification depends highly on who makes it, and after that, who is to decide which view is the "right" one (which likely is unattainable to begin with). When making choices you usually don't have the luxury of waiting tens of years and having historical perspective as your aid.

I completely disagree with these words. What the "idea" is is if no relevance what so ever. It is the interpretation and implementation in everyday life that matters. It is the actions that are taking that matter. Once again i repeat my point because you donnot seem to get it. Many people and certainly the ones i mentioned in my previous post will undertake actions without making any kind of justification for it. Maybe they have their own views on this but that is irrelevant. Only their way of working (taking actions with just because they need to be taken...) is what matters.

Please stop this fake "i want to be good and give everybody a chance"-attitude. You know as well as i do what these people were like and i think you got my point very well. Don't keep arguing just for the sake of arguing...

regards
marlon

 

[PerennialII]

I completely disagree with these words. What the "idea" is is if no relevance what so ever. It is the interpretation and implementation in everyday life that matters. It is the actions that are taking that matter. Once again i repeat my point because you donnot seem to get it. Many people and certainly the ones i mentioned in my previous post will undertake actions without making any kind of justification for it. Maybe they have their own views on this but that is irrelevant. Only their way of working (taking actions with just because they need to be taken...) is what matters.

Please stop this fake "i want to be good and give everybody a chance"-attitude. You know as well as i do what these people were like and i think you got my point very well. Don't keep arguing just for the sake of arguing...

Unfortunately in this case what is "fake" attitude is not up to you to decide. If we start evaluating actions then there is a criterion and we can agree, however, that has again no direct correlation to conviction, extremists etc. The point I'm making is that simply issuing subjective labels does not lead to a satisfactory resolution of pretty much anything, as we both seem to gather. And issuing labels has become pretty easy in the world this millennium, acting on the basis of them ever more difficult.

 

[marlon]

Unfortunately in this case what is "fake" attitude is not up to you to decide. If we start evaluating actions then there is a criterion and we can agree, however, that has again no direct correlation to conviction, extremists etc. The point I'm making is that simply issuing subjective labels does not lead to a satisfactory resolution of pretty much anything, as we both seem to gather. And issuing labels has become pretty easy in the world this millennium, acting on the basis of them ever more difficult.

Hmmm...sorry but i am not convinced. the problem i have with your view is that you are stating general principles and truths that everybody already knows but that will never lead to any kind of results. we might as well be discussing the fact that the sun comes up every morning or that we will eventually die at some given time...

I am not labelling anything here so i really don't know what you are talking about. The individuals i made reference to are well established in history and both their convictions and actions are FACTS and that's it. Besides, i am not talking about these actions, instead i am talking about the way they reason...I don't see where the labelling happened...and stating general rules of morality and ethics can as easily be abused as it can be used in a constructive way. That's why it is of no use here and totally irrelevant...


regards
marlon

 

[PerennialII]

Not a problem. The individuals you mentioned fall to the very same category in my book and are "good" examples of the point you're making. I believe this started out pretty much from

Quote:
Originally Posted by pikapika!
"It is the dumb, extremist, individuals that are always so damn certain of themselves and their "convictions" "
-marlon, I have to object to your way of thinking. It puts lables on things that cannot have labels on. Its very subjective.

One can have any conviction, be as extreme, as individual etc. as one wants in no matter whose eyes, but these are subjective qualities and as such in my view don't really tell much of anything about the rightness of war.

 

[marlon]

One can have any conviction, be as extreme, as individual etc. as one wants in no matter whose eyes, but these are subjective qualities and as such in my view don't really tell much of anything about the rightness of war.

But this is my whole point. It is not about the convictions themselves...they are irrelevant in this debate. It is about the practical implementation of these convictions in everyday life and how a "leader" choses to justify these implementations. In the case of extremists this is the big problem. Thet tend not to give such justifications and if some implementation is becoming hazardous for societies or the entire world if you will, war is justified as an attempt to eradicate such "governments". Recall that extremists are not people with extreme ideas but people who extreme undebatable decisions that affect lives of ordinary people...


btw let's also add Cioucescu (Romania in the eighties) to our list. i don't really know if the name is well written but you know whi i am referring to...Plus guys like Milosovic and Karadic...


regards
marlon

 

[PerennialII]

Yeah, the list can unfortunately grow in length quite a bit ... fortunately it tends to shorten from the other end at times. Think we were just circling around the same carcass, since you associate a definition of "action" into your definition of an extremist I'd say we're on the same plane here ... sorry for the excess confusion. The difficult question arising then is the justification for defensive/offensive action, which in reality ain't quite as black and white.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Modern philosophy is all about the Self and the Other. It is intersting that poster on this thread seem eager to blame war on the Other; on "extremists" or "sociopaths" or whatever.

But it seems to me that the recent election showed that more than half the voters supported the Iraq war, although rationally any real need for it has been exploded. And why was that? Because the great public disaster of 9/11 could easily be blamed on a convenient Other, Saddam Hussain, to win acceptnce for a war that had really other, less populizable, motives, be they Empire or Oil or whatever.

 

[jammieg]

Possible so, I think some people get the feeling that somewhere the politicians with all their self-assurance, lies, and squablling unwittingly instigated this war.

 

[Esnas]

Modern philosophy is all about the Self and the Other. It is intersting that poster on this thread seem eager to blame war on the Other; on "extremists" or "sociopaths" or whatever.

But it seems to me that the recent election showed that more than half the voters supported the Iraq war, although rationally any real need for it has been exploded. And why was that? Because the great public disaster of 9/11 could easily be blamed on a convenient Other, Saddam Hussain, to win acceptnce for a war that had really other, less populizable, motives, be they Empire or Oil or whatever.

We are compelled to blame the other because it is far too difficult and painful to take an honest look at oneself (be it nation or individual).

 

[selfAdjoint]

We are compelled to blame the other because it is far too difficult and painful to take an honest look at oneself (be it nation or individual).

This is so true. Has anyone ever heard of Stanley Milgram?

 

[Francis M]

Is war right? hmm. Good question as in it brings up the thought exercise of what causes wars. Alot of peole have studied how wars start to see what can be done to prevent them. THis is again a simple question with a complex answer. FIrst of all we can't simply dismiss wars as being fought for extremist reasons by people, groups, or countries that had nothing but fighting on their minds. THese same groups don't just wake up one day and decide violence is the answer that will solve their problems. Wars are the last step usually wanted by people or countries and as far as I've seen from reading about history and politics is usually arrive dat by a series of missteps along the road of diplomacy.
THe only good war is a war of defense? WHo's fighting the defensive war depends on the perspective you take. Id' also take exception to this statement by Churchill on the grounds that you can't then justify your war as good once you are on the offensive and the other group/country is fighting on the defensive.
As far as I've seen most of the wars that were fought were fought because both sides in the matter thought that they had no other choice. Hence why in diplomacy you never try to back each other into a corner.
A wars origin usually has a very complex set of interwoven economic, geographic and political reasons for why it started and these have to be taken into consideration. Each war has to be taken in the context/time that it happend. I think to ask in general is war good can't be answered because we first have to define a context for having a war in the first place.