at this current time we are receiving lectures at university on morality and war, now me personally think that war is morally wrong completely and i know that does not comply with modern reality, but if we were in a war situation i believe that states should comply by all international laws such as the geneva convention, and should always try and get civilian casualties to a minimum, but as we have been taught many thinkers especially surrouring US foreign policy it seems a main thought is to protect your own citizens and soldiers before anything, i don't believe this to be the case, your opinions would be appreciated, thanks peace and love michael x
perhaps you'd be kind enough to give us a little more. Tell us why you don't think the "citizens before others" principle is valid. Otherwise we are doomed to four or five pointless responses. If you want great responses propose great ideas. Why ought the States abide by all International Laws? You mentioned the Geneva convention, the just treatment of prisoners of war. Can the enemies of the American forces be covered by that particular convention? They are never easily identified and you'd be hardpressed to find a person alive that will agree that they abide by the laws of war. How does the idea that war is always morally wrong contrast the modern reality? What is the modern reality?
Well to answer your questions- i believe that all humans are human and deserve to be treated as such and not because they were born in a certain part of the world, and if states accepted the idea that these were humans and they needed to be treated humanly then i think the world would be a safer more peaceful place, Why shouldn't the States abide by int. law? that is what it should be... the law!!! how dare they criticize others for breaking human rights when they believe they are above the system, and yes the enemies of America should be covered by that convention, because it has no point in been put in place if they were not, if it was't we may as well live in an anarchical int society where the bully (US) makes its own rules for itself and others. modern reality has gotten to a point where the amount of weapons and natural resources is at such a point where war is enivitable, we have gone past the point of peace. peace and love michael
exactely, if you lower your to the enemy you condemn what are you defending huh, your way of life that is supposed to represent the opposite of what you are doing
Alright there are three ideas that I want you to elaborate on. You haven't done what I asked. Not that you have to, it would, though, help with discussion. First. You have said that all humans are human and as such deserve to be treated the same as all humans. How then, would you treat criminals? Not just on an international level, but on a local level. Is it humane to lock a person up for life? Is it humane to kill someone because they have committed a crime that the current majority sees as heinous? Is it ever humane to take away a natural right? Is a right violated when a person is locked up? What is the basis for the rights, you say it is humanity. There are cases where you would not see the line. Ought you expect others to? Second. The States can abide by international laws and treat Al Qaeda members as animals as those members would not be covered by the majority opinion of the time, or conventions. Just as the repeat rapist who targeted your little sister and mine would be waived his rights in our eyes. If the criminal does not abide by international law, why ought we? Third. Many would say that might makes right is the status quo in international relations. You have agreed. Why is that wrong?
Morality in war is surely an oxymoron! From my viewpoint, war has become an entirely artificial contrivance by which wealth maintains holdings and profits using any means available. If wealth were used to counter poverty, I believe war would never occur. But it is a simple fact of life that those who hold wealth do so to the disadvantage of the poor, and seek to hold and extend that wealth even to the detriment of humanity and the environment. Just my 2c's
firstly, me personally although im sure most would disagree, i would not lock any person up for life, i believe punishment isn't the answer and rehabilitation is, and more importantly we should be trying to find out why people are acting in such a way and prevent future crimes not just punishing those who do at present, and i believe that if society, on a local scale and international scale was a more caring, generous state then the crimes levels will get lower and lower. Punishing those just because they do wrong in the eye of the majority is not essential in a civilised society but working out ways to prevent this in the future is the key. second, please don't use the typical media type question of putting personal situations in such debates, there is absolutely no need for it, and it is just an attempt to sensationalise your question. we should abide by international law all the time or we have no right to tell others they do not, it is a contradiction in terms, how dare we accuse someone of breaking int. law if we do not ourselves. "Ohhh i'm aloud a gun because i'm the bully but you poor people around the world can not". You have to remember there are actual reason why Al Queda attacks the west, i do not agree with their methods, but the west have had these attacks coming for a long time. States should not be above the law otherwise we have no justification in attacking others for doing as we are.. third, i do not understand this question to what you are referring to, may you ask this again in other words, im sorry:& ... i appreciate your input although i am hoping these are just questions and not your beliefs, because in my opinion it is exactely these types of media ideas that could lead to disaster in the future. peace and love michael x
i agree with you here, if the world had no issues with poverty, then there would be little or no wars. A state economy is the key to the situations. The richest states need as much weath as possible and enivitable this will make the poorer states poorer. peace and love michael x
Okay so one of the keys to avoiding war is to have the world be more caring and generous. My question ought to be more sensationalized than it is. This is an important issue. The lack of authority in the international sphere is a terrifying thing. With Rice at the helm your point of view and those that agree have taken a huge hit. The "might makes right" theory of international relations is the current reality. My question is what is wrong with that. And why is what is wrong with that right?
The only solution is not to have wars. If you train a man to kill another man then you have to throw all morality out the window. If you do not do so, you are deigning that person his best opportunity to live through combat. That in itself is immoral. Some way must be found to break the isolation between the people who make the wars and the people who fight them. It has been an old man's war and a young man's fight for as long as we have been having wars.
What is wrong with might makes right? Well it allows the powerful at the time to abuse the poorest nations and be the bully. This is how it has been in the past and is at the present, but just because it IS does not mean it is correct and we should move towards a new human rights culture because it is the lives of innocent civilians who have already had a bad life who are suffering, people all over the world are becoming moring caring about other humans, recent tradegies prove this however deaths are rising in warfare as technology advances to become more destructive. Also just because a state has the might does not mean it is the best society, i mean look at the current world power- the US, most of the world disagrees with its current ideology and especially its foreign policy. Believe it or not the majority of the people in this world do not like the States and what it stands for, and I am one of those people, i dislike the ideology and believe it has no right in spreading it. But even if I did believe in its ideology i would still say they have no right to spread it, especially using force. peace and love michael x
ick. The majority of the people in the world are muslim. How many of them would prefer Bush to their current leader is questionable. Either way, I'll say that because they are muslim, they hate Bush. They don't concern me. You do. I don't believe for a second that you disagree with this administrations model of internal relations. Simple question. Did you vote?
Number 1- "the majority of the world are muslim"- where did you get this fact from, the majority of the World are not Muslim, there are more christians, and this is not what would be called a 'majority'. Number 2- i very much doubt that they would swap for Bush, honestly. Number 3- What makes you think i do not disagree with this administration? i clearly do, and this was obvious by previous posts. what kind of statement was this meant for? i study internation relations, and i am very much against what can only be currently described as a n american empire style internationalaffairs program. Number 4- i am not from the United States, so therefore could not vote in the US election, however in the UK election, i refused to vote for Blair because of the current British international relation which seem to model the States.
I am not sure that the creation of wealth is a zero sum game. I also question that there is a link with poverty and war. I do not know of a state economy that has worked to provide much happiness to the people of that state. I agree with the wrongness of US foreign policy. However, I feel that the economic arguments are sort of a smokescreen. I think the US pushes people around for motives far more childish than economics.
i do not think i was generally discussing just the Western wars, we must remember that a third of the whole planet is at war at present, and a lot of that is for natural resources and survival, i do think the economy comes into play for a lot of wars. maybe the US led wars use it as a smokescreen, i have gave up thinking of the reasoning behind Iraq etc now, maybe it s a mix of a few things.
I try not to limit my reading to only the western world. I am still not aware of a war that has been fought in the recent past for natural resources and survival. Unless you mean the survival that comes in any situation when you are being attacked. Most current wars seem to be being fought for religious or tribal reasons. If you would like to list one or two that are being fought for economic reasons. I would be happy to be corrected.
this is data from 2004, so it may be out of date, but as time of publishing it was said, that a quarter of all wars where mainly for natural resources, for example the Democratic Republic of Congo, who have been at a constant war since 1998, over the moneral wealth of the nation, which is needed for a economicically strong govt, and even the armies of Rwanda, Zimbabwe and Uganda have all been accused by the UN of illegally plundering Congos mineral wealth. and also at present it is thought, that the water supply of the world, especially Africa and the Middle East will cause mass warfare. There has been a lot of tension over the Nile in Egypt. i do not agree, that most wars are for religious reasoning.
Last info I could find for Democratic Republic of Congo Talks between Kabila and the rebel leaders (held in Sun City) lasted a full six weeks (beginning in April 2002). In June they signed a peace accord in which Kabila would share power with former rebels. By June 2003 all foreign armies except those of Rwanda had pulled out of Congo. Ethnic clashes in the northeast were still continuing in 2004, especially violence between the Hema and Lendu tribes in the Kivu region of eastern Congo. Sounds tribal to me. In addition, the war in the Congo is often seen as a spillover from the Rwanda war and genocide which was about as far from economic as you can get. There is also wars of religion going on from Sudan where the governments Islamicization policy has caused north south fighting to the Islamic severest state of Chechnya People have been predicting water wars in North Africa since the mid sixties. I have not seen one yet.
you cannot me moral or ethical and still fight a war. War is the antithesis to morals and ethics, which strive ever for peace among men (and women) I'd disagree. That genocide was caused by economic reasons. The population was getting too big for the amount of land, even the "big" landowners didn't have enough land to grow enough food for them and their families (due to the way land is distributed among children when parents die). Everybody there was starving. Yes, there were the pre-existing enmity between the Hutu and the Tutsi, but that was due to the Belgian colonizers choosing one over the other for leading the country (there's really no difference between the two groups and they are seen by some to have been divisions invented by the colonizers). The Tutsis were not the only ones slaughtered in that genocide; in fact, in some regions, there were villiages of almost 100% Hutu that were all killed. Why would Hutus kill Hutus if this was merely ethnic cleansing? It had more to do with poverty (economics) and killing off other people to get more land for youself. (I'm oversimplifying here, obviously, as it is truly a complex issue).
