Would you advocate an unjust war if you were starving?

No I wouldn't condone an unjust war. I'd ask why, in this planet with abundant resources for everyone, there is suddenly such a deficiency in my country. And I'd want my elected leaders to appeal diplomatically for assistance from neighbouring nations. We are a civilised planet. We don't bomb each other for resources when there is enough on this planet to feed everyone. For example, the average european throws away enough edible food each year to feed two people in developing countries, Americans spend enough on eating out each year to completely alleviate world hunger for that year according to UN estimates. We need a redistribution of resources, not violence.

The question isn't interesting if you refuse to answer it in terms of what you would need instead of what your ideals would like.

If you and your kin are starving, from where do you find the strength to fight a war? Where do you get this well-equipped and able Army from?

If this Army is so strong and able, from where are they getting the food to keep themselves fit?

Silly riddle is silly.

Unfortunately it is easier to mobilize your troops than it is unify the world. So the question still stands.

If you are a North Korean mother who just can't seem to make her four hungry children understand why there is no food. If you can't bear to tell them that their sister died first because she was the weakest amongst them. If your government could not appeal for assistance because they won't abandon their nuclear/missile ambitions (you may be aware of that or not). Would you then still be talking about a campaign for world redistribution (a cause that would take decades if not centuries), or would you be telling your oldest boy to join the army and bring back some food to his younger siblings.

The question isn't interesting if you refuse to answer it in terms of what you would need instead of what your ideals would like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea

It's not a riddle it's a real scenario in a real place. As to if it is silly or not, is another matter.

You contradict yourself, in the first part of your reply you put me in the position of the government - you say "it's easier to mobilise the troops" - to that I respond the easiest solution is not necessarily the right solution, just because something is easier doesn't mean it is the best choice. So no, the question doesn't still stand.

The government has the responsibility to ensure the livelihood of its people, not to pursue nuclear ambitions. It should abandon its military ambitions and use diplomacy to ensure it's people doesn't starve. That's a no brainer. Any government who allows people to starve rather than abandon developing weapons to aid death, destruction, misery and violence are not a sane government, and not fit to lead a people.

In the second part of your reply, you suddenly start talking about if I were just a citizen with no control over whether the government abandons its nuclear policy or not - in which case I wouldn't have the power to 'mobilize troops' either.

The question is entirely in the hands of the government. Any government who lets its people starve over a military development programme is fundamentally sick and twisted. And no, an unjust war is STILL not condonable.

So you honestly believe the average peasant farmer in North Korea has sway over the military?


That's why this question is silly.
Those who are in charge are not starving. They don't care about those who are.

You contradict yourself, in the first part of your reply you put me in the position of the government - you say "it's easier to mobilise the troops" - to that I respond the easiest solution is not necessarily the right solution, just because something is easier doesn't mean it is the best choice. So no, the question doesn't still stand.

The government has the responsibility to ensure the livelihood of its people, not to pursue nuclear ambitions. It should abandon its military ambitions and use diplomacy to ensure it's people doesn't starve. That's a no brainer. Any government who allows people to starve rather than abandon developing weapons to aid death, destruction, misery and violence are not a sane government, and not fit to lead a people.

In the second part of your reply, you suddenly start talking about if I were just a citizen with no control over whether the government abandons its nuclear policy or not - in which case I wouldn't have the power to 'mobilize troops' either.

The question is entirely in the hands of the government. Any government who lets its people starve over a military development programme is fundamentally sick and twisted. And no, an unjust war is STILL not condonable.

You two are missing the point I'm trying to make, or more likely just refusing to acknowledge it. It is not contradictory. I am asking you to test your ideals against a actual dilemma occurring in the world today.

Even a government that doesn't care about it's people must control them. A starving population is desperate. Desperate people are hard to control. Do you really expect a nation that can't feed it's people to not eventually resort to the only resource which could provide such necessities. What if that only resource is military action or the sale of technology.

My question is.... How righteous would screenager be if she was starving, and the only immediate foreseeable remedy was to be unrighteous?

You are refusing to see the bigger picture. It is the way the world is organised, the architecture of states and economies (or 'the system' if you want to sound like a revolutionary nut) that puts people into starvation. There is enough food for everyone on this planet, the reason people starve is because of a fault in the fair distribution of resources, thanks to an outdated architecture of national divides and economies.

The system is the problem. Putting me in a hypothetical desperate situation where I have been severely disadvantaged by that system, forcing me to commit immoral and atrocious acts in order to survive, does not legitimate the system.

You are refusing to see the bigger picture. It is the way the world is organised, the architecture of states and economies (or 'the system' if you want to sound like a revolutionary nut) that puts people into starvation. There is enough food for everyone on this planet, the reason people starve is because of a fault in the fair distribution of resources, thanks to an outdated architecture of national divides and economies.

The system is the problem. Putting me in a hypothetical desperate situation where I have been severely disadvantaged by that system, forcing me to commit immoral and atrocious acts in order to survive, does not legitimate the system.

That is pure evasion.

You are refusing to see the bigger picture. It is the way the world is organised, the architecture of states and economies (or 'the system' if you want to sound like a revolutionary nut) that puts people into starvation. There is enough food for everyone on this planet, the reason people starve is because of a fault in the fair distribution of resources, thanks to an outdated architecture of national divides and economies.

The system is the problem. Putting me in a hypothetical desperate situation where I have been severely disadvantaged by that system, forcing me to commit immoral and atrocious acts in order to survive, does not legitimate the system.

I am not legitimizing the system, I am questioning the conviction of your ideals. What say you?

That is pure evasion.

"forcing me to commit immoral and atrocious acts in order to survive" is an answer to that question. Not evading anything.