Is any war morally or practically justifiable?

Question

Is any war morally or practically justifiable?
#1 - "ever" means even if it is for once justifiable, it answers the question.
#2 - in this case, the question leans towards "MORALLY right or not", not based on personal bias or opinion due to loyalty.
#3 - Do give a solid answer backed by lots of reasoning. Don't just say something and leave it hanging there. That's stupid.

2 seconds ago - 3 day(s) left to answer.

Don't worry, I don't go so low for writing my papers.

If you notice, the common trend among almost all (if not all) the answers are based on the utilitarian theory - because war sometimes causes more people to be "happy", therefore it is moral.
Dignity and sense of innate justice is brought up - postulating that these are basic human rights and therefore war can be supported by them.

But I ask: is it moral, in the FIRST PLACE, that people defend their own territories. For example if Saddam Hussein had put up a fight against the US, then would his defence be considered moral in itself?

Also, then, since Japan's emperor had offered unconditional surrender, then was this action moral - of declaring war, then retreating, leaving thousands of lives vanquished and societies decayed WITHOUT compensating- would this be considered moral or not? (even the very act of retreating from a war)

Answer 1

If you were hit would you hit back? If you were being forced into hunger or shelter problems would you use violent means to return back to previous living conditions? If you were being robbed would you fight to retain your property? Justifiable means many things to different people. Dealing with people doesn't have a one all solution. Long ago society came up with war as a last resort to settle grivences. Since the start even in individual examples it is always the person who is willing to go the fartherest who gets ahead. War is the last step to end anything. And so it is used as leverage, countries place themselves in that mindframe and situation where later they limit their choices. I believe that war is justifiable because I would probably act violently in any of the situations I listed above. Morally, no war is not justifiable ;but since when have humans used morals to settle differences? When that happens than maybe we can truly be civilized.

Answer 2

War is a human condition. Out of the past 5,000 years of recorded human history, there are only about thirty years for which no war is recorded, which is not the same as saying that no war was occurring. At any given time, there is now an average of thirty five wars occurring somewhere or other on this planet.

HMMM, let me see. Gee, why can't we all just get along?

In 1941, the USA was attacked by Japan. Japan already had attacked Korea and China, years before. The Japanese took over much of Asia and the Pacific. Was it immoral not to let them take over the USA as well?
In Europe, the Nazis took over most of the continent, plus parts of Africa and murdered fifteen million people, six millon of them just because they were Jewish. Was it immoral for Britain and the USA to attack Germany?
Was the American Civil war immoral because it wound up with African-Americans freed from slavery?
Was the American Revolution immoral? Should we have allowed ourselves to be subjected to the tyranny of King George the Third?

Answer 3

This isnt a complete question I dont believe.

There are many instances where a country enters a war that it did not create or instigate, yet they must enter it, and continue it through until the end for the sake of their own safety.

Such as the world wars. We didnt start the world wars, yet we had to fight them until they were finished for the sake of our own homeland survival.

But there are also cases where war is unavoidable, and a country must begin them simply because of opposing country(ies) will not back down or resolve the issue diplomatically, and continue to pose a real threat.

Large groups of people, their technology and cultural moral systems, their economy and global ambitions possess a great possibility of threat to the world around them.

War is inevitable, you cannot get around it. Its our American society that teaches us to believe that death and dying are some of the most horrible things a person can experience.

This simply is not true. Living with an oppressive government, having no rights or voice, having no hope for your future or for your children's future, all these things are worse than death, especially when your death can help produce a change for the better.

Dying with purpose is better than living without one. There is nothing more noble than to lay down your life for the sake of others. Thats what soldiers in war do every day.

The true question ought to be which wars are fought without justice, and without moral accountability not on one side, but on both.

Answer 4

Yes of course some wars are morally justifiable. If a nation is defending its own borders or if it is fighting another nation that is committing some horrible atrocities as was the case with Germany during WW2.

I think that the US going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after 9/11 is justifiable. However, lying about WMDs and pretending that there was some link between Iraq and 9/11 is not!

Answer 5

Since you FREELY asked this question in ENGLISH, and not German or Japanese, I'd have to answer your question with a resounding YES.

A last resort, for sure, but sometimes, the only resort. In reference to your "morally right or not," sometimes we have to deal with immoral people - ask yourself, is it morally right to dispose of an immoral, oppressive and fear mongering dictator? That's not an easy question because some things cannot be simplified and slotted into an easy yes or no answer.

There will always be leaders in this world who simply don't rule by the old adage, "Live and let live."

Thank a veteran and enjoy your freedom - unfortunately, it comes, sometimes, at a very high cost.

Answer 6

Yes. At present I believe war is still morally justifiable. If there were no evil dictators or genocidal factions in the world this would not be the case, but there are. To stand by and watch people slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands and do nothing is morally reprehensable. War is never a wonderful option, but surely killing the murderers and ultimately saving the lives of thousands is a moral reason to go to war.

Answer 7

1. Yes. The Allies v Germany/Japan/Italy in WW 2 was justifiable.
2. Yes. To prevent the horrors of Germany and Japan (ask the Chinese and Koreans concerning Japanese occupation) during WW 2.
3. If you know so little about WW 2, there's nothing that I can add in less than a week.

Try reading this.... Don't forget to read all the references. included.

Answer 8

never, never!! NEVER !!!!!!.
WE CAN NEVER JUSTIFIY A WAR.
The killing of innocent people is always the end result of a war and we know this .We allow people with warped notions and ideas in to power who latter abuse the trust we place in them .THIS was how hitler came to power and when we belive that killing is an acceptable way to deal with a problem the end result is always the same . We need to prevent the formation of armys and the growth of government .
GOVERNMENT GROWTH IS ALWAYS FOLLOWED WITH WAR . IT IS THE UNIFIYING BOND TO BRING EVERYONE TOGETHER AGAINST A COMMON ENEMY .
In the modern world news is instantanious and both sides can be seen in many cases .
Never in the history of man has an army been used souly for defense and generaly viewed as offense if you are the one being attacked .
THE idea that killing solves a problem is the wrong premise to work off .
IT is oppresion and the violation of rights which leads to war .

Answer 9

conflict is a human situation. Out of the previous 5,000 years of recorded human historical past, there are in elementary terms approximately thirty years for which no conflict is recorded, which isn't the comparable as asserting that no conflict became happening. At any given time, there is now an well-known of thirty 5 wars happening someplace or different on the planet. HMMM, enable me see. Gee, why can no longer all of us basically get alongside? In 1941, the rustic became attacked by using Japan. Japan already had attacked Korea and China, years until now. the jap took over lots of Asia and the Pacific. became it immoral to no longer enable them to take over the rustic to boot? In Europe, the Nazis took over most of the continent, plus areas of Africa and murdered fifteen million human beings, six millon of them basically using fact they have been Jewish. became it immoral for Britain and the rustic to attack Germany? became the yankee Civil conflict immoral using fact it wound up with African-human beings free of slavery? became the yankee Revolution immoral? could we've allowed ourselves to be subjected to the tyranny of King George the 0.33?

Answer 10

Do you really think that to kill somebody gives you the possibility in peace? Have you ever killed anybody for the sake of justice? I think not. If you do you will be put into prison for years for doing too much!!! Even if you kill a murderer! Do you really think that to kill hundreds will bring peace on earth. War bears another war. it become different. don't you know why terrorists appear. because they know they won't win. But they do everything possible to revenge for smth. I thought hard myself about it a lot of time. I hate war and consider there are no justified wars on the planet. Peace brings peace. Hate all politicians who wage wars.. I'd rather put all of them on adeserted Island and give them guns to give them to wage a war and kill each other and to make us free from them!!!