Most societies condemn murder, legally ,religiously and morally. So why is war OK and always has been?

Question

War is a term we use for mass murder and slaughter. As long as we continue this way does it not make our societies non sense. And since society is an extension of each one of us, what is our collective responsiblity to this huge problem?

yohan m. how clever you are my friend to be able to discern from one question my state of mind and my sense of the world.
Shame you didnt guide that sharp mind to actually answer the question.
Nice tribal outlook though club a man thats gonna club you.
Cheers i have learnt a lot.

Our history shows that war is part of our way of being. We can argue about, but it is written down. The question is do we need to continue like this?

agreed in part lexo, it is not that i am saying that war is ok it certainly is not! Yet we have been at war as a race of people everlastingly. Therefore despite what we say or not say the facts remain.

Answer 1

I agree that war is spiritually, morally and economically a very bad idea.

I think the major difference between war and murder is when people are united like in war they gain a sort of mob mentality - thinking its us or them!! but we are all human and need to sort ourselves out before the planet does it for us, besides escalation of our wars is still increasing and we will be very soon warring over resources

Answer 2

War is not OK. I believe that the asker here has confused OK and necessary or acceptable. OK means that it is fine or good at all levels. Very few things are OK, and I personally don't think there is one thing that at all times is OK, most actions are OK if the motives behind them are good. Such as giving a child a present. If a Parent gives a child a present that could be the parent doing something worse then hitting that child, such as if the parent was giving a present to a child for the sole reason but to stop him or her from continuing a temper tantrum in public. Giving that gift or practicing Generosity in that situation is not OK. This is the same with every other action. What we need to ask ourselves is, "what I am doing necessary or acceptable?". If the answer is no, than it is not OK. If the answer is Yes, than I guess war can be at best an necessary or acceptable consequence, such as World War 2. Between Hitler controlling firstly Europe and eventually the world, and in the process eradicating the disabled or handicapped people, Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies and Other Undesirables population or having a war where a group of nations decided to stop him, became acceptable. The consequence of millions laying down their lives became an acceptable gamble, instead of having to live in a world dominated by fascism.

Answer 3

I'm a bit confused as to why you think that a.) war is OK and b.) it always has been. Who says it's OK? Governments? But it's precisely governments that wage 'war'. When small groups of the population do the same thing, the government tends to call it not war but 'terrorism'. Calling it 'war' gives it a legitimacy that it might not otherwise have had. For example, the rulers of the Third Reich declared that their nation was engaged in a life-or-death struggle with Judaism, thereby giving a veneer of legitimacy to the persecution and ultimate attempted extermination of entirely innocent Jews.

War is considered by many people more morally acceptable than murder because it has been a fixture of most political theories, in the last thousand years or so at any rate, that the state sometimes has a right to engage in actions that it would disapprove of if individuals engaged in them - because the state is granted the power by individuals to act on behalf of the population, and therefore is obliged to act in 'the greater good'.

In practice, of course, there have been very very few occasions when a declaration of war has been morally defensible. Most wars are not, in fact, 'OK', or have at least been arguable. But there are many different kinds of moral, political and financial benefit to be accrued from engaging in war, so the short-term interests tend to prevail over the long-term undesirability of war in general.

Answer 4

You raise an interesting point but can I suggest that killing in warfare is something very different from murder. Murder implies a personal act against another person, contrary to law. A state of war legitimises killing as a last resort in defence of those otherwise unable to defend themselves. I don't believe anyone takes killing lightly just as I am sure no one takes military action lightly. Without getting into the debate about whether wars in defence of economic interests or religious beliefs are legitimate, I believe there are circumstances in which any of us would kill an enemy threatening the life of those we love or torturing them. You say wars are based on just a difference of opinion but would you say that if your parents were being tortured and your home bulldozed by in invading force who wanted to occupy your country? You could try having a rational argument with an invading army but fighting back is more likely to secure a solution you find acceptable. In those circumstances, people die but I wouldn't call it murder.

Answer 5

Groupthink is a term in sociology that describes how when people get together they think in terms of the simplest person there, namely the primal self. If there was a group in human history that understood how and elevated mentally over war, I'm sure they were killed by another group searching proper caves to live. even worse I'm sure the living group didn't even appreciate or understand how to manipulate the geography they were native to. Oh and murder is wrong whereas the death penalty is ok. some people believe they are life and other people are death.

Answer 6

Because, to quote the U.S. Korean War Memorial...

"FREEDOM IS NOT FREE"

The fact that you are able to sit and ask such questions is because you live in a free society and wars are a necessary evil that have to be used when someone threatens that freedom.

The alternative is that you simply allow others to enslave you against your will. Perhaps you would enjoy that. Personally, I wouldn't and I am prepared to fight, and if necessary kill, to protect my freedom.

How can I justify this? Because, as long as someone is peaceful towards me, I will live and let live. However, if someone wishes to threaten the life or liberty of myself or my friends, then I reserve the right to stop them by whatever means necessary. Hopefully, that will be by peaceful means, but I'm prepared to use violence if that is what it takes.

*** EDIT ***

I can't believe some of the things I'm reading on this question!

aliassotu, you said "Nice tribal outlook though club a man thats gonna club you." So do I take it from that, that when Hitler invaded the low countries and France that Britain should have sat on its hands and done nothing? What about when he launched operation Sealion and invaded? What about if he decided that he didn't like the English any more than the Jews and started gassing us in our millions? Are you honestly saying that that *still* wouldn't give us the right to use deadly force to defend ourselves?

Is *that* what you're really saying? Or am I missing something?

Answer 7

War is a political problem. Remember the argentinian war? The gulf war? We didn't ask for any of those.
On the other hand how else do you deal with a Hitler?
There are no easy answers because this is not an ideal world, each situation is different, and as individuals we don't have that much influence.

Answer 8

I think that you miss two key points.

The people who 'launch' the war have already 'justified' the legal, moral & religious issues in their own eyes, so they do not think that they are doing anything wrong - infact they feel that they are correct in doing so.

War is, virtually always about the aquisition of land, when invaders go into a country / land, so when people try and take over the land in question the people who are already there are forced to defend themselves / put up a resistance.

Answer 9

Most societies and religions have a loophole that allows a "just war". That has been the excuse for most wars with both sides claiming that their cause is just.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been condemned by just about every social, legal, religious and moral authority in the world. This had no effect on Blair and Bush who make up their own religious and moral codes when it suits them.

The American protestant churches are too fragmented to do much about Bush. If his own church expelled him, he'd just go to the one down the road. However, with the Archbishop of Canterbury currently in Rome, perhaps it's time for the Anglican and Catholic churches jointly to condemn Blair as the Antichrist.

Answer 10

Because war is fought under the guise of being "right". The crucial difference is that murder is commited by an individual and the individual is sent to war by the government. So, while both are illegal, immoral acts one is overlooked by the powers that be, in order for "a greater good". Which we all know means they gain something from it.