This is not a moral question. Once you put two people in the position of kill-or-be-killed (as in battle) it's simply a pragmatic matter of survival.
The morality (or lack) of it exists at the level of those who initiated the conflict.
Morality and atheism....
- Thread starter VitalOne
- Start date
The morality (or lack) of it exists at the level of those who initiated the conflict.
Well, what I feel about death is nothing but the truth. Death is death, nature decides the timing, who are you to disrupt this process?
Nature is also an abstract concept, let us stick to observation and science.
All are wrong, the moment you go to war, you know you are going to kill other people. Why would you go and kill others? to prevent them from killing you? that is what I call paranoia and fear of death.
Then do you believe all nations should abolish their armed forces?
Tribalism (nationalism/religion) and a lack of a view of the entire human race as fellow travelers on a little rock.
And given the overall population, war and genocide involve a very tiny slice of the people so there's nothing rampant, statistically speaking, about either of those.
yes I do, from the bottom of my heart
That would depend on how you define rampant, can you find a single society with no violence?
Or you may go to war to defend your loved ones, to aid a friendly nation, to free someone from oppression.
There are probably as many reasons for war as there are wars.
Me too. But that is a very naive view of the reality of human nature.
Unrealistic.
Irrelevant. I'm defining things in terms of individuals, not societies.
So what is to be done in the case where another nation is forcefully fighting you , not accepting peace treaties, etc....and only willing to fight you....what do you do? Do you send soldiers to fight, or give up and be consumed by the other nation?
but you can´t fight hatred with hatred. If the USA would have forgiven the 911 incident, then you would have been the bigger nation, and nothing else would have happened to you.
but you keep fighting hatred with hatred, and that is an ignorant proposition.
Hatred+hatred = more hatred.
And this is a vicious cycle, since the beggining of history, people trying to fight hatred with hatred. And the only ones that have succeeded are the ones who forgive and accept, without fear of death.
I believe we can reach this, if not in this generation, in another, but sometime... because mankind will start seeing the reality of this nonsense, and learn from past mistakes.
Maybe a world ruled by women, that will do it. They have more love and less rationality, the opposite of men.
Women can also be more cruel than men.
are nations really necessary?
Yeah, women really can be just as or more cruel than men...its a shame that our own Greco-Roman society paints women as being victims, helpless, etc...when in reality they're basically the same as men in almost every aspect....
What does this mean? I think nations are necessary...what would you do? Would you defend your country or allow it to be attacked and innocent people to die helplessly? The fact is that in many cases, not fighting is worse than fighting....
Do you think someone should've stopped Hitler and Stalin from killing, or should they have stood back and said "not fighting is better"
Fascinating. Thanks for the link. I need to think about this.