4 ms·
If a war is fought for strategic non-moral reasons, then a war has to be fought to stop it. So somewhere, someone can be fighting for moral reasons. Doing noth
by chrischen 8y ago
If a war is fought for strategic non-moral reasons, then a war has to be fought to stop it. So somewhere, someone can be fighting for moral reasons.
Doing nothing and letting someone die is just as immoral as potentially killing someone.
- ilaksh 8y agoThat's the justification the other side always uses. But when it comes down to it, the other side is still just trying to control more resources.
- chrischen 8y agoSure, they may provide that justification, but that doesn't change the fact that the counter-party to an immoral fighter is always a moral one. After all, even Hitler hated his enemies, so no one can be free of being hated by at least someone unless they are a passive rock.
- colordrops 8y agoIf I try to snatch your phone out of your hand, are you "just trying to control more resources" by preventing me from doing this? Are you saying there is no such thing as theft?
- TheOtherHobbes 8y agoWar is theft. Nation states currently operate like violent criminal gangs. In the same way that street gangs indoctrinate their members into loyalty, nation states indoctrinate their populations. And in the same way that most of the benefits of gang crime go to the leaders, most of the benefits of war go to a country's upper class, while everyone else bears the risks.
- eeZah7Ux 8y agoOften the strongest gang claims to be "maintaining order" and "protecting" others.
- chrischen 8y agoThe difficulty is in finding out which side is moral, not in determining if one is. Also it's non-binary. Each side can have moral and immoral reasons to varying degrees. This is the common phrase "lesser of two evils" at work.