• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

When is War Justified?

I have a hard time with this one. Part of me thinks killing is never justified. I personally would rather be killed, I think, than kill.

Wait, I take that back...I would rather kill than be killed. However, I find it righteous and noble to refuse the temptation to kill, and therefore (hypothetically) I would refuse to kill another person in order to save myself. That, to me, is true sacrifice (then again, it would take a great sacrifice to go against my own morals and kill a person, and live with that guilt, to protect an individual or society...ugh, my head is spinning :bonk: ).

Another part of me thinks that killing is sometimes justified, in that killing is a maximum exertion of force--and force is justified to protect others, oneself, and order in society (cops should carry instruments of force like night sticks, pepper spray, and handcuffs after all). War, then, woud be justified only as a method by which we protect those who need protecting and preserving order and security in our global society.

Thoughts?
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
First - I find this a great topic for a thread!

Second, after reading your original post, I fear that no matter what position I take, I will be debating against you (since you seem to have taken all sides of this issue). :) I would refute your statements, but you have left me no room to improve on your arguments.

As to the question at hand:
I know this will sound callous and cold to many of you, but I do not value human life as highly as many of you do. I do think that the unecessary taking of life (human, animal, or plant) is a sin (if not a crime).
When it comes to taking a human life, I have a VERY narrow definition of unecessary. For me, when one person intentionally takes another humans life, they forfeit their right to live. I think that serial killers (any murderer, actually) should be put to death, and I would have no problems from a moral standpoint in serving as the executioner. I fully realize that I am in the minority, and I can understand that. America is probably a better country because I am in the minority.

In the question of war, defending ones country is (in my opinion) perfectly legitimate. On the other hand, invading another sovereign country is very hard to justify (although, in my mind, it is possible to do so).

Thanks,
TVOR
 

Lintu

Active Member
Let's see...
I support war when my country is attacked (on its own land).
I support war when another country asks us for help and the cause is legitimate (though this part is way too difficult to define).
I support war when another country is committing genocide, regardless of whether our help was asked for. Or perhaps not all-out war, but committing enough force to stop the genocide. Problem here is that I don't know how we'd be able to stop genocide from happening once we left.
I support war when another country is making legitimate threats towards us. None of this "oh but they had WMDs!" stuff. I'm talking a phone call from North Korea that we're about to get nuked if we don't do such and such action.

Please challenge me...I'd like more solid beliefs on the topic!
For the most part, I don't think I could see myself going out to kill. There have been very few straight-forward "good vs evil" situations in recent history.
 

Pah

Uber all member
carrdero said:
When there is just no way to considerately reason peace.

Oh YES, YES, YES

In my youth and service in the Air Force, I was caught in the quandry of a justifiable Viet Nam. But never having an assignment to Nam I didn't have to decide. As it was, I fought the cold nuclear war while Viet Nam raged on. But I was on the periphery on the B-52 bombing of Hanoi and felt a great amount of pride as we tracked the bombing waves. Such is the dicotomy of a peaceful soldier.

Bob
 

desi

Member
War is better than a bad peace. Such as not fighting the Nazis because they aren't in your backyard.
 

Feathers in Hair

World's Tallest Hobbit
I agree, a very interesting topic!

While I can say I believe I would rather be killed than kill another person, that's coming out of the intellectual and emotional sides of me, as death really holds no fear for me. I do fear that if another person were coming at me with a knife, my hindbrain would take over and "Tree-Hugging Hippie Goes Rabid, Bites Through Torso of Potential Murderer" would be on the evening news. Maybe that's why the thought of war scares me so much. It seems like one is forced into a situation where you find out exactly how much your hindbrain overrules everything else.

I support anyone that believes that they are serving their country, concience, or religion
by doing what they are doing, and I strongly admire them for being able to do so. (Although that belief doesn't make sense if you apply it to the Nazis... I don't know if their concience would have told them that what they were doing was wrong, depending on their upbringing. Maybe it depends on the individual.) When it comes to those in power making the decisions, though, I feel that one should only make the choice to have people go to war if one feels strongly enough about the matter to go to that war oneself and be on the front lines of that war. I can't think of any examples for myself, because there hasn't been a war during my lifetime that I would have been willing to volunteer for (At least, none that the US has been in) and I wasn't alive during the wars I might have volunteered for, and don't feel I can speak for them, not having known the information available at the time.
 

Quoth The Raven

Half Arsed Muse
FeathersinHair said:
I support anyone that believes that they are serving their country, concience, or religion
by doing what they are doing, and I strongly admire them for being able to do so. (Although that belief doesn't make sense if you apply it to the Nazis... I don't know if their concience would have told them that what they were doing was wrong, depending on their upbringing. Maybe it depends on the individual.)
Nazi Germany was a case of for every person who really believed that what was happening was right there were 10 who acted out of a sense of self preservation. Hitler didn't just dispose of ethinic groups, he also disappeared the mentally ill, and the physically and mentally disabled, as well as anyone who openly opposed him (see his political opponents, conspicuous by their sudden and bloody absense).
Your conscience may tell you something is wrong, and you can make the decision for yourself to stand up for what you believe is right, but speaking as a parent, you're not so quick to put the noose around the necks of your children. If it means you get shot for opening your mouth then fine, if it means they shoot your children in front of you first so you can go to your grave knowing you've killed your family for your convictions, it becomes another kettle of fish.
Having said that,each situation that results in war needs to be taken on individual merits.But I can say that personally that if someone is shooting at me, if I have a gun then the first opportunity I get they're a dead man.
 

Lightkeeper

Well-Known Member
What about self-defense? Could you kill in self-defense? Isn't most war supposed to be about selfdefense? Do we have many wars anymore to gain property or for retaliation?
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
Lightkeeper said:
What about self-defense? Could you kill in self-defense? Isn't most war supposed to be about selfdefense? Do we have many wars anymore to gain property or for retaliation?
We (as in, America) like to believe that we don't fight any war other than for self defense (i.e. WWII), while the truth is something else altogether (i.e. Vietnam, Iraq).

As to your question about whether wars are fought to gain property or for retaliation, the answer would appear to me to clearly and overwhelmingly be a resounding YES. The following wars were clearly for gain of property or retaliation:
Serb/Croats in Yugoslavia
Arab/Israeli conflict
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait
America's current war in Iraq (not the first one conducted by Bush Sr.)

Actually, if I had the time (or inclination), this list would contain almost every conflict of the last 50 years. I'd say that the war that is not fought for material gain or retaliation is the exception, not the rule.

TVOR
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Avoiding war from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.105

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."106

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.


The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.107

2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.108

2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."109

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."110 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;111 it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.

2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.

2317 Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:

Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."112
 

Runt

Well-Known Member
A young woman is walking down a dark alley one night when a shadowy figure steps out and grabs her. He pins her up against a wall, and leaning his full weight against her, commands that she, "Give me all your money!"

She quickly takes inventory of her situation. Her attacker is unarmed, and his breath smells heavily of alcohol. He is incredibly frail and hungry looking.

She is a martial artist and confident that if need be, she can overcome this unarmed, drunken, physically weak man by force and escape.

She executes a throw, effectively getting him to the ground and nullifying the threat that he posed. However, instead of running, she now turns while he is down and kicks him in the temple, hard.

The man dies on the way to the hospital. The woman is arrested and tried. In court she tries to claim self-defense... but the court establishes that her use of lethal force was not justified; she was not in a life or death situation, and thus the killing strike she used on the man was not justified.

Just as the use of lethal-force should be the last resort in a self-defense situation, so should war be the last option a nation turns to when facing a threat. I think if a nation goes to war and a threat equivalent to a life-or-death situation is not found, then that nation (meaning the governmental officials, not the citizens) should be held accountable for their actions, just as a person claiming "self-defense" after killing an unarmed person would be subject to criminal charges.

War is only justified if it is the only option available to counter a threat.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
Good question Mr. Spinkles.

I've pondered this one often myself and so far found only one situation when war is justified...when the countless thousands of children, men, and women who are inevitably killed in such conflicts are provided with a suitable explanation detailing the expendability of thier lives, and the reasons for their suffering. When 2-year olds understand why their parents are dead, when women know why their husbands will not return, war is justified. When the people, like you or I, are able to accept their own sacrifice as an effort to save others.

So never really...
 
truthseekingsoul said:
Axis powers? I'm not familiar with that term.
Germany, Italy, and Japan....was it wrong for the Russians, for example, to declare war on Germany and Germany's allies when Hitler invaded their homeland?
 

huajiro

Well-Known Member
I would say war must be the last option. As much as I am against it, if people are being killed by a force, that force must be stopped no matter the cost.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
Mr_Spinkles said:
Germany, Italy, and Japan....was it wrong for the Russians, for example, to declare war on Germany and Germany's allies when Hitler invaded their homeland?

Do I believe that imperialistic and colonial powers should have had an ideological tug of war to feed the bank accounts of European aristocrats and international arms dealers? Would that have been the only way to prevent the holocaust? Would Germany ever have left it's doorstep if the international community wasn't such a disgrace?

Regardless, Mr. Spinkles cleverly you make an accurate point. People were being massacred and the only thing to be done was kill German kids and Japanese pilots and without a hint of irony.

So yes, this is justifiable when our overlords have created the situation where murdering millions of people like ourselves is the only way to prevent many more millions being murdered. Provided of course there is no other option, which without doubt our rulers will have conveniently removed.

You're innocent sense of right and wrong is remarkable.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
jewscout said:
Wow you are joking right??:eek:
Don't you live in Europe truthseekingsoul?!?!?!

Sorry if you almost swallowed you're tongue Jewscout. I've honestly never heard anyone use that term.

Italy though? I'm not the only joker. Mussolini once said "It's better to live a day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep" to which Italy replied Baaah I believe.
 
Top