5 ms·
>There is a rule of thumb for judging morality in wars: If you are fighting in your country and the other side it's not, then, normally, you have the moral high
by eveningcoffee 9y ago
>There is a rule of thumb for judging morality in wars: If you are fighting in your country and the other side it's not, then, normally, you have the moral high ground.
Yes, normally. One example where it does not apply is when you are in your country and are executing a genocide. Then we can argue that an invading party with the intent to stop the genocide has higher morality.
Except when it is not really genocide but counter-activity to a local minority initiative with the intent to play a victim such a that another country where they have large majority could send in their forces.
Etc etc.
- RobertoG 9y ago"Then we can argue that an invading party with the intent to stop the genocide has higher morality." Barring a few, normally not very successful, Blue Helmets interventions, I can't think of instances of that. Surely, when a foreign power decide to use the force, against a less powerful country, the real reasons have little to do with stop genocides or injustices.
- robotresearcher 9y agoWorld War II?!
- golergka 9y agoCan you expand on that? As far as I know, no major power in WWII used prevention of genocide as their reason to join the war.