fielelli.09
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Trying to get different views: Christians, Atheists, Pacifists, Philosophers etc...
0
reply
Advertisement
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
only in self-defence, and while keeping civilian casualties at a minimum (unless they'd be the only way to end a war, e.g. hiroshima and nagasaki)
-atheist
0
reply
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
depends on how good the bants are
0
reply
Advertisement
uberteknik
  • Study Helper
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
The term just is subjective based on judgement of an ideology or a set of moral principles which are locally applied to a countries practice of law.

Each of the parties in a war will therefore claim they are right and just: both cannot be correct.

Which is why the international law as ratified by the members of the United Nations Council and internationally interpreted law is the basis for determining whether war is legal and more importantly - which side has the internationally agreed moral justification for war.
0
reply
German123
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
Obviously not, no matter the situation.
0
reply
Advertisement
fielelli.09
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by German123)
Obviously not, no matter the situation.
Why? Do you have an example?


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
German123
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by fielelli.09)
Why? Do you have an example?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Just war theory.
0
reply
Advertisement
TurboCretin
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by uberteknik)
The term just is subjective based on judgement of an ideology or a set of moral principles which are locally applied to a countries practice of law.

Each of the parties in a war will therefore claim they are right and just: both cannot be correct.

Which is why the international law as ratified by the members of the United Nations Council and internationally interpreted law is the basis for determining whether war is legal and more importantly - which side has the internationally agreed moral justification for war.
If the term 'just' is construed relative to domestic jurisprudence, then surely two parties can both claim to be justly warring?
0
reply
Gwilym101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
A country can go to war for a just reason (e.g. to defend an ally) and can fight a war justly (e.g. minimising civilian casualties) however I wouldn't have said war was just.

Atheist
0
reply
Advertisement
uberteknik
  • Study Helper
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by TurboCretin)
If the term 'just' is construed relative to domestic jurisprudence, then surely two parties can both claim to be justly warring?
Would that not then be an internal civil war?
0
reply
Protégé
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
Yes, if they are fought with good intentions such as defending a country from imperialism. They must also not involve large scale attacks that involve civilians.

Muslim.
0
reply
Advertisement
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Protégé)
Yes, if they are fought with good intentions such as defending a country from imperialism. They must also not involve large scale attacks that involve civilians.

Muslim.
...what form of imperialism are you referring to? invasion? or influence?
0
reply
fielelli.09
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by Protégé)
Yes, if they are fought with good intentions such as defending a country from imperialism. They must also not involve large scale attacks that involve civilians.

Muslim.
Do you know of any Islamic teachings to back this up?


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Advertisement
TurboCretin
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by uberteknik)
Would that not then be an internal civil war?
No. I'm saying if Japan and Korea go to war, and the position of each is justified by its own internal moral framework, then surely both countries can simultaneously claim to be justly warring even if each regards the other's position as illegitimate. I don't see how you can claim on the one hand that justice is relative, and on the other say that two warring parties can't both be right.
0
reply
Protégé
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
...what form of imperialism are you referring to? invasion? or influence?
Invasion, unless it's to liberate a country I dislike it.

(Original post by fielelli.09)
Do you know of any Islamic teachings to back this up? Posted from TSR Mobile
These are my views, nothing to do with Islam.
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by Protégé)
Invasion, unless it's to liberate a country I dislike it..
so what do you think of wars like vietnam and iraq? they were all for the purpose (whether primary or secondary) to liberate their peoples
0
reply
tengentoppa
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by uberteknik)
The term just is subjective based on judgement of an ideology or a set of moral principles which are locally applied to a countries practice of law.

Each of the parties in a war will therefore claim they are right and just: both cannot be correct.

Which is why the international law as ratified by the members of the United Nations Council and internationally interpreted law is the basis for determining whether war is legal and more importantly - which side has the internationally agreed moral justification for war.
But it is possible for military action, which goes against international law, to be justified. The Kosovo War was technically illegal, but it was fully justified as it prevented further atrocities being committed.
0
reply
Advertisement
Protégé
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
so what do you think of wars like vietnam and iraq? they were all for the purpose (whether primary or secondary) to liberate their peoples
I don't know enough about Iraq but I do know a fair bit about Vietnam. I believe that the US were unjust in supporting multiple corrupt dictators, constantly lying and attacking under false premises. The Communists weren't perfect either, but they had a much more noble cause than the US.
0
reply
felamaslen
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
War isn't good for anything, except ending slavery and fascism.

Edit: I'm an atheist.
0
reply
felamaslen
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by Protégé)
I don't know enough about Iraq but I do know a fair bit about Vietnam. I believe that the US were unjust in supporting multiple corrupt dictators, constantly lying and attacking under false premises. The Communists weren't perfect either, but they had a much more noble cause than the US.
But the Communists murdered millions in Vietnam. The US only murdered a few thousand. It was the Americans in my opinion who were the ones fighting for a just cause in both cases, and their opponents who were fighting to enslave people under Communism and jihad.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (364)
67.03%
No (179)
32.97%

Watched Threads

View All