Are wars just Gov. sanctioned murder?

[camstory]

Are wars just Gov. sanctioned murder? Of course there not, the answer seems obvious. But unless fighting a wholly defensive action, why aren't they?

 

[Lydia_Deetz]

 

[LadyLuna]

Are wars just Gov. sanctioned murder? Of course there not, the answer seems obvious. But unless fighting a wholly defensive action, why aren't they?

If they aren't defensive, then they are a message. They're not murder, because murder is one on one. You never know which soldier killed which soldier. Also, the people who are getting shot in wars are (supposedly) the people who signed up to fight them. That's like saying a fighting club that allows fights to the death are sanctioned murder.

 

[Erragal]

Well in America and many other countries the people have a say on who leads the country and they are the people that choose when and why we go to war. Granted not a lot can be said about the people that we pick to run our country.

 

[camstory]

Exactly Lydia Deetz, the question was proposed that it might stir up a bit of heated discussion, or drama if you like. The Question is a bit ridiculous even for me, but my motivation was, that in its ridiculousness, the replies might lead into some meaningful discussion of war and the devastation it does to those we send to fight them. And to be honest, it was motivated in part by my selfish desire to be in the middle, or start of a discussion of something I feel passionate about. I feel very passionate about how we do a better job of protecting our solders, while also protecting the nation.

I had weight in on the Sasha thread too late. I felt cheated that it had all but died before I could express my passionate belief that we, (peoples of the US) hold some very prudish, and harmful attitudes toward sex, and the naked body. So perhaps I should have been creative enough to propose a question that would have stirred that discussion up.

 

[SatanJonez]

Nah, the death penalty is government sanctioned murder.

 

[FrecklesXxX]

Are wars just Gov. sanctioned murder? Of course there not, the answer seems obvious. But unless fighting a wholly defensive action, why aren't they?

My opinion: of course they are. But the question posed is tricky: people being murdered (the definition of which is the unlawful and premeditated killing of another) isn't technically occurring during war because the government sanctions it, therefore it is lawful. So the question becomes, are the laws themselves moral? There is no war without propaganda. History tells us that propaganda is often misleading and the sole purpose is to pound the war drums so to speak. Having said that, keep in mind that this is a questions which philosophers have argued for/against for thousands of years. There are unlimited opinions on this matter. Personally I do not believe that killing is justifiable. Animals do it, but we humans perpetually claim we are "civilized" and the justification of subjecting animals in the first place is that we are more advanced or evolved than they are. Again, this is a philosophical discussion, and the best place to gain insight on this topic would be to begin with philosophers and their arguments on morality.

 

[GemmaMarie]

Of course they are. You don't think we don't send our military members over seas with tons of weapons and artillery and hope "gee I hope no one dies"? Of course we know people will die, we premeditate our moves. Did we not premeditate Osama Bin Ladens death? That was murder. It was government sanctioned murder, it was defensive, it was to send a message, it was for the "good cause", but murder none the less. Every mission our troops are sent on is premeditated & willful that we WILL end the lives of those opposing us, or take them prisoner. Feels like murder to me. But, is it wrong? That is the real question, IMO.

 

[Bocefish]

If you really want to learn... Google Declarations of War, Hague, Geneva Convention, Laws of War, War Crimes, etc.

 

[camstory]

Are wars just Gov. sanctioned murder? Of course there not, the answer seems obvious. But unless fighting a wholly defensive action, why aren't they?

My opinion: of course they are. But the question posed is tricky: people being murdered (the definition of which is the unlawful and premeditated killing of another) isn't technically occurring during war because the government sanctions it, therefore it is lawful. So the question becomes, are the laws themselves moral? There is no war without propaganda. History tells us that propaganda is often misleading and the sole purpose is to pound the war drums so to speak. Having said that, keep in mind that this is a questions which philosophers have argued for/against for thousands of years. There are unlimited opinions on this matter. Personally I do not believe that killing is justifiable. Animals do it, but we humans perpetually claim we are "civilized" and the justification of subjecting animals in the first place is that we are more advanced or evolved than they are. Again, this is a philosophical discussion, and the best place to gain insight on this topic would be to begin with philosophers and their arguments on morality.

Yes I agree with you philosophically, but I think we need to start our discussion somewhere closer to the center for it it have much chance of changing any minds.
Though I don't see any need to compromise my belief, that in a truly civilized society we don't kill each other. With the global state being what it is, it seems to some degree we have to talk about a global society. I think that a threat across the world might be as dangerous as that across town. I also think we probably can agree, that there continues to be as many examples of people acting uncivilized as not. If that's the case, can a nation state ever act more civilized than those who threaten it?

 

[Bocefish]

we need to start our discussion somewhere closer to the center for it it have much chance of changing any minds.
Though I don't see any need to compromise my belief, that in a truly civilized society we don't kill each other. With the global state being what it is, it seems to some degree we have to talk about a global society. I think that a threat across the world might be as dangerous as that across town. I also think we probably can agree, that there continues to be as many examples of people acting uncivilized as not. If that's the case, can a nation state ever act more civilized than those who threaten it?

snot sneeze

 

[FrecklesXxX]

Are wars just Gov. sanctioned murder? Of course there not, the answer seems obvious. But unless fighting a wholly defensive action, why aren't they?

My opinion: of course they are. But the question posed is tricky: people being murdered (the definition of which is the unlawful and premeditated killing of another) isn't technically occurring during war because the government sanctions it, therefore it is lawful. So the question becomes, are the laws themselves moral? There is no war without propaganda. History tells us that propaganda is often misleading and the sole purpose is to pound the war drums so to speak. Having said that, keep in mind that this is a questions which philosophers have argued for/against for thousands of years. There are unlimited opinions on this matter. Personally I do not believe that killing is justifiable. Animals do it, but we humans perpetually claim we are "civilized" and the justification of subjecting animals in the first place is that we are more advanced or evolved than they are. Again, this is a philosophical discussion, and the best place to gain insight on this topic would be to begin with philosophers and their arguments on morality.

Yes I agree with you philosophically, but I think we need to start our discussion somewhere closer to the center for it it have much chance of changing any minds.
Though I don't see any need to compromise my belief, that in a truly civilized society we don't kill each other. With the global state being what it is, it seems to some degree we have to talk about a global society. I think that a threat across the world might be as dangerous as that across town. I also think we probably can agree, that there continues to be as many examples of people acting uncivilized as not. If that's the case, can a nation state ever act more civilized than those who threaten it?

If we/they cannot, then there is truly no hope for humanity.