Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: The morality and ethics of War
Thread: The morality and ethics of War This thread is 15 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 · «PREV / NEXT»
Lexxan
Lexxan


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
posted July 30, 2009 12:44 AM

Quote:
So you think it would be unethical to fight back to keep your wife from being raped? I would fight back.

So you think it would be unehical to fight back to keep your nation from being raped? I would fight back.


It only becomes unethical when the killing becomes unnessecairy. (remember Dresden in WW2?). War is not unethical per se. Organized deliberate overkill is though. Unfortunately, war always, or at least nearly always, comes with such unnessecairy killing. Would you fight and kill innocent civilians if your mate or nation are raped? (on a side-note, how can nations be raped? I some how imagine this with enormous holes in the ground and giant pallic symbols- but any that's not the point).

Quote:
Freedom can only be kept if you are willing to spill blood over it.


Quote:
There are no pacifict nations for a reason.

No, but there barely are countries that are aggressive, and willing to attack others. In the Modern Age, Wars usually have defencive purposes, such as the War on Terror. Motives like Hatred or Greed have been replaced by Fear and Peace-Keeping (Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum)

None of us knows the true horrors of War. I wonder what you (Elodin) would have said if you had actually fought in the war on Terror (and I assue you didn't)


____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted July 30, 2009 03:59 AM
Edited by Elodin at 04:00, 30 Jul 2009.

Quote:
It only becomes unethical when the killing becomes unnessecairy. (remember Dresden in WW2?). War is not unethical per se. Organized deliberate overkill is though. Unfortunately, war always, or at least nearly always, comes with such unnessecairy killing. Would you fight and kill innocent civilians if your mate or nation are raped? (on a side-note, how can nations be raped? I some how imagine this with enormous holes in the ground and giant pallic symbols- but any that's not the point).


What do you mean organized deliberate killing iw wrong? That is what you have to do in war. You organized offensive against the enemy and ordanized defensive forces to protect your forces and your population.

Obviously in the case of a crime like rape the only one needed to be fought is the person conducting the crim.

Was bombing Dresden wrong? The Allies were not the aggressor nation. They were combating Hitler. You may recall Britian was bombed mercilessly. The Allies bombed Dresden to try to bring an end to a war that they did not start. Dresden was the center of of communication for the German defense and bombing it disrupted communications.

Clicky

It is easy to be an archair quarterback and second guess to say this or that was overkill. If a war is forced on you by an aggressor then you must do what it takes to win and to protect your own civilians. War is not, never has been, and never will be nice.

By saying I would not stand by and watch my nation be raped of course I mean my nation being attacked.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
xerdux
xerdux


Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
posted July 30, 2009 04:12 AM
Edited by xerdux at 04:20, 30 Jul 2009.

Quote:
There are no pacifict nations for a reason.


Sweden etc?
Well, if you are discluding the fact that we sell stuff to kill people with - which totally sucks.
Also our peace keeping UN forces in countres such as Liberia dont count.

Well, I dont think war is nescessary at all.
Ofc a country should defend itself (that does not mean counterattacking and killing millions of civilians - hello "War on Terror") if it gets attacked. But then it boogles me WHY the country that was attacked got attacked in the first place.

edit: Also, I got the idea that "War was created through evolotion" from a science magasine you get once a month.
It was the same magasine that said religion was created through evoloution.
Just look at most high population and not über "dumb" animals. Like Ants. Ants have wars upon each others too because there are like a zillions of them.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted July 30, 2009 05:41 AM

Sorry, if you sell arms, have peacekeeping forces, or call on others for your defense you are not a pacifist. A pacifist won't take up arms for any reason.

In every war there will always be civilian casualties. This is especially ture when fighting the Islamic terrorists. Cowardly terrorists hide behind the skirts of women and in schools and hospitials to launch their attacks when possilbe. Counterattacks have to be launched to fight the terrorists and so civilian casualties will result. But if you don't fight them they continue to kill your civilians and donimate the nation.

It would be nice if war were carried on on a battlefield with only military units present like in HOMM. But we live in the real world, not in a fantasy land.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
del_diablo
del_diablo


Legendary Hero
Manifest
posted July 30, 2009 04:05 PM

Quote:
A pacifist won't take up arms for any reason.


I think thats true, if we was in the correct age. We are sadly not.
The moment all nations become 1, that moment the "military" as we phrase it today will be gone. At least for human fights, we will still likely have soliders under training for "alien invasions" or we encounter a hostile race from space and we need a little.

Quote:
This is especially ture when fighting the Islamic ANY terrorists.


Just had to fix that, terrorist will always be terrorists.
And think of it, backstabbing and planting bombs is a lot more effective for a counter tactic against invaders when your outnumbered, than rather than blind suicide.
And if the cursed invaders did not do a so poor job invading, there would be no terrorists today because of the lack of fueling the recruitment.

Quote:
It would be nice if war were carried on on a battlefield with only military units present like in HOMM. But we live in the real world, not in a fantasy land.


That has happend, with the exception of rape and supression which could happen that is. Still there are cases where it did not happen. An example is how Norway become 1 country, which was a not so bloody war. With the exception of minor pillaging(i guess).
Well, in that war the reasons behind it was:
*The king had a freaking goal(unite/take controll over entire Norway)
*No racial differences
*No religion to further increase the differences
*Lack of more fuel to the hatred

So yeah, it happend. But it was rare.

Quote:
Motives like Hatred or Greed have been replaced by Fear and Peace-Keeping (Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum)


Nah, its masked. It is still just in most cases Greed and Hatred, by the people who controls the dolls that is.

Quote:
edit: Also, I got the idea that "War was created through evolotion" from a science magasine you get once a month.
It was the same magasine that said religion was created through evoloution.
Just look at most high population and not über "dumb" animals. Like Ants. Ants have wars upon each others too because there are like a zillions of them.


I thought it was called "my domain, now leave our food alone", then later that day "die maggots! we need more food! die!".
____________



 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
DagothGares
DagothGares


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
posted July 30, 2009 05:18 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Do you have any idea how retarded that idea sounds, xerox?

Speaking of which,

I deserved that

Quote:
And if the country's leader, let's call him DagothGares, sat around and literally did absolutely nothing, than that leader is guilty of mass manslaughter and treason.
And here is the things, snowboy. I am not a soldier, I am also not a principe. I as an individual can be against war in every way possible, because I do not have the duties of these professions.

Quote:
I'm sorry, but I don't buy your spin. Putting an adjective or adverb in front of "dumb" doea not make it not an insult.

I am more creative than you.
Seldomly dumb
Conveniently dumb
Seemingly dumb

and you do not hold up mirrors, you just want the chop the limbs of the people who gave you papercuts. It's not really the same.

Quote:
Just look at most high population and not über "dumb" animals. Like Ants. Ants have wars upon each others too because there are like a zillions of them.

Ants are hiveminds, we are not. And if there's one thing animals fight about it is and always is food or mates.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted July 30, 2009 05:24 PM

Quote:
I am not a soldier, I am also not a principe. I as an individual can be against war in every way possible, because I do not have the duties of these professions.
Which is why your opinion doesn't hold much significance, and you said so yourself.

I've noticed (not here) layman people always DEMAND that software bugs be fixed, as if software is some wizardry where the developers are lazy and don't want to wave that magic wand to fix them!

They have about as much significance as you do: you can be against wars, those people can be against software bugs and call developers lazy, but in the real world, a magic wand can't just be waved to fix them.

Quote:
Ants are hiveminds, we are not.
I don't see the relevance. This cliche response doesn't really work everywhere without you trying to make some relevance out of it
Quote:
And if there's one thing animals fight about it is and always is food or mates.
Isn't the same about humans, excluding ideology wars?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
DagothGares
DagothGares


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
posted July 30, 2009 05:32 PM

Quote:
Isn't the same about humans, excluding ideology wars?

Hello there, how is this relevant, now?
Anyway, the point is that people don't fight to keep their numbers down, deathy-boy
Quote:
I don't see the relevance.
I forgot to make my point, silly me. When ants wage war, it's because of the desire o the hivemind. We do not have a hivemind. We wage war for different reasons either way or we even have the choice of not going to war or not fighting.

And the analogy with the the developpers is kinda off...
I do not demand my government to fix things, I demand they just do not go into war. I can accept them fighting back, but again this should be the last measure. I'm allowed to dream, aren't I? I also pretty much favour the idea of a world police, by the way. Of course, ideal would be for everyone to lay down their weapons and that people no longer live to kill eachother.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted July 30, 2009 05:37 PM

Quote:
Hello there, how is this relevant, now?
Anyway, the point is that people don't fight to keep their numbers down, deathy-boy
Since when did animals fight FOR that? It's just a side effect.
Quote:
I don't see the relevance.I forgot to make my point, silly me. When ants wage war, it's because of the desire o the hivemind. We do not have a hivemind. We wage war for different reasons either way or we even have the choice of not going to war or not fighting.
It's the same thing. They listen to the Queen, you listen to the government (implicitly by paying taxes). Furthermore, how would you describe the nazis in WW2?

Quote:
And the analogy with the the developpers is kinda off...
I do not demand my government to fix things, I demand they just do not go into war. I can accept them fighting back, but again this should be the last measure. I'm allowed to dream, aren't I? I also pretty much favour the idea of a world police, by the way. Of course, ideal would be for everyone to lay down their weapons and that people no longer live to kill eachother.
My analogy was thus. Wars have a purpose (whether it be greed, bad, or defense or whatever). That's what they have to fix, and war is the solution, or so they see it.

If you think you can do a better job, go ahead, just like in software: if you think you can fix the bugs by waving a magic wand (this is talking to those laymen who say that), go ahead.

For instance saying "stop the nazis" or "stop them from bombing" requires a solution. Their solution, not always perfect, is war. You say it's wrong. Alright, wave your magic wand and find a better solution. It's 1:1 analogy to the software I mentioned.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
DagothGares
DagothGares


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
posted July 30, 2009 05:44 PM

For the first quote: tell that to xerox.

Second quote: Obviously we disagree here.

For the third quote: War is never the only solution... the moment death is the only answer, then humanity has failed, that's my opinion.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
xerdux
xerdux


Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
posted July 30, 2009 05:47 PM

Humanity has already failed

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted July 30, 2009 05:53 PM
Edited by TheDeath at 17:54, 30 Jul 2009.

I'll only reply to the third one. Let me analyze this opinion of yours and let me explain why I find it lacks relevance (of course I could be wrong, feel free to detail).

You are saying war isn't the solution, and obviously in the process call those who are in charge of it dumb for choosing this solution (or greedy, which I agree with btw). Let's assume that they ARE NOT greedy in this example (just for the sake of it!), as it happens rarely.

You say that they don't choose best, in your opinion, it's a wrong decision. Alright, then they invite you to make your decision. You may very well say "I don't have the expertise/am not in the position to do that" (I've seen this posted numerous times over my internet lifetime).

The PROBLEM here is self evident: if you don't have the expertise, and don't know anyone else with your opinion who HAS the expertise or know any other solution, how can you say their decision is wrong?

For instance here's a layman dialog to explain what I mean. This is between a layman person (L) and a physicist (P):

L: Man, so when are you gonna give me that anti-gravity car?
P: I won't, it's impossible with my current knowledge.
L: I definitely think that thrusters are NOT the solution to flying cars. The cars should use gravity, not fight against it!
P: As I said, I don't know of any solution that can use gravity to levitate.
L: No like I said, thrusters are not the solution. So do something about it!
P: I'm not a wizard. I can't wave a magic wand to make it happen. If you think you can do it, why don't you give me an idea how I should proceed?
L: I don't know, obviously, I don't have the expertise and am not a physicist, not even a hobbyist.
P: Then WTF are you doing telling me it can be done? Do you hase this on experience, on someone else who has done it, or someone else who has an idea at least how to proceed instead of just "do it somehow"?



Dagoth, I realize what you're saying that war is bad and that humans shouldn't need it. And I don't disagree, if humans were angels. However, you know my opinion on the snows humans are, so I think, war is inevitable.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted July 30, 2009 05:54 PM

Quote:
and you do not hold up mirrors, you just want the chop the limbs of the people who gave you papercuts. It's not really the same.


Yes, well why should I show mercy to one who starts a war with me? War is hell. Even word wars. You do remember me saying I believe in overwhelming force, right? It would be wise for you to keep that in mind, friend.

Quote:
We do not have a hivemind.


Explain the chants of "Yes we can....yes we can. Ob..." then. You should have said some of us are not in the hive mind.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
blizzardboy
blizzardboy


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
posted July 30, 2009 05:56 PM
Edited by blizzardboy at 17:58, 30 Jul 2009.

Quote:
For the third quote: War is never the only solution... the moment death is the only answer, then humanity has failed, that's my opinion.


Neville Chamberlain pretty much tried that approach.  

If a situation is bad enough, you eventually have to just use force. It's the same reason why authorities are extremely discouraged to pay criminals ransoms. The criminals are already a belligerent force, so if you give them what they want, you're almost certainly inviting them to do it again or ask for more. Somewhere, you have to draw the line. War is never a positive solution, but sometimes it is a sustainer. If you go to war not because you hate the people in front of you, but because you love the people behind you, then you have not failed. Only the initiators have failed.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
DagothGares
DagothGares


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
posted July 30, 2009 06:04 PM

Quote:
Explain the chants of "Yes we can....yes we can. Ob..." then. You should have said some of us are not in the hive mind.
Everyone has the power to make their own judgement. If those people felt like supporting Obama... in that way, then they did on their own. Obama isn't some psychic warlord who used mind-control, either way

@ death:
The thing is, I realise there is some sort of necessity to defend, but war is never necessary, because I think the aggressor always had the option to: not attack. When was there no other option but to attack? I am willing to listen to that type of exceptional circumstance.

My question is: when has war been beneficial to modern society?
When was there no other outcome BUT war?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
angelito
angelito


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
posted July 30, 2009 06:11 PM

Quote:
Actually and excuse my French, you people are - to slightly change a well-known song of Pink Floyd - comfortably dumb...
Last warning for JJ.
Insults are not allowed. Direct or non-direct doesn't make a difference. Any further similar posting will result in a penalty.

@ Elodin
Don't worry, we Mods will do our job. There is no need to play the backseat moderator. Thanks for the effort....
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted July 30, 2009 06:15 PM
Edited by TheDeath at 18:17, 30 Jul 2009.

Quote:
@ death:
The thing is, I realise there is some sort of necessity to defend, but war is never necessary, because I think the aggressor always had the option to: not attack. When was there no other option but to attack? I am willing to listen to that type of exceptional circumstance.
The AGGRESSOR? not the defender?
You are talking about the AGGRESSOR?
Why do you think he/she is an angel that "cares for humanity overall"?
Are you trying to reason with the aggressor? Man... you have a view of humanity that is far, far away from mine.

Some only care for themselves (and their power). If they benefit they will go to war. Also pride in "might".

Others simply wage war on ideology. (see below)

Quote:
My question is: when has war been beneficial to modern society?
When was there no other outcome BUT war?
you have to define "beneficial". It's certainly not beneficial for Nazis the current world's state, especially with *ahem* jews still around *ahem*.

Humans are snows as a whole, not angels. To fight snows you have to use their language.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted July 30, 2009 06:29 PM

Quote:
When was there no other option but to attack? I am willing to listen to that type of exceptional circumstance.

My question is: when has war been beneficial to modern society?
When was there no other outcome BUT war?


When you are attacked in a war you will have to counterattack if you expect to win the war. Just sitting back and defending will not win the war.

I would say that war against such men as Hitler was very beneficial to society. Unless you would prefer to live under the iron boot of a mad dictator. If that is no modern enough, how about Kosovo?

As long as there are evil people some evil person will start a war. To defeat the evil person you will have to go on the offensive.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
DagothGares
DagothGares


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
posted July 30, 2009 06:33 PM

power and wealth can be increased through economical measures, like tax lowering, or selling the weapons of your military () and a cultural measure of increased education, while ideologies can be spread through cultural measures, again with increased education. No need for extreme political measures to do these things

See, I just told you how to do anti-gravity
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted July 30, 2009 06:36 PM

Quote:
power and wealth can be increased through economical measures, like tax lowering, or selling the weapons of your military () and a cultural measure of increased education, while ideologies can be spread through cultural measures, again with increased education. No need for extreme political measures to do these things

See, I just told you how to do anti-gravity
No they can't. They have to force it (in case of ideology) to match what they want. For economic gains, it's a smaller economic gain for them in those cases -- not to mention the "might" and pride which is relative. If everyone benefits (including them) they are not the ones at the top anymore, just average!

Also what if the ideology implies Jews being non existent, like nazis?
That can be spread, but unless you get to kill them, it won't have much effect.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 15 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1005 seconds