Calling all serious philosophers!?

Question

Discuss the claim that killing in warfare is more justifiable than other kinds of killing.

I met a person who believed that wars are part of the survival of the fittest theory...What do you think?

Answer 1

dont know i only do this for fun
does it really matter ?

Answer 2

No they aren't. The difficulty with most wars is that there is no such thing as political obligation. One is born in a particular jurisdiction without choice and is then expected to do what the government says. Most people have never entered into a contract with their government to say that they will do this. The exceptions are people who have changed their citizenships, and even then it isn't like they were able to opt out of living in a territory claimed by a government. Therefore, no-one has an absolute moral obligation to obey the law.

This means that in most cases there can be no justification for killing in war because there is no moral obligation to obey any authority unless one is free to choose whether to obey it or not. However, it may be prudent to do so, and killing can be undertaken without much blame due to circumstances which tend to arise more during war, such as self-defence.

It doesn't apply to all wars though. Civil wars often involve voluntary decisions to fight, and so soldiers in such wars may have decided to do so. There is also at least one international war which i believe was just - World War 2. There is no evidence that non-violent resistance would have worked against the Nazis and they would probably simply have exterminated the whole population of this nation if necessary to achieve victory. This would have led to severe public health problems for the Germans had they actually invaded, but they could have quarantined the islands until the danger was past. World War 2 is the only international war i can think of which may have been justified.

It isn't for me, as a privileged westerner, to decide if there is any justification for killing in a war in a poor country, where a clearly oppressed group is struggling for liberation. It is possible that it would also be justified then, and i have no way of putting myself realistically in their situation.

Answer 3

Survival of the fittest does not justify anything. Wars are more economic than about survival, anyway. Fighting to survive is often ethical, but survival of the fittest is an evolutionary maxim, not an ethical guidepost - a description of how systems tend to work, not how they should.

Killing in warfare delegates personal responsibility to the nation-state. As long as the nation-state makes ethical and well-informed decisions about making war, then the ethics of the killing should be fairly justified. In America today, we decide whether or not to join the military services, so the responsibility is shared.

We weigh the good of protecting one's country and countrymen, when few answer the call, versus the evil of killing and all that comes with it (ecological atrocity, waste, psychological pain on both sides). Monetary compensation further confuses the issue.

Answer 4

1. As far as the soldiers are concerned maybe you can argue that the best soldiers don't get killed. I don't think that's always true for the reasons I will discuss at point (2). Also as human beings I should think that the best of us (the fittest) are more than animals skilled at staying alive.
2. But what about all the civilians and soldiers that get killed because they were unlucky, what does that have to do with being fit? A bomb falls on a building and kills everybody. If fit means being made of steel or something that doesn't explode then obviously nobody is fit.
When 2 soldiers come face to face and one must die sure one of them is probably better. But like I said: at what? at killing? maybe he can get a better job as a proffesional killer...
As far as those who start the wars they are criminals throughout history and wars are never a justifiable way of killing and a human being should never have to be in the situation to kill somebody else to stay alive

Answer 5

From a classical utilitarian standpoint,

One could argue that it is sometimes necessary to fight a war in order to save lives or to save people from oppression. Perhaps by killing a million soldiers, one can prevent ten million others from dying. In this case, killing in war would be the greater good and it would be different from most other kinds of killing. There are three problems here however.

It could be said that the same justification may apply to killing a criminal who intends to kill others, so it is not the situation of warfare itself which makes killing permissible (or less repugnant), it is killing in order to save other lives. Secondly, there are very few wars which have resulted in fewer deaths than would have occurred if they were not fought. Finally, it is very hard to decide which out of life and freedom is better. Is a situation where 10 million are dead but all the survivors are free better than a situation were no-one dies but no-one is free either? Some would say so, others may say that the right to life of any human being trumps all other rights. After all, we may talk like Braveheart (you may take our lives etc), but only a minority of people in oppressed countries have ever put their money where there mouth was. Perhaps that means that deep, down, most people do consider almost any kind of life to be preferable to death. Maybe it seems as though I am going off topic here since we are (presumably) talking about killing combatants, but the point is that most people do think that life is to be valued more highly that everything else, whatever they may say to the contrary in more comfortable situations.

Anyway...

Another argument in favour of killing in warfare (albeit weaker, because some wars are fought with conscript armies or brainwashed youths), is that a soldier has chosen to go to war and risk his life for his cause. He knew what he was signing up for. This would mean that there is a fundamental difference between killing a soldier in battle and a civilian or a soldier who is not on duty.

Of course, one could argue that these facts are trivial, and that all killing is morally indefensible. If other people are killers, does that give us a right to be killers too? Two wrongs might not make a right.

Well, I'm not sure if what I have said is helpful, but there you go.

Answer 6

Warfare is only more justifiable if you are killing in order to save innocent life or protect yourself on your own land. To invade another land you are the instigator, the invader and there is no justice in this unless you were directly asked by members of the other land to liberate them then you may do so in a just way. I believe many wars are unjust because you are killing because you were ordered to and you obey that order, they are killing for the same reason, you may be killing someone who thinks in a way similar as you do, perhaps someone you might otherwise be friends with, all this killing in the name of a government who cannot grow up and settle things in a civilized manner. Other wars are against people who are dysfunctional and chaotic and dangerous prior to the war, these wars are fought in order to protect life and sanity. There is never victory in war, there is never honor in senseless killing of another human. Survival of the fittest is selfish, dysfunctional and contrary to nature when used in this sense. You never see wild animals killing it's own kind based on that theory, humans are the only ones. It is born of greed anger and hate.

Answer 7

it could be argued that any situation where some is going to be murdered is a kind of warfare. I dont think you can say that a goverment is somehow above justice.
as for your darwinistic interpretation wars obviously are part of evolution and so is love and every other thing that living things do. That doesn't mean it's good. I tend to think that it is more about fitting in than a fight for survival.

Answer 8

properly,i'm amused via the terminology - it makes me think of there is a few enterprise pronounced as "extensive-unfold Philosophers Ltd." or something like that. In any experience,because of the fact the lifestyles of a amazing being is neither provable nor disprovable there is not any reason to push aside all people's perspectives as intrinsically illogical because of the fact they suspect in god or a god. If besides the undeniable fact that they modern arguments the place the best judgment is residing heavily or completely on their very own assumptions on the subject of divinity-beings,then which could and can decrease their stature as secular philosophers,whether no longer their stature interior of a non secular context. Teilhard de Chardin as an example is explicitly catholic. it may be (lol!) illogical to push aside his profoundness while you evaluate that's imbued with catholicism.

Answer 9

I think this is not a philosophical question - more a moral one. Philosophy is really the study of what we can know and perceive -

But morally - myself, I think we are under-equpped to judge what is good and bad in human behavior - especially the big things we do as groups. Why do we group off into nations, for example, and consider it US and THEM - how silly, really, and arbitrary - if anyone's nation was a couple hundred miles longer or taller, it would include people that today are THEMs.

I think judging our war behavior would be like asking if it is right that lions kill zebras - who knows? It's not pleasant, but it happens, and everything that happens in nature, including us and our behaviors, is presumably part of nature, so - who among us is in a position to judge the decency or properness of nature?

That said, it is not a crime socialy to kill in war, but it is for personal gain or private agenda, so in the "local morality" of us, yes war is different and somehow legitmizes killing.

Answer 10

Thou shalt not kill. In the perfect world killing would not occur. I believe that this commandment was not only to protect those to which such atrocities would occur, but also to protect us from the inhumanity and pain of killing another human being.
Wars have been fought since the biblical days and many wars are for noble purpose. To free people from torment, abuse and neglect. Free those who cannot do such for themselves. We should always take great care and measure when deciding how to proceed in war.
Those who proceed carelessly will pay a heavy price in their future. Those who are forced to kill in self defense and defense of others, whose hearts are true are loved greatly by God. And since non of us is without sin...and sin does not have a point value...we are all in need of forgiveness.

Survival of the fittest...definitely.

Answer 11

I don't know if anyone has addressed this point, as I have not read all of the answers, but I felt it important to address.

Regardless of your standpoint on war in general. there is one overriding factor that is indisputable. Combatants in a war situation accept the duty, responsibility, and burden of the situation in which they are involved. That is to say, they know and accept the risks of warfare based on the premise upon which it is founded. The collateral civilian damage that results is another story and debatable on its own terms.

As far as the 'survival of the fittest' aspect is concerned, sometimes this is the reason a war occurs, but there are many others as well. Some, are not so virtuous.