Is war in a moral vacuum?

i disagree, for several reasons.

First, Tony Benn (former British member of parliament) observed that war manifests the failure of diplomacy – saying (paraphrased) the countries go to war because they have been unable to bridge their differences in a more peaceful and mature way. I agree with Mr. Benn. Countries go to war because other, peaceful avenues of conflict resolution have not worked.

Secondly, and more importantly, there are moral wars. I would consider most of WW2 to be moral, and by extension most of the tactics used by the Allies as moral as well.

You’re really getting down the level of tactics – is it proper to do action X or Action Y, which may be repugnant, in order to achieve a moral (or justifiable) end. I would answer that it generally is (of course dependent on actual details).

By extension you are asking about martyrdom – should one fight a war ‘morally’ even if it results in ones death? And I would argue that martyrdom is not a strategic move, because the martyr is dead, although possibly he/she acted morally.

Finally, I would not equate war (like WW2 or Vietnam) with fighting in neighborhoods or city blocks.

^ War can be thought of as diplomacy by force.

Since war is something that is a part of all of us, it would be just the opposite. A driving force.

Better to ignore the empty catch phrases and instead address the “why” around the requirement for moral justification. Once war is viewed from the perspective of the individual, the propaganda function of moral chatter becomes apparent. War is in fact about the sublimation of the welfare of the individual to the will of the state. It is the “cannon fodder” truth about warfare that generates the urgency for moral justification, and as such the justification will arise regardless of its validity.

@elbanditoroso perhaps another question but when you say ”... there are moral wars. I would consider most of WW2 to be moral, and by extension most of the tactics used by the Allies as moral as well.” What exactly do you mean? It takes two opposing sides to have a war. Are both sides moral? If only one side is moral and the other immoral why would we classify a war as moral or why is it not immoral? Would it still have been a moral war if Germany had been successful? Were the tactics of the Allies that much different from those of the Axis and/or were the tactics of the Allies moral only because they won? Was firebombing Dresden a moral act? What about Nagasaki? Or were they immoral acts for a moral cause? Can they be considered moral because they shortened the war? Why was all that death and destruction not immoral regardless of outcome?

Is it only a person that can be moral or have morals? In a group, does the group have morals or is it the individuals in the group have morals? Can group morality be different from the morality of the individuals that make up that group? Can morality be assigned to an act of those who participate? Can something I did be moral but what was accomplished be immoral or vise-a-versa?

Sorry, not picking on you, but I am interested in your thoughts. Perhaps war does, and can only, occur only in a moral vacuum.

HC, yes to most of what youbsaid. At best, morality takes a back seat or is clearly not priority in a war setting. Countries leaders implement plans that will kill the enemy and destroy the enemies ability to make war. Soldiers on the battlefield have it the worst. They usually lose their humanity in the process of what they witness, and actions they have taken either to keep themselves aluve, or as vengeance. It is common for soldiers to ‘over do it’ when dispatching their ‘enemy.’ Torture, mutilation, humiliation, rape etc are frequently carried out as the war of two countries becomes a war of atrician. Those who take part in war do terrible things to ‘win.’

I’ve known many veterans or war, and they all have one thing in common. Their body made it home alive, but the person they were before what they witnessed, or were a part of is dead. In war , nobody really wins. There are only losers.

Morality is a convenience in time of war. It is to be ignored. ‘The end will justify the means’ (Machiavelli ) The leaders of countries at war make decisions based almost purely on strategy. The fact they could be condemned for some actions is probably considered, but not realistically. The very declaration of war means that the declaring country has already reached a point where morality is now an after thought.

I feel I should mention that just because I believe that war takes place in an arena without ethics, doesn’t mean that the atrocities, both committed and witnessed in war time, will stick with the participants forever. It is after war, the dreams, PTSD, and ones consciousness bring morality back into the equation.

So I didn’t mean morality was abandoned, but that sadly, if you are serious about trying to accomplish anything in a time of war, morality is not a considered variable to those calling the shots.

War is hell. Or the closest thing. Sadly that is a lesson most human beings have yet to learn. Diplomacy is not as common a tool for peace as a bullet. That’s wrong.

“Is it that one’s morality doesn’t change but said people choose to pragmatically ignore it, knowing to use their standard of morality used in their neighborhoods and city blocks would make victory hard or impossible?”

Yes, I think this is mostly right. The other aspect is that one does not have the luxury of evaluating a moral choice on its own. That choice must be weighed against other moral choices at the same time. So, on the one hand, it is wrong to kill (in fact, it is wrong to even hurt or disrespect someone, never mind taking their life), but on the other, in some situations war may be the only way to prevent a large number of others from being killed or hurt.

Nor is it right to ignore the choice simply because both available options are wrong.

Morality is not an easy gig.

Would it still have been a moral war if Germany had been successful? Were the tactics of the Allies that much different from those of the Axis and/or were the tactics of the Allies moral only because they won? Was firebombing Dresden a moral act? What about Nagasaki?
@rojo Gadzooks, something we agree on, better check my pulse. Well I had to Atta boy that. When I read the first post the firebombing of Dresden came to mind as well as the carpet bombing campaign of ”Bomber Harris”. I wondered if such acts would be tolerable today even if it meant victory would come swifter. To end the Cowboy War II would the US have stomached carpet bombing Kandahar until it was as flat as a pan cake stack; sick, aged, women and children notwithstanding?

@MrGrimm888 Morality is a convenience in time of war. It is to be ignored. ‘The end will justify the means’ (Machiavelli )
Atta boy for you that is why I like your contributions, after I posted the question I got to thinking, why are some people so quick to toss their morality to the curb in war, but in an apocalyptic situation (Katrina was the closest I could come up with) where the fabric of society breaks down as well as the infrastructure and it sinks to near daily survival, is morality treated the same? Some would, even in a desperate situation like that, attempt to hold on to their morality; even if they desperately needed provisions another had for them or their family they would not just take it from the person who had it even if it greatly helped or increased their survival or that of their family, and I wondered why the difference?

@dappled_leaves So, on the one hand, it is wrong to kill (in fact, it is wrong to even hurt or disrespect someone, never mind taking their life), but on the other, in some situations war may be the only way to prevent a large number of others from being killed or hurt.
If killing someone would be wrong, but killing someone who would kill dozens is wrong, then in this narrow instance the saying ”two wrongs don’t make a right” would not be applicable? Or not applicable because by relaxing the morality against killing to save possibly dozens of other lives it justifies killing the one that would cause the other dozen or more deaths?

@Hypocrisy_Central “Or not applicable because by relaxing the morality against killing to save possibly dozens of other lives it justifies killing the one that would cause the other dozen or more deaths?”

That is a question each person must answer for oneself. I have no answer, because I have not been faced with the question in a real-life context, but in such a situation, I would choose. I think it would be worse to choose not to choose.

“If killing someone would be wrong, but killing someone who would kill dozens is wrong, then in this narrow instance the saying ”two wrongs don’t make a right” would not be applicable?”

I don’t think “two wrongs don’t make a right” applies in this case, because choosing a course of action means committing one wrong, not both. The question is, which wrong. That must be a personal choice.

Lots of mention of WW2 here. Although indeed it was mostly a defensive war(and sadly necessary ) , the atrocities committed (like firebombing ) were done not just to kill enemy soldiers, but for ‘effect.’ Psychological warfare of sorts. That’s why morality is not priority. Such is the nasty business of war. You need to make the other side say uncle. The more ruthless and terrible the actions done to the enemy, the hope is that they will give in rather than absorb more of the horrors inflicted on them. America uses these tactics still today, but sugar coats it’s strategy by giving operations less morbid nicknames. Remember ‘shock and awe?’ The idea was simple , show the enemy that the US is a FAR superior foe, by overwhelming enemy targets with massive bombs , hitting small targets with ease. The US public saw media coverage of massive explosions. Burning buildings. Ruined convoys. The reality was far more disturbing on the ground. Mutilated , burnt , blown to pieces were enemy combatants, and civilians, women and children. Real people, who had real lives, hopes, dreams, pets, bills to pay and I assume the desire to live. Many anti armor rounds from say an A-10 had uranium tipped bullets. This helps the projectile pierce heavy armor. Now in Iraq, they have hundreds of decimated military vehicles that are radioactive. They piled them all in big Lots to try to contain the radiation. In desert storm, many US tanks were equipped with plows. Timothy McVeigh was a operator of such a machine. He spoke of a strategy the US used where they would drive right down the side of enemy trenches with the plow, simply burying many enemy troops alive. He also spoke of how easy it was to kill so many troops at night using night vision. Many enemies were dispatched running confused in the dark. These actions were part of McVeigh’s motivation for the Oklahoma bombing of the federal building there. Even soldiers on the ‘winning’ side are devestated by such atrocities. There is little doubt that Saddam Hussein was a horrible tyrant. Responsible for thousands of terrible crimes against humanity, including genocide by gas and other means, and ‘torture factories.’ Some could argue that the two ‘wars’ were in a way moral, because the motivation (or the stated motivation ) was to ‘liberate’ the Iraqi people. But again, the means of attaining the military goal were grossly immoral. Obviously the people of Iraq still suffer, as does the entire region, but that’s another discussion…
War and it’s ‘side effects ’ are the antithesis of morality. As I stated, it’s in a moral vaccum. They say ‘there are no rules in love and war.’ That saying , I assume arose from a similar conversation as is taking place in this thread.

@dappled_leaves That is a question each person must answer for oneself.
Being something each individual has to choose for themselves, can leave morality with no real footing. If someone believes wasting a whole city with everyone in it is the best strategy because dead people can’t fight back, or support those fighting you then it is good tactics and thus moral.

I have no answer, because I have not been faced with the question in a real-life context, but in such a situation, I would choose.
Would that be fair to say that no matter what best morality someone believes in peace times, in war or other given situations that morality they have is not so innate, or germane to their being that they can’t ignore, breech, or modify it if holding to it might create a disadvantageous situation somehow?

@MrGrimm888 The reality was far more disturbing on the ground. Mutilated , burnt , blown to pieces were enemy combatants, and civilians, women and children. Real people, who had real lives, hopes, dreams, pets, bills to pay and I assume the desire to live.
The rub is, if one can view their foe as less than human, less than people with pets, paying bills, treating head colds, etc. then blowing them into pizza toppings is not immoral; easily justified that they would do it to you first of you did not do it to them. If one believe an enemy will kill them, then any tactic to make them say uncle, would be highly accepted.

He also spoke of how easy it was to kill so many troops at night using night vision. Many enemies were dispatched running confused in the dark.
Was it cheating, dirty fighting, or good tactics? I saw a documentary once about the Roman conquest of the UK, and they said how the inhabitance who knew the terrain would ambush the Roman soldiers, shooting them in the back etc. then dashing away into the hills and forest. The Romans not use to such fighting thought it was dirty fighting and less chivalrous than to meet your foe face-to-face in open combat. In war, the goal is to win, so if using any means possible, even if you have to use technology far superior than your foe that leaves them near zero chance to defend themselves, is it being a poor sport like a pro boxer beating up an old man with arteritis, or a coo of a tactic to vanquish your enemy without suffering much casualties?

HC, my statements were intended to point out the brutality of war, on both sides. The US (I’m a citezen) rarely picks a fight with someone they’re own size. Otherwise if such actions as Suddam’s were so deplorable, the US would have 100,000 troops in Crimea…
The tactics used in Iraq wouldn’t be effective against Russia. Their technology and training is similar to that of the US. The US could probably beat Russia in an all out war, but the cost would be cataclysmic , to both countries and to the world. The tactics aren’t what I detest. Of course the US should have used it’s large technological advantage to wipe out enemies with the minimum amount of casualties on our side. But the ethics of deciding to do that to another country and it’s people is similar to what you were saying about a professional fighter picking a fight with an old man. Your question was regarding the morality of war.I consider motivation for war, as being held to that standard as well. The US leaders knew thatboth wars would be cakewalks because of the disparity of military power. It was never going to be more than shooting fish in a barrel.

You mentioned the Romans. Guerrilla warfare is the only effective means of fighting a superior army. The US used those same tactics to rout the British. (The ‘Swamp Fox’ actually operated out of Hell Hole Swamp. A place I go fishing.) Most in the Bigger Better Army consider these tactics terrorism. But there is little alternative to a inferior oponent.
You mentioned chivalry. That is a concept for another thread, as it relates to war. The concept of chivalry (in war) is a foolish brand of reckless, insecure , and outdated thinking. It has no place in this time or in the time of the Romans. It is dime store novel folly, in which a helpless danzel in distress is saved by a honorable saber wielding hero, and then they live happily ever after.
War is Hell. Deciding to go to war with a sovereign nation over false pretenses is immoral. But again, there is no morality in war.

@MrGrimm888 The US could probably beat Russia in an all out war, but the cost would be cataclysmic , to both countries and to the world.
If Uncle Sam did not find a way to take out all of Russia’s nuclear capabilities of develop a defense against them, it would be a stalemate. If Russia see she were getting trounced they may think why get beat alone, and in desperation launch what nukes they could. The rest of the world and surely Uncle Sam would say that was immoral but to the Russian people I believe they would see it is as a gambit to survive at all cost and thus justified.

You mentioned the Romans. Guerrilla warfare is the only effective means of fighting a superior army. The US used those same tactics to rout the British
That was the main reason there was no victory in Vietnam, when you have an entrenched army fighting for their home, they have no choice but to use any and all means. If it means strapping a booby-trap to some kid and having him run into the arms or a crowd of solider, it is a tactic to them, to Uncle Sam that is deplorable. But can Uncle Sam really say that? Would that be worse off than Uncle Sam napalming a hamlet roasting kids along with the VC? Uncle Sam would think it was an acceptable tactic, who can say which was truly wrong or which was correct?

War is Hell. Deciding to go to war with a sovereign nation over false pretenses is immoral.
I agree, I believe going to war with any nation that did not attack, not just threaten, but actually attacked you is wrong. But then I live in the US where it truly can seem like the land of milk and honey to the rest of the world who have so little. If they got desperate to have just a crumb of what we take for granted here, it may seem moral to them to attack us.

HC. No. America holds no moral high ground. And otherwise it sounds as if we agree on most points in this thread…Hmm.

The salient fact about all war everywhere is that it is a stupid thing to do. It may be unavoidable because one side has to defend itself, but otherwise there just isn’t any good reason for any war.