I see debating the wisdom of pursuing particular war policies as reasonable, but doctrinaire pacifism as absurd. My approach to war would be informed by Thomist just war theory. If you go over just war theory and explain why a particular cause for warfare is good or bad, that'd pretty much be how you'd persuade me one way or the other on it. But I see total pacifism that isn't historically contingent on the specific injustice of a particular cause as unserious because incapable of sustaining a real human community. Talk like that is parasitic on those who provided the material security to allow that kind of talk.

Not sure what that would look like but I would say that for many people it would not. Quality counselling might help. — Tom Storm

Wait a minute. Because some prisons have begun educating prisoners by using the classics, we know these novels can change lives. We know Kennedy faced a lot of pressure to involve the US in the Vietnam War and in a war with Cuba, and even a war with the USSR. He succeeded in standing against these war mongers until he was killed.

Every human being has a choice, and I think philosophy greatly improved our choices. I will choose philosophy over Christianity and the terrible belief that we can not avoid wars and other bad behavior. True, many of us behave badly, and I think that is most likely when we are ignorant. And it appears to me that religious people who read only their religious book are the biggest problem. The holy books come from a past that was not as good as the progress we have made.

I created a thread titled War for the discussion that is for and against war. I am wondering Ben, where were you during the US and Cuban missile crisis? We would not be having this discussion if it had not been for Kennedy's leadership. Arguing in favor of war that is nothing like wars past, maybe a failure of understanding a nuclear war.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16341/war