Justice, ending injustice, right and wrong, and death

  • Thread starter Adam
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Death
In summary, the question posed is whether it is right for Nation Y to invade Nation X in order to prevent further killings by the government of Nation X. Nation Y's motives are assumed to be purely humanitarian, and the potential cost of innocent lives lost in the invasion is estimated at 10,000. The conversation also explores the idea of alternative methods of removing the government, as well as the complexities and oversimplification of political decisions. There is no easy yes or no answer to this question, and it is not a simple "soup question."

Is it right for Nation Y to invade Nation X?

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 40.0%
  • No

    Votes: 3 60.0%

  • Total voters
    5
  • #1
Adam
65
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
  • #2
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.
 
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
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.
 
  • #5
I do agree that a simple yes or no to the question is impossible
 
  • #6
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.
 
  • #7
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:
  • #8
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.
 
  • #9
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.
 

1. What is the definition of justice?

Justice can be defined as the concept of fairness and moral rightness in relation to the law and its enforcement. It is the principle of treating all individuals equally and giving them what they deserve based on their actions.

2. How can we end injustice in society?

Ending injustice in society requires a collective effort and commitment from individuals, communities, and governments. This can be achieved by promoting equality, educating people about their rights, and holding those in power accountable for their actions.

3. What determines what is right and wrong?

The determination of what is right and wrong is subjective and can vary based on cultural, social, and personal beliefs. However, some universal principles such as empathy, fairness, and respect for others can guide our understanding of right and wrong.

4. How can we promote justice in the face of death?

Promoting justice in the face of death can be challenging, but it is essential to ensure that individuals are treated fairly and with dignity until their last moments. This can be achieved by providing access to proper healthcare, legal aid, and support for families affected by death.

5. What role does death play in the pursuit of justice?

Death plays a significant role in the pursuit of justice as it is the ultimate consequence for some crimes and the loss of life can have a profound impact on the victims and their families. It is crucial for justice to be served in cases of death to bring closure and prevent future injustices.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • Poll
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
3K
Back
Top