If wars of immediate action in self-defense are just wars,are other kinds of war,like pre-emptive wars unjust?

Question

This is an ethics Q about the justification of war.

No one has addressed the issue of acting pre-emptively assuming that someone has attacked them or is about to attack them. What ever happened to the idea that you go to war on facts not suspicions and that you go to war as a nation if and only if you are sure that the ones you attack are your attackers and not just somebody you would like to attack for other reasons.

The mistakes of the past are no justification for the mistakes of the present.

TWH 08152006 4:01 PM CST

Mooch, your answer is a perfect example of a Post Hoc logical fallacy.

"Also Known as: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, False Cause, Questionable Cause, Confusing Coincidental Relationships With Causes

Description of Post Hoc

A Post Hoc is a fallacy with the following form:


A occurs before B.
Therefore A is the cause of B.
The Post Hoc fallacy derives its name from the Latin phrase "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." This has been traditionally interpreted as "After this, therefore because of this." This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one event causes another simply because the proposed cause occurred before the proposed effect. More formally, the fallacy involves concluding that A causes or caused B because A occurs before B and there is not sufficient evidence to actually warrant such a claim.

see:http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html
TWH 08212006

drampour we are talking about human beings with the faculty of free will and a moral conscious not cats. On that point alone your attempt to provide a kind of counter example fails and it is also a strawman argument that does not logically address the Q. TWH 08212006

Xan Shui, what you said at the conclusion of your answer: "Lastly, war is a human endeavor, so it is always flawed. And like the flawed beings we are, we will often look at those flaws and create generalized, grand, and incorrect, conclusions from them."
is
another example of the post hoc (non- causal ) reasoning I cited above. I don't know who this Xan person is, but if you are quoting him, I wouldn't bother to, because the answers he provides are very wishy-washy. TWH 08222006

Answer 1

What are you kidding? This is America. We like war. Can't go around expecting the president to prove that the enemy is threat, now can we. That just looks weak. Once we've bombed every nation that seemed to protest against our policies, the world'll learn!

Seriously though, how can a pre-emptive strike be justified? It can't. War causes unnecessary suffering (evil); therefore war is unethical. The only way around this is to be the defensive party, which excludes pre-emptive strikes.

Answer 2

The question is flawed. All wars include an aggressor and a defender. The defenders always fight the war of self-defense. The aggressor is the armed robber.

But let's not get confused: An aggressor could very well start a war in, say, New York City, and the defender may very well need to take the defensive war to other places - like, say, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran...in order to be effective.

Lastly, war is a human endeavor, so it is always flawed. And like the flawed beings we are, we will often look at those flaws and create generalized, grand, and incorrect, conclusions from them.

Won't we?

Xan Shui,
Philosophic Philanthropist, Honest Man

Answer 3

As I see it, even a defensive war could now be considered an unjust - because the definition of defense has gone so wide. Is the Israel-Lebanon war a defensive one? Was the USA-Iraq war like that? What makes a good justification of such a conflict? Only, and ONLY a clear and unmistakable threat of occupation by a foreign force! And even then, war has its rules. If the defender does not obey those rules, not even a defensive war is a just one!

Answer 4

War of any kind is wrong but unfortunately necessary. There will always be a victim and victor because ego and power have been attached.
To defend an attack is simply telling the school yard bully.." Back Off".

Pre-emptive ( some one always has to start something ). We should figure out how to listen to each other and co-exist. Doesn't mean to be passive, but argue and work at it and agree to disagree.....not the best answer, but worth considering...

Answer 5

Someone has to blink. It's hard to keep it quiet if your mobilizing your armed forces. With this in mind then what war would be pre emptive? If your aware that the Cat's are getting ready to put it on you your not using best judgment to let it happen so.....to bad people can't just let that go. I wonder if it is possible that there will be world peace in my days. Endless wars, always one going on somewhere; all the way back to the trees. Over dirt. We live on the crust of dirt and we fight over it. Darkly fascinating. No wonder God loves to watch us, we must put on a hell of a show!

Answer 6

I still hold to my solution to any form of conflict.
Just let the 2 disagreeing parties slug it out and leave the rest of the population out of it!

Answer 7

If there is no justification for going to war, people do not go to war. Ergo, if people go to war, it must be justified.

War is proof of justification.

Answer 8

Yep, A stitch in time saves nine.

Answer 9

War is always the dark side of men...Tanatos. Death.