For example, how can one understand the "ethics" of "war" or "commerce" or "economic policy" AS APPLIED to individuals. These are inherently things only applied to state apparatuses and institutions. That is to say, "governmental entities". That is why I would split government or political ethics as a different domain than individual ethics. — schopenhauer1
What are the rules of these ethics that apply to states? — Tzeentch
I don’t know, can you declare war as an individual? What makes a government declare war and not you if it’s all the same kind of decisions?
Clearly government has decisions that are things that can't obtain at the level of an individual. And it isn't just that the individual making decisions are doing it on behalf of himself, but is in some sense, on behalf of the state, in the capacity as an official in power, governing the state... — schopenhauer1
In the OP it states that there is a good chance of success, that means that hypothetically someone must have done his hypothetical homework and reached that hypothetical conclusion. It is hypothetically possible that these particular invaders were to loaded down with admonitions to be able to carry gas masks. It is also hypothetically possible that the Germans thought that the British were to moral to use gas and eliminated them in favor of a couple of bottles of beer.
My point is that we are discussing the hypothetical question in the OP and not reality. — Sir2u
(See Churchill and mustard gas)In his role as Secretary of State for War and Air in the wake of the First World War he ordered the use of mustard gas by the RAF in support of the pro-Tsarist White forces fighting to contain the Bolsheviks. This was after the Bolsheviks employed captured German gas shells against the Whites. When news of his intentions broke in Parliament there was uproar. ‘I do not understand why, if they use poison gas,’ he told the House of Commons, ‘they should object to having it used against them.’ When the raucous objections had died down he retorted, ‘it is a very right and proper thing to employ poison gas against them.’ Six Bolshevik targets were bombed by the RAF with little effect.
When Afghanistan invaded British ruled India in 1919 Churchill urge the use of mustard gas against the marauding Afghan tribesmen. This according to Churchill was on the grounds that ‘Gas is a more merciful weapon than high explosive.’ When the India Office in London objected pointing out that this would set a dangerous precedent with the Muslim population on the Northwest Frontier and in India generally, the idea was quietly dropped. Instead conventional bombs were deployed and the invaders driven back over the border. Likewise, the following year when the widespread Iraq Revolt broke out in Mesopotamia, Churchill once more authorised the use of gas. However, as all the mustard gas bombs had been sent to Russia none were available. Undeterred he ordered the army to despatch 15,000 gas shells that were stockpiled in Egypt. Again though only conventional means were used to crush the rebels. A vexed Churchill wrote to his colleagues ‘I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas.’ Subsequently the use of chemical weapons was banned internationally in 1925 under the Geneva Protocol. Churchill seems to have taken very little heed of this.
And the debate about the justification would be quite similar to the debate about terror bombings. — ssu
Heads of state often do. Or wage one without a declaration. Sometimes in secret.I don’t know, can you declare war as an individual? — schopenhauer1
Nothing makes a government declare a war or launch a war; a powerful individual or a small group of like-minded individuals entrusted with the governance of a nation, usually confer with the top generals and make the decision in camera. I very much doubt ethical considerations at the top of their agenda when deliberating. In some instances, that decision is then brought before a parliament or congress or senate for ratification. By then, the wheels are already in motion.What makes a government declare war and not you if it’s all the same kind of decisions? — schopenhauer1
Yes. On behalf of some elements of the state, on behalf of 'the state' in their opinion, at the expense of the people - even if they need to introduce conscription because the war isn't popular enough to attract enough volunteers, even if they have to use deception and coercion on the people.And it isn't just that the individual making decisions are doing it on behalf of himself, but is in some sense, on behalf of the state, in the capacity as an official in power, governing the state.. — schopenhauer1
In a government, on a battlefield, or a corporation, or a courtroom or a church, actual persons make actual decisions. If these persons are bound by one set of ethics when they shop, another when they enlist for the army, a third when they apply for a job, a fourth when they go to Friday, Saturday or Sunday service, a fifth when they run for public office, a sixth when they take the bar exam, a seventh when reach the status of CEO, general or senator or judge -- how can they ever make an ethical decision? — Vera Mont
Then there's the question of the OP, would this have been justified.
If the UK would have repelled the attack and the war would have ended as it did, obviously yes, Britons would see it justified. And the debate about the justification would be quite similar to the debate about terror bombings.
If the UK would have lost and UK would have been occupied, it would be seen as another huge error that the totally reckless Churchill did, who in his arrogant attempt to defend the country even when the army had been destroyed in France. The "what if" would have been if the reasonable "Lord Halifax" would have been chosen prime minister and a peace would have been done with Germany. — ssu
The "what if" would have been if the reasonable "Lord Halifax" would have been chosen prime minister and a peace would have been done with Germany. — ssu
The final years in office. Chamberlain resigned as Prime Minister in May 1940 following the debacle of the Norwegian campaign. Halifax was seen as a leading candidate to replace him but he realised that Churchill would make a superior war leader and, pleading ill-health, withdrew from the race.
Halifax was nicknamed ‘the Holy Fox’, reflecting his passion for hunting and his Christian moral outlook.
Halifax realised earlier than Chamberlain, but later than others, that Britain would have to stand firm against Nazi demands for territorial aggrandisement. But it came too late to avoid him being cast in 1940 as one of the ‘Guilty Men’ (in the publication of the same name), held responsible for the war by appeasing fascism.
The same ethic applies to those men in the Cabinet as applies to them in their homes. War - like every other executive decision - is not the same kind of decision as any other: it's bigger than most and involves other people, willingly or reluctantly, with informed consent or unwittingly. But it's not the size and scope of the decision that determines ethics, and there is not a closet full of ethical varieties to choose among for different occasions.They don't get to shed their citizen ethic like a robe and put on their governance ethic along with the striped suit. — Vera Mont
And this actually is the answer to the question of the OP in my view. Natural you can take the stance that something that a country has accepted to be unlawful... is also unlawful in war.You are probably right that the winners are nearly always seen as being on the moral high ground. — Sir2u
Naturally the industrial base of the military industrial complex is a rightful target, but from there you can easily enlarge the target scope to the population in general. After all, Douhuet's idea of bombing cities was to make the population loose support for the war and have peace come more quickly.
Typically the impact was quite the opposite: bombing of cities increased the determination of the civilian population to support the war. — ssu
But this is my point. This is why "ethics proper" would be a category error to apply to "governments". For example, how can one understand the "ethics" of "war" or "commerce" or "economic policy" AS APPLIED to individuals. These are inherently things only applied to state apparatuses and institutions. That is to say, "governmental entities". That is why I would split government or political ethics as a different domain than individual ethics. It is now dealing with abstract entities of state actors, which are liable to things such as "wars", "tariffs", "treaties", and the like, all things that are not done at an individual level.
So here we have a situation whereby Israel is claiming that it was attacked, which, similar to say, a Pearl Harbor situation, would lead it to declare war, or some military response to the attacker.
They have obviously now done so against Hamas, who had initiated the current conflict by killing civilians indiscriminately, brutally, and whathaveyou.
So now, Israel is conducting a war where it must face various modern dilemmas, that state actors must do in war. The main dilemma is, unlike battles in the 1700s or 1800s which were often done on open fields, these asymmetrical wars, are often conducted in urban environments, whereby the soldiers hide in plain clothes. In this case, it is even more stark because billions of dollars were put into tunnel systems that wrap around, under, and into civilian infrastructure, basically making the whole city a web-fortress.
Then the calculations of how to conduct the war. In such a messy, web-like urban environment, let's say there are two ways of conducting the war to get rid of Hamas.
Let's say there are two broad approaches:
A1) Just ground troops
A2) Aerial bombardment and ground troops.
A1)Let us say, if the first approach was the one taken, 10x the casualties on one's own side would take place, and the war would become bogged down to indefinite, hellish levels for one's own troops because it would become essentially an unending maze or trap.
A2) The second broad approach allows your troops enough room to maneuver and eventually go in and fight more aggressively, saving lives for your own troops, and ending the war more quickly.
So, I am fine discussing international law.. But it will simply get bogged down to various instances whereby "Did this fighter, by ducking into a building, make that building a legitimate target in the eyes of international law".. Having civilians as "human shields" doesn't make the enemy use it as a "get out of jail free" during a war. As we both agreed, (even if we detest war and violence), war is a "legitimate" thing countries can wage. — schopenhauer1
'States' are ruled by persons. The decisions in war, as in manufacturing, as in agriculture, as in trade, re made by individuals either separately or in groups that communicate and agree on a conclusion.This is a bit of a straw man, as it isn't just size and scope that is different here, but the very content is different. "War" is something between states. — schopenhauer1
It is not a bunch of phenomena. It is a series of actions taken by human beings, following a series of decisions made by other human beings. An individual, or co-ordinated group of individuals has to do what an individual orders them to do after an individual has decided on a strategy. At every point in that process, a human being has to consult his own conscience: "Is this the right course of action?"You can use the word analogously, "I am going to war with you!" but the fact that there is a legitimacy in using violent, large-scale means that bring with it other phenomena like collateral damage, drafts, and the like means that it is something different in kind than anything that an individual can do. — schopenhauer1
Yes, all that, plus the fact that from one hour to the next both leaders and followers will individually have to decide what to do next -- and what not to do.Thus, if we agree that "war" is something that is legitimate to wage in certain circumstances, we must understand all that entails... which means possible civilian deaths due to war, which presumably, would be part of this phenomenon, legitimate or not. — schopenhauer1
You mean, it's okay for mothers and teachers to speed in a school zone, as long as taxi driver and shoppers don't?Personal and professional ethics are quite different. Each role a person plays within a group, the person adopts the ethics of that group. If your are a mother, teacher, shopper, taxi driver for the kids your role dictates the ethical rules you follow. — Sir2u
It's okay for a shopper to pocket the odd can of tuna because prices are too high, and for the seller of a lawn mower to lie about its condition to get a better price?For example, as a shopper you expect prices not to rise too much and curse the supermarkets when they do, but as a seller you try to get the best possible price for the second hand lawn mower you are selling.
Then what is it you're confused about?And this brings us to where a lot of people get confused, your moral compass is the same in each of the roles you play. — Sir2u
Sounds more like the present sanctimonious propaganda of trying to give an excuse why population centers should be bombed in the first place. Because you don't hide formations in cities, you deploy them to the field where they can move and operate. You can choose which terrain you defend, but choosing an urban environment isn't hiding. It's more about trying to make that urban area your fortress.Ah gotcha.. What about bombing Nazis/Japanese Imperial forces that hid within population centers? — schopenhauer1
What, exactly, did Douhet preach? The main assumptions of his airpower concept, all contained in The Command of the Air and other writings, can be summarized briefly.
Wars are no longer fought between armies, but between whole peoples, he believed, and future wars would be total and unrestrained, with civilians as legitimate targets. Wars are won by destroying “the enemy’s will to resist”—and only this produces “decisive victory.” Defeat of enemy forces is a poor indirect route. It is far better to strike directly at “vital centers” of power inside an enemy nation.
World War I was a turning point, showing armies and navies can no longer end wars; the power of the defense—poison gas, machine guns—makes offensive action futile.
The airplane, though, is revolutionary, “the offensive weapon par excellence,” able to bypass surface defenses and carry out massive attacks on cities, destroying the enemy’s will to resist.
Air power advocates like Giulio Douhet advocated the use of air power as a tool to avoid
trench warfare and dramatically shorten wars. Aircraft would attack an enemy’s sources of
strength, namely its population centers to force the enemy to sue for peace. The key was to
destroy the enemy’s will to fight. Great Britain’s RAF was a strong proponent of using strategic air power to avoid another major ground war. Air Marshal Hugh Trenchard was a major advocate for the role of strategic bombing. In the United States, Brigadier General Billy Mitchell was another strong air power advocate.
You mean, it's okay for mothers and teachers to speed in a school zone, as long as taxi driver and shoppers don't? — Vera Mont
It's okay for a shopper to pocket the odd can of tuna because prices are too high, and for the seller of a lawn mower to lie about its condition to get a better price? — Vera Mont
Then what is it you're confused about? — Vera Mont
As Arthur Harris, the commander of the British Bomber Command, put it: "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. — ssu
Harris was true to his word. — ssu
you deploy them to the field where they can move and operate. You can choose which terrain you defend, but choosing an urban environment isn't hiding. It's more about trying to make that urban area your fortress. — ssu
During WW2 and prior ot WW2 the idea was of bombing urban centers was to force the countries to surrender ...without a long WW1 -type of war. Douhet started from the idea that strategic bombing, bombing of the cities and hence the civilians, would bring a quick peace. From Air and Spaceforces magazine writes on Douhet: — ssu
Of course somehow the idea doesn't take into consideration the enemy also believing this. As Arthur Harris, the commander of the British Bomber Command, put it: "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind." — ssu
It is not a bunch of phenomena. It is a series of actions taken by human beings, following a series of decisions made by other human beings. An individual, or co-ordinated group of individuals has to do what an individual orders them to do after an individual has decided on a strategy. At every point in that process, a human being has to consult his own conscience: "Is this the right course of action?" — Vera Mont
That truly is a ridiculous belief.. as if the Germans had some monopoly on that strategy. — schopenhauer1
Yes, I got that: Different roles, different ethics.I will give you a clue, look up how the word "role" is used in either of the subjects I mentioned. — Sir2u
So, what are the different kind of ethics that would guide your decision according to the hat you were wearing? How exactly does the ethical system of teachers differ from the ethical system of taxi drivers? If it is not in the matter of honesty, fair dealing, observance of public safety or respect for property, what is the salient matter of each role-specific ethic?Each role a person plays within a group, the person adopts the ethics of that group. — Sir2u
They were examples for the application of different ethics to different roles, as you failed to mention any. No, grumbling is not an ethical choice, nor is desire for profit.This is even more pathetic than the previous one. Please show me anywhere it mentions stealing or lying. — Sir2u
War is armed conflict between two or more groups with opposing objectives.What is "war"? — schopenhauer1
Legitimate is a legal term. Any act that conforms with the pertinent law is legitimate. Laws are drafted and legislated by human agencies constituted for the purpose. If a war falls within the currently accepted international definition, it's legitimate.Do you think war is can be legitimate? — schopenhauer1
Whether you say it aloud or just think it, considering a war legitimate means you agree with its objectives. That may imply - or someone may infer from it - that you accept whatever methods are used to attain those objectives. This could the 'ends justify mean' territory - can't be too sure about implications.Tacitly saying that war is legitimate, means something..but what? — schopenhauer1
Yes. And people keep making new rules in futile attempts to cover the changed situations. And people keep breaking those rules.Also, as ssu is at pains to point out, the nature of war changes over time, and looks quite different from ancient times, to the 1200s and Ghengis Kahn, to the 1700s and in the colonial territories, to the 1800s and various imperial wars, or civil wars, to the 1900s with total wars... — schopenhauer1
I think the laws of war are quite clear on this case: if a combatant uses an otherwise restricted area as a fighting position, let's say a hospital or a church/mosque, it can be attacked.So that is the question at hand.. What do you do in this case in modern warfare.. The extent by which you engage the enemy in a fortress whereby they use the public and private buildings... — schopenhauer1
Legitimate is a legal term. Any act that conforms with the pertinent law is legitimate. Laws are drafted and legislated by human agencies constituted for the purpose. If a war falls within the currently accepted international definition, it's legitimate. — Vera Mont
In my view here there is the obvious case of where appliance to laws of war have degraded from the past. Far too easily if one side chooses to disregard the laws of war, the other side opts similar ways. Even if it's an anecdotal and a single event, it's still telling that unarmed Israeli hostages trying to surrender to Israeli forces were gunned downed... because the Israeli soldiers thought "it was a trap", or so at least they justified their actions. Compared to the 19th Century, in many ways warfare has become far more barbaric than before starting with the idea of total war. We don't want to acknowledge it, but I think it's the truth. — ssu
That seems unethical. You are not allowed to defend yourself now if someone does you harm? I think that is a universally accepted notion... And again, the issue then becomes about collateral damage, not waging a war against an aggressor who wants to see your people, state, or both destroyed, and are actively and repeatedly doing this. Should FDR have declared war against Japan? Perhaps he should have waited for other Pearl Harbors... — schopenhauer1
Noticed I said "close family member" and not just named a family member. So yeah, that already was not my argument, and thus a straw man.. — schopenhauer1
But the main argument one might make is that the state is obligated to its own citizens more than protecting other citizens. This doesn't mean they are COMPLETELY devoid of considering other country's citizens. The author stated as such. Rather, that the balance is weighted more for one's own citizens in the state's obligations above other countries when weighing decisions of life and death.
If people decide it is the legal way to settle their territorial claims or religious differences or political disagreements, of course it's legitimate. This was not even an issue until the 20th century: imperial aggression, crusades and national expansion, as well as local disputes, were simply accepted as perfectly normal.Is it legitimate to wage armed conflict though? — schopenhauer1
Sure. What human endeavour on a mass scale is not absurd?Is it not silly that conflict has any legitimacy? — schopenhauer1
That's not a question about the legitimacy of war in general. It is a question about allied strategy after a particular conflict was already underway. Should Poland and France ever have been in jeopardy? Of course not. Should Germany ever have been in the state of national upheaval that spews out a Nazi leadership? Of course not. Could the entire giant debacle have been prevented? Of course.Should for example, it have been legitimate to make the Nazis totally surrender Germany after they attacked Poland and France, or should the Allied militaries simply have contained the Nazis once their troops had reached the German borders in 1945? — schopenhauer1
Well, when it came to Poland, Stalin had been an ally to Hitler. So by his standards, that was a totally reasonable possibility (which many Nazis in the end hoped to happen).Remember also that Stalin was constantly clamoring for a second front and the Allies were always afraid Stalin might make a peace with Hitler. Bomber command was the only way for Britain to fight back, and it did divert significant German resources away from the Eastern Front. — RogueAI
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.