3e1a19 No.8689
It's nothing more than a handwave to justify war. Almost everyone who invokes it just thinks that the mere mention of the concept suffices as a hand wave to excuse mass killing between states.
Libertarians are the only people who get this one right, because the libertarian anti-war position is the only one that's consistent with the Bible.
Change my mind.
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
62d92c No.8690
>>8689
So, if our country is ever attacked by a hostile foreign power, we should just roll over and die?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
3e1a19 No.8693
>>8690
No, just war theory goes beyond the right to self defence to rationalize being an instigator.
In a traditional invasion I 100% agree we should respond with deadly force.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
bcb29c No.8702
>>8693
No it doesn't. The just war "theory" literally says it is only just to defend yourself or another innocent.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
3e1a19 No.8704
>>8702
Where does it "literally" say that?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
bcb29c No.8712
>>8704
the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
3e1a19 No.8713
>>8712
just war theory does not have it's origin in the catholic catechism of the 90's, and that quote doesn't even prove your claim, much less "literally"
these are the principles of just war theory:
>The principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be: having just cause, being a last resort, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
223610 No.8718
All war is just, inasmuch a nation is justified in conducting war for its own interests, and all its citizens are justified to support the war effort, and all atrocities are justified in the name of victory.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a4a68d No.8719
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
223610 No.8721
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c42860 No.8722
>>8721
Yes it is, if the justification you presented is found to be arbitrary then we can't conclude that it's a moral system
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
223610 No.8723
>>8722
Try saying that again but this time make sense
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c42860 No.8724
>>8723
Okay
I'm calling the defense you presented of just war theory arbitrary. If the system you're putting forward is arbitrary, it shouldn't be accepted. To call the system arbitrary is an argument.
Your articulation of just war theory is arbitrary because each level of justification is subject to the arbiter. The nation's interests are arbitrary. What is defined as the war effort is arbitrary. The "name of victory" being a justification for atrocities is blatantly arbitrary.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
bcb29c No.8729
>>8713
I didn't say that was its origin. Since we're on a Christian board, assuming you mean the Christian definition seems pretty reasonable. Your definition is the same though, just a different wording. Read what it says a "just cause" is. How do you claim this can be twisted into justification for being an aggressor?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
223610 No.8730
>>8724
>To call the system arbitrary is an argument.
No it isn't, it's an assertion, one which ironically enough is arbitrary.
>The nation's interests are arbitrary. What is defined as the war effort is arbitrary.
Am I supposed to take this seriously? Just because you can't put something on a spreadsheet doesn't make it arbitrary, you rationalist. The definition of national interests and the war effort is common sensical, "you know it when you see it". Just because something cannot be laid out in a set of rationalistic criteria meant to apply absolutely to all circumstances whatsoever does not mean such a thing lacks real objectivity.
>The "name of victory" being a justification for atrocities is blatantly arbitrary.
This is an appeal to emotion. What you meant to say is "I dislike this". It is obvious that atrocities can be strategically necessary to victory, for example launching a campaign of total war to break the spirit of the enemy and compel surrender. If this is arbitrary, then all strategy and tactics is "arbitrary".
And that it is morally acceptable is clear in that if a nation is unwilling to do what is necessary to achieve victory, they should be unwilling to fight in the first place.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
3e1a19 No.8741
>>8721
You said that the theory was "literally", as in, according to the letter (of the source), only permitting defense. That's just not the case, and the catechism point you referenced is not a restatement of just war theory. It's a stance on when defensive military force is permitted, which is narrower than "just war theory".
Read the common definition i cited, you can see how that can be twisted into justifying war declaration that's not strictly defensive.
>>8730
I'm using arbitrary to mean subject to an individual will. Who decides what's in the nation's interests? The nation's leaders. Who decides what atrocities are permissible and others not? The warmongers. I'm not debating practicality, I'm debating what is morally permissible.
"Just war theory" is also chiefly concerned with what constitutes a permissible war, not what can be done within the context of war.
Here's a non-arbitrary definition of a just war:
"a just war exists when a people tries to ward off the threat of coercive domination by another people, or to overthrow an already-existing domination"
this was your definition (in effect):
"All war is just because the people at war say so"
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
36f3fe No.8745
>>8741
>Who decides what's in the nation's interests? The nation's leaders. Who decides what atrocities are permissible and others not? The warmongers.
Yes. This is not something unique to war, the rulers appointed by God determine all national policy, and their judgments will be judged. Are you objecting to this? Are you an anarchist?
>warmongers
Lol.
>I'm not debating practicality, I'm debating what is morally permissible.
That makes two of us, and the only thing relevant that is morally impermissible is treason and sedition, an attempt to betray and sabotage the war effort.
>"Just war theory" is also chiefly concerned with what constitutes a permissible war, not what can be done within the context of war.
And I defined what constitutes a permissible war. But really, a point I was making that I don't think you caught, is that what is or is not a just war is not the concern of the common citizenry; as far as they are concerned, all wars are just wars, and they are to support all of them, because they all have consequences for the nation.
>"a just war exists when a people tries to ward off the threat of coercive domination by another people, or to overthrow an already-existing domination"
This falls under your definition of "arbitrary" because this will also have to be determined in the same way. War does not declare itself.
>"All war is just because the people at war say so"
No. I never made reference to someone "saying so", this is a strawman.
Maybe if I gave you an example of a just offensive war, you'll understand my meaning better
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars
It was just for the United States to make these wars because they were clearly in national interests. America, as a nation, benefited immensely from victory in these wars, both politically and economically. To not go to war would have been disastrous, possibly economically, but certainly politically.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
3e1a19 No.8746
>>8745
>the rulers appointed by God determine all national policy, and their judgments will be judged. Are you objecting to this?
I object to the notion that might makes right, including might backed by state. Is that what you're putting forward?
Would you say that about Nero? What about Mao?
>Are you an anarchist?
No but my ideal conception of a state is extremely limited in function. I am a Ron Paul style minarchist.
>treason and sedition, an attempt to betray and sabotage the war effort.
>what is or is not a just war is not the concern of the common citizenry; as far as they are concerned, all wars are just wars, and they are to support all of them, because they all have consequences for the nation.
Just wrong. Tyrannical.
The citizens are the ones who fight and die at war, even worse when conscription is practiced.
What about moral dissent? When an order is given but an inferior objects. In the US military the inferior not only is defended in such a circumstances, but he's obligated to object when he knows the order is wrong.
>No. I never made reference to someone "saying so", this is a strawman.
Read again, I am arguing that this is the effect of your case.
Let's use a hypothetical case because history is nuanced.
Kingdom A and B are neighbors. They are not wealthy, but sustainable. King A calls for an invasion of kingdom B to pillage and make all people there into slaves, because it would bring wealth to the people of kingdom A.
Was that good? Or even morally permissible?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
36f3fe No.8755
>>8746
>I object to the notion that might makes right, including might backed by state
Do you object to the supreme power God has invested in the state? Or do you object to His sole right to judge men?
>Would you say that about Nero?
Paul commanded us to be in subjection to the governing authorities during Nero's reign.
>What about Mao?
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
By the way, considering the topic at hand, would you have told the Russian people to lay down before Hitler's armies? And would you have expected them to listen?
>Ron Paul style minarchist
Cringe.
>Just wrong. Tyrannical.
Meme.
>The citizens are the ones who fight and die at war, even worse when conscription is practiced.
They might do alot more dying if they caused the enemy to win simply because they disagreed with the war. Let me underscore this point with an example from history; Julius Caesar invaded Gaul without cause, without authorization from the state, and with the singular purpose of his personal enrichment and empowerment. The conservative-dominated senate was extremely dissatisfied with his actions to say the least, and frequently criticized him for it. At the same time, he received aid from Rome without which he would likely have lost. Now, if instead the senate somehow found Caesar in their custody, and withdrew all troops, and begged the Gauls to forgive them that they were so sorry, what do you think would have happened? I think the Gauls would have rampaged into Italy and caused as much death and destruction as possible, at least as much as Caesar brought to their lands. Peace is a luxury that men after Adam do not have.
>What about moral dissent?
It's a man's right, every decision weighs on his honor after all. It is also the right of his superior to replace him.
>Read again, I am arguing that this is the effect of your case.
Still a strawman.
>Let's use a hypothetical case because history is nuanced.
Much more nuanced than your thought experiment. In reality, there is no kingdom a and kingdom b, there is a kingdom a, and b, and c and d and e and f and g etc etc. A king has to consider all of his rivals, even when only dealing with one, so the scenario is worthless.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
bcb29c No.8761
>>8741
>I can't answer you so I'll just ignore facts and keep repeating nonsense.
Nice.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
3e1a19 No.8766
>>8755
>Do you object to the supreme power God has invested in the state? Or do you object to His sole right to judge men?
Yes to both. The state does not have supreme power over it's subjects, and God has delegated us the right and even obligation to make moral judgments to include on the waging of war.
> I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Amen. This does not entail unconditional support of the decisions of rulers.
>By the way, considering the topic at hand, would you have told the Russian people to lay down before Hitler's armies? And would you have expected them to listen?
I don't have a stance on what land ought to have belonged to what country, but I don't think anyone should lay down and be conquered and I don't pretend that a lecture would convince them to anyway.
It seems to me that Poland should have been sovereign from the start, uninvaded by either, but I really don't know much about the eastern front.
>In reality, there is no kingdom a and kingdom b, there is a kingdom a, and b, and c and d and e and f and g etc etc. A king has to consider all of his rivals, even when only dealing with one, so the scenario is worthless.
The point of hypotheticals is to suss out moral problems.
Suppose there are no other nation states in this world. Hypothetical kingdom A seems to meet all criteria you laid out for a just war, so I'm arguing that your definition for a just war is insufficient.
Anyway you aren't arguing an Aquinian position, which was the topic of the thread
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
242dff No.8768
"Just war" is Neocon/neoliberal phrase.
No more countering needed.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
45fe39 No.8776
>>8768
aquinas predates neocon and neoliberalism by a couple centuries
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
36f3fe No.8820
>>8766
>Yes to both
Then why don't you take it up with God?
>The state does not have supreme power over it's subjects
Romans 13:1-7
>God has delegated us the right and even obligation to make moral judgments to include on the waging of war
God has appointed the rulers of the nations as His ministers to dispense His justice. Their decisions will be judged by Him, their sole superior. When you do not defer to their wisdom in the declaration of war, you steal from God the right to judge His minions. You are sinning, you are rebelling against God's order, stop it.
>It seems to me that Poland should have been sovereign from the start
Germany did not invade Russia over Poland.
>Suppose there are no other nation states in this world
This would be to suppose a scenario that has never occurred and will almost certainly never occur. This makes the thought experiment extremely difficult to speculate about, and absolutely pointless.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
3e1a19 No.8822
>>8820
In your view of Romans 13:1-7 the state can do whatever it wants to the citizenry with full moral righteousness?
I don't see that at all, I see a system ordained by God that is still under God's moral absolutes, and still a system ordained by God not rulers particularly placed by God. I have been given God's word myself and been told by Him to make judgments, especially if I have a role in the state system.
The King breaks down your door and rapes your daughter. What is your response? To object at all is a violation of your view. Do you thank him for his service to God and to you, by raping your daughter?
>This would be to suppose a scenario that has never occurred and will almost certainly never occur. This makes the thought experiment extremely difficult to speculate about, and absolutely pointless.
Your view doesn't stand to a basic hypothetical and you're trying to dodge the issue
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
36f3fe No.8854
>>8822
>In your view of Romans 13:1-7 the state can do whatever it wants to the citizenry with full moral righteousness?
No. That's a strawman.
>The King breaks down your door and rapes your daughter. What is your response
I slay him.
>To object at all is a violation of your view.
I don't know what I'd do if I didn't have you to tell me what my view is
>Do you thank him for his service to God and to you, by raping your daughter?
Every idle word.
>Your view doesn't stand to a basic hypothetical and you're trying to dodge the issue
No, you're just hopelessly ignorant of basic political science, which is why you're placing so much weight in a scenario that does not even qualify as realistic fiction.
Next time you launch a discussion I recommend you be less emotional and childish.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
