What if you are planning on precision bombing an armaments factory and you know 200 civilians will be killed? Is the mission immoral? What about 20 dead civilians? What about 2? — RogueAI

Never heard of the term collateral damage? And keeping collateral damage to the minimum?

Never heard of the term collateral damage? And keeping collateral damage to the minimum? — ssu

Isn't bombing an armaments factory where there are no soldiers and knowing you will kill civilians "going after the civilian population itself"?

Isn't bombing an armaments factory where there are no soldiers and knowing you will kill civilians "going after the civilian population itself"? — RogueAI

Not in the arithmetic of military strategy. If it is strategically right to take out a munitions factory, a bridge, a railroad junction or a communications tower, the civilians working there are only one part of the equation. In the example, the consideration is how many lives on our side would potentially be taken by the cannons or tanks bombs or whatever is produced in that factory, compared to the people on their side who produce those weapons. 200 of them is pretty cheap for an effective strike against the weapons that could kill 4000 of us.

That's already established if you stop pretending I disagree with everything. I'm very clear about what I disagree with with respect to the article you cited. All non-combatants are equally innocent and therefore ALL of them need to be taken into consideration without weighing them because of their presumed affiliation when deciding on a military course of action, irrespective what side of the border they're on. Then it becomes abundantly clear plenty of historic and current violence is entirely disproportionate. — Benkei

So my point was to establish several things here...

First off, what are we admitting to, when we say that (at least some) wars can be legitimate? I keep pressing the matter, because I keep seeing this denial of what war in reality looks like. We all agree it's not Rambo.. It is not just a bulging muscled crew of special forces in remote jungle environments perfectly being able to identify and target the bad guys...

So if we all agree it is not that, what can war look like? Presumably war isn't a gentleman's game of backgammon or chess.. a fun little trist whereby you send a missile here, I send a missile there.. wait a few months, etc.. If it is a war like let's say the Nazis taking over territory, or a terrorist governing body raping, brutally executing, and chopping up your countrymen, this certainly doesn't call for dilatant affairs of swords display.. Of course not.. But then, again, what is war? What is war when it means having to make Nazi Germany totally surrender? What is war in making Japan totally surrender? Japan only killed 2,403 people in Pearl Harbor, but it resulted in millions of Japanese deaths.. for example. Though an unprovoked sneak attack (similar to Hamas), it actually was not directed towards regular civilians either (though a few regular civilians died being nearby)...

I am not advocating "Just because you started a war, this means millions of people have to die. Don't misconstrue me for your straw man.. Rather, what is the result when fighting in certain extremely difficult environments to get rid of a governing body willing to do what it takes to constantly harm your civilians whilst not taking any regards themselves for their own civilians? We agree, what it takes is not Rambo and dilettante exercises.. because the enemy doesn't work like that. The enemy wants you dead, says it, shows it, films it...

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…essentially this is how the enemy would like you to play..keep you indefinitjry stuck for maximum length and lethality. Make it a complete street fight, booby traps etc

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

I agree. I don't think SSU's prohibition against going after the civilian population works. I think munitions and aircraft and tank factories and the like are always going to be fair game in war.

I'm not discussing international law though but simply applying the rules developed as part of the just war tradition. I'm also not interested in discussing unrealistic hypotheticals. You will not understand just war through thought experiments.

It's quite obvious some people entered this discussion to defend Israeli atrocities. We can talk about those or pick other events less heated to see how these principles should be applied.

No need to go into that topic.

Apparently you'd consider a father morally blameworthy for saving his child (showing preference) over a random child because it would be immoral to favor one's own kin in moral decision making. It's just seemingly another instance of a someone proclaiming something to be moral that no one would actually follow (is grossly contrary to human nature) and would lead to the complete dissolution of the family unit if followed. This is why I dismissed thinkers like e.g. Peter Singer years ago. Unless I'm understanding you wrong?

In abstract, impersonal judgments I have no problem treating everyone as moral equals, but it works both ways too: If the father isn't going to favor his son, why should the son favor his father when it comes to e.g. caring for him in old age when there's thousands of other fathers that he could also care for? Complete dissolution of the family unit.

It's quite obvious some people entered this discussion to defend Israeli atrocities. We can talk about those or pick other events less heated to see how these principles should be applied. — Benkei

Fair enough.. I felt this was just a more theoretical arm of the Israel thread.. one which I am more apt to want to participate in rather than emotional outbursting that seems to happen in the other one..

But we can simply keep it to WW2.. And we can extrapolate from there on our own how it relates to current conflicts.. If we do that, I still don't really see my points about Nazi Germany and Japan addressed.. And specifically this:

First off, what are we admitting to, when we say that (at least some) wars can be legitimate? I keep pressing the matter, because I keep seeing this denial of what war in reality looks like. We all agree it's not Rambo.. It is not just a bulging muscled crew of special forces in remote jungle environments perfectly being able to identify and target the bad guys...

So if we all agree it is not that, what can war look like? Presumably war isn't a gentleman's game of backgammon or chess.. a fun little trist whereby you send a missile here, I send a missile there.. wait a few months, etc.. If it is a war like let's say the Nazis taking over territory, or a terrorist governing body raping, brutally executing, and chopping up your countrymen, this certainly doesn't call for dilatant affairs of swords display.. Of course not.. But then, again, what is war? What is war when it means having to make Nazi Germany totally surrender? What is war in making Japan totally surrender? Japan only killed 2,403 people in Pearl Harbor, but it resulted in millions of Japanese deaths.. for example. Though an unprovoked sneak attack (similar to Hamas), it actually was not directed towards regular civilians either (though a few regular civilians died being nearby)...

I am not advocating "Just because you started a war, this means millions of people have to die. Don't misconstrue me for your straw man.. Rather, what is the result when fighting in certain extremely difficult environments to get rid of a governing body willing to do what it takes to constantly harm your civilians whilst not taking any regards themselves for their own civilians? We agree, what it takes is not Rambo and dilettante exercises.. because the enemy doesn't work like that. The enemy wants you dead, says it, shows it, films it...

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…essentially this is how the enemy would like you to play..keep you indefinitjry stuck for maximum length and lethality. Make it a complete street fight, booby traps etc

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.

Apparently you'd consider a father morally blameworthy for saving his child (showing preference) over a random child because it would be immoral to favor one's own kin in moral decision making. — BitconnectCarlos

Who declared it immoral to choose one's own child over another child? If it's a question of being able to save only one from an external danger, making the decision emotionally would be accepted by most people. However, if it's a question of sacrificing an unknown child in order to save one's own (say, with a heart transplant), most people would consider that wrong.

Complete dissolution of the family unit. — BitconnectCarlos

That's not always or necessarily a bad thing. But I very much doubt ethical public decisions would contribute to such a dissolution.

Who declared it immoral to choose one's own child over another child? — Vera Mont

I was commenting on an idea brought up by Benkei that filial relationship is not morally relevant (ought not to be viewed as morally relevant) - thus, one morally ought to show zero bias when it comes to saving e.g. two drowning children with one being a stranger and one being one's own child.

They are just two children with equal moral worth and there would be something not quite right about a man diving in to save his own child when the two children are really equal. Perhaps a coin flip ought to decide it.

Probably the more intuitive idea is that one should first secure their own realms of responsibility, and then branch outwards as opposed to first and foremost being responsible for the entire world.

That's not always or necessarily a bad thing. — Vera Mont

Some families can be toxic but I do not believe the dissolution of all families would be something we should strive towards.

I was commenting on an idea brought up by Benkei that filial relationship is not morally relevant (ought not to be viewed as morally relevant) - thus, one morally ought to show zero bias when it comes to saving e.g. two drowning children with one being a stranger and one being one's own child. — BitconnectCarlos

It's not morally relevant. But if the choice is 1/1, some other factor must tip the balance, else the would-be rescuer is paralyzed by indecision and both children drown.

Perhaps a coin flip ought to decide it. — BitconnectCarlos

How would that be better than letting emotion decide?

Some families can be toxic but I do not believe the dissolution of all families would be something we should strive towards. — BitconnectCarlos

Allowing a natural process with no predetermined outcome to take place and striving toward a goal are very different things.

Happy for your to explain it again. Saves me the time.

How would that be better than letting emotion decide? — Vera Mont

So we can act in any number of ways. Maybe we're mad at our child that day and choose to save the other.

Reasonable action is action in accordance with what we are believing to be true/reflects the nature of reality. So we both share the assumption that the children have equal moral value. However, I believe that a father has greater moral duties to his child than a stranger. That's our difference, I think.

If we believe we all have the same exact duties towards all children then why not flip a coin? That would actually showing impartiality in a situation where both decisions are exactly equal and to show partiality would not be acting in accordance with that fundamental truth. The truth being that both are equal and neither choice is better than the other.

I'm concerned here with reasonable action.

We can say "all fathers have the same duties to all children everywhere" and this takes us into Peter Singer territory which is more utilitarian, which @Benkei interestingly does not like.

So we can act in any number of ways. Maybe we're mad at our child that day and choose to save the other. — BitconnectCarlos

Even if that were the case, the impasse is broken and the rescuer can take action. Morally, it makes no difference whether the tie-breaker is love, anger, fear or chance.

Reasonable action is action in accordance with what we are believing to be true/reflects the nature of reality. — BitconnectCarlos

Maybe so, but I also doubt reason plays much of a part in this example. More likely, the man makes no decision at all; is incapable of a coherent thought, let alone and ethical consideration: he just jumps in and saves his genetic legacy. Once he can think again, he may very well intend to go in after the other kid - in fact, almost certainly will do so, even if reason tells him it's too late.

However, I believe that a father has greater moral duties to his child than a stranger. — BitconnectCarlos

OK. I'm not invested in the moral dimension of a situation that involves a split-second response from an party with a deep vested interest.

If we believe we all have the same exact duties towards all children then why not flip a coin? — BitconnectCarlos

There isn't time. If both drowning children are your own, or both are strangers, the primal impulse is to save both, or failing that, the nearest one. In that situation, you don't weigh odds, and you don't know the result: you simply act.

More likely, the man makes no decision at all; is incapable of a coherent thought, let alone and ethical consideration: he just jumps in and saves his genetic legacy. — Vera Mont

Yes. But now we're playing the "human behavior game" and not the "philosophy game." In the "philosophy game" one strives for rationality at all times.

But now we're playing the "human behavior game" and not the "philosophy game." In the "philosophy game" one strives for rationality at all times. — BitconnectCarlos

How nice for one! And the subject of this thread is rational?
But then again, who invented the philosophy game - and why?

But then again, who invented the philosophy game - and why? — Vera Mont

Philosophers invented the philosophy game so they could play philosophy. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Philosophers — BitconnectCarlos

Didn't they use to be human, before?

First off, what are we admitting to, when we say that (at least some) wars can be legitimate? — schopenhauer1

A legitimate war is if you are attacked, you can justifiably defend yourself. Even the Old Testament in the Bible says so (not the New Testament, and not surprisingly). Nobody can say that you were the aggressor, however times the aggressor will declare "that he was forced to do it". Many would also see as legitimate an intervention to some heinous genocide or civil war. Like Vietnam isn't accused by the World community in ending Pol Pot's reign of terror.

Then, if you don't do warcrimes, you don't have any skeletons in the closet (literally...) that you try to hide away. You can have a clear consciousness about the war and that you fought in it.

Presumably war isn't a gentleman's game of backgammon or chess.. — schopenhauer1

Well, for example in the 19th Century when the British forces fought the Crimean war in Finland, it was a gentleman's war. Their behaviour of the Royal Navy was quite "Victorian" in a way. In the university I studied the Crimean war in Finland and the stories and events show a reality of behaviour that simply wouldn't happen today. It's like from another world, actually. And that shows how low we as humanity have gone. Perhaps when faced "savages" that did the hideous things to those soldiers captured, the British Armed Forces behaved in a different manner, but when faced with other Europeans in war, the meeting was very different. But who cares today about red crosses or white negotiations flags. It's all just naive stupidities in war. And that's the problem.

But then, again, what is war? What is war when it means having to make Nazi Germany totally surrender? What is war in making Japan totally surrender? Japan only killed 2,403 people in Pearl Harbor, but it resulted in millions of Japanese deaths.. for example. — schopenhauer1

Again I would recommend reading Clausewitz.

When attacking the US at Pearl Harbour, Japan likely assumed that the US "would see" the writing on the wall and simply negotiate some peace with Japan and leave it alone, which the Japanese would have gladly accepted. Yet (domestic) politics in the US didn't go that way. Just as mr Hitler didn't see what a huge error he made with declaring a war with the US.

But hey, Americans were simply lazy racists with an army smaller the size of Belgium, so what kind of threat could they be? That was the idea of the US that the Nazis had.

Are War Crimes Ever Justified?

I guess your question refers to a non-instrumental evaluation of “war crimes”. Indeed, if “justified” means to have compelling reasons to believe that war crimes will likely enough succeed in attaining the desired outcome, then of course one can justify “war crimes”.
The question sounds less trivial if we are talking in terms of legal and moral justification, because desired outcomes may be successfully achieved also by violating legal and/or moral constraints.
Now, when we classify certain acts as “war crimes”, I take it to mean that those actions are major violations of the law and therefore can not be legally justified by (legal) definition. There is no legally justified crime.
What about moral justification? If one takes morality as a set of “universal” para-legal or pre-legal norms (like do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, etc.) and takes the legal norms defining “war crimes” as a legal codification of moral norms, then I find it reasonable to take “war crimes” as morally unjustified, again, by definition.
As far as I’m concerned, I deeply question such an understanding of moral claims. Moral norms (and, ultimately, also legal norms) MUST be grounded on historical and political conditions. This is a rational requirement, since historical-political conditions set what CAN be done by individuals in some contingent yet constraining sense.
I’ll try to make my point more clear with a concrete example: one may believe that Netanyahu SHOULD stop the current massacre in Gaza, because killing innocents as collateral damage (i.e. unintentionally but consciously) is morally wrong by (moral) definition. This moral claim MUST presuppose at the very least that Netanyahu CAN stop the current massacre in Gaza to make a rational (not emotional) appeal to me. Well, can he?
It seems that all that it is required for such an assessment is a credible assumption about certain Netanyahu’s rule-following abilities, like the ability to intellectually grasp moral norms, the physical ability to perform a series of bodily actions and speech acts in compliance with such norms (e.g. verbally instruct its military and political servants to withhold the Israeli war machine), and the ability to will or being disposed to act accordingly.
Such an assessment completely and arbitrarily misses the political dimension of our human condition, more specifically the POLITICAL ROLE of Netanyahu facing a HISTORICAL PREDICAMENT (the massacre of October the 7th). To simplify, the Israeli society (or an influential subgroup of such society) has POLITICALLY SELECTED Netanyahu for his specific abilities to act in accordance with certain political EXPECTATIONS in a variety of challenging historical circumstances. To my understanding, such political abilities and expectations are what allows us to assess what Netanyahu CAN do in certain historical circumstances in a more compelling way. And the same goes with ALL other politicians (including Hamas’ leaders).
Far from being presupposed by political expectations about individuals and collectives, moral norms as much as legal norms MUST presuppose political expectations about individuals and collectives to look rationally compelling to people living in society. The very idea that by following a pre-defined “universal” moral norm by my own initiative and in any circumstance (without considering how others will act and re-act, or what consequences will follow) will turn me into A PARADIGMATIC EXAMPLE of moral behaviour to others, presupposes the expectation that others (all or the absolute majority or the relative majority or the relevant minority etc.) have the ability to grasp paradigmatic moral examples and the disposition to conform to them.
If moral reasoning is grounded on a set of a-priori universal norms then it’s a-political (because it is not grounded on political expectations and the circumstances of the political struggle - btw I even find it questionable that anybody concerned with social discipline can consistently adopt such a view on morality). If moral reasoning guides political life and struggles then it can’t plausibly be grounded on a set of a-priori universal norms (at best, one can extrapolate such alleged “universal” norms a posteriori by comparison across societies and/or held in support for intersocietal institutions like “international law”). In other words, “war crimes” (as legally defined) can be morally justified if one doesn’t reason in terms of a-priori and “universal” moral norms, yet moral justification may not be enough to dissipate the controversial nature of such actions. And this observation can no be used to question a specific moral reasoning, since it can be retorted against all examples of moral reasoning. Moral reasoning can not be de-politicized if it is supposed to inform political life.

A legitimate war is if you are attacked, you can justifiably defend yourself. Even the Old Testament in the Bible says so (not the New Testament, and not surprisingly). Nobody can say that you were the aggressor, however times the aggressor will declare "that he was forced to do it". Many would also see as legitimate an intervention to some heinous genocide or civil war. Like Vietnam isn't accused by the World community in ending Pol Pot's reign of terror. — ssu

Agreed

Then, if you don't do warcrimes, you don't have any skeletons in the closet (literally...) that you try to hide away. You can have a clear consciousness about the war and that you fought in it. — ssu

I just want you to juxtapose that with this:

Again I would recommend reading Clausewitz.

When attacking the US at Pearl Harbour, Japan likely assumed that the US "would see" the writing on the wall and simply negotiate some peace with Japan and leave it alone, which the Japanese would have gladly accepted. Yet (domestic) politics in the US didn't go that way. Just as mr Hitler didn't see what a huge error he made with declaring a war with the US.

But hey, Americans were simply lazy racists with an army smaller the size of Belgium, so what kind of threat could they be? That was the idea of the US that the Nazis had. — ssu

It seems here that Nazis and Imperial Japan had it coming, even though Japan only killed 2,403 people as far as attacking Americans.. But the millions lost aren't presumably considered a "war crime". How can you square that circle? I am trying to look for double standards and blind spots in arguments that lead one to say "Heads I win, tails, you lose" as another poster put it about another argument.

[Note: Adjust the numbers to what you want.. the point being that the magnitudes are much greater, the end result of the death from the initial attack which both of us can probably agree was justified in starting a defensive response].

A legitimate war is if you are attacked, you can justifiably defend yourself. Even the Old Testament in the Bible says so (not the New Testament, and not surprisingly). Nobody can say that you were the aggressor, however times the aggressor will declare "that he was forced to do it". Many would also see as legitimate an intervention to some heinous genocide or civil war. Like Vietnam isn't accused by the World community in ending Pol Pot's reign of terror. — ssu

And yet this is still too vague as who attacked who and what concerns an attack is subject of discussion. And what about pre-emptive self-defence. As usual, it's not so simple in real life.

A legitimate war is if you are attacked, you can justifiably defend yourself. Even the Old Testament in the Bible says so — ssu

Where?

The OT is full of wars of aggression not merely sanctioned by Jehovah but instigated by him. How did Joshua come into possession of Jericho? Sappers. How did all the other wars come about? Israel was not attacked by all its neighbours.
He was only kidding about that shalt not kill thingie.

Deuteronomy 20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them ; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

Thou shalt not murder.

And what about pre-emptive self-defence. As usual, it's not so simple in real life. — Benkei

Yes, life is so.

A pre-emptive attack is quite an oxymoron. Just like a suprise pre-emptive nuclear strike that reaches total strategic surprise and destroys the other ones nuclear deterrence. Have fun trying to establish afterwards that the other side had the real intent to start a nuclear war and this was the only way...

It seems here that Nazis and Imperial Japan had it coming, even though Japan only killed 2,403 people as far as attacking Americans. — schopenhauer1

Again, do not convieniently forget the colony of the US, the Philippines. It wasn't just an attack on Pearl Harbour, it was also the Japanese taking over the Philippines, which started on the 8th of December (one day after). Just in the Bataan Death march some 5000 to perhaps 18000 POWs were killed, many from the Continental US too. So it wasn't just Pearl Harbour, but I can understand that the US isn't keen to make WW2 to be a war of it defending it's colonies (especially when the Philippines was given independence after the war).

But the millions lost aren't presumably considered a "war crime". How can you square that circle? — schopenhauer1

By the fact that the victors of wars lay down the post-war laws. As I've stated earlier, the commander of the RAF Bomber command has acknowledged that if the UK would have lost the war, he would have been convicted of war crimes.

And now you have that "squaring of the circle" done by the ICC, when they put warrants for warcrimes at both Israeli and Hamas leadership. People aren't happy about that, when they support one side against another.

By the fact that the victors of wars lay down the post-war laws. As I've stated earlier, the commander of the RAF Bomber command has acknowledged that if the UK would have lost the war, he would have been convicted of war crimes. — ssu

Right, good quote.. So can you see where the implication I am going with this is? I am talking about Wittgenstein and not directly stating something in another thread.. but unlike him, I am not trying to give you a never ending transformative methodology that you need to "get".. just a leading question.. but do you know where I am leading?

Thou shalt not murder. — BitconnectCarlos

That, of course is completely different.... depending on how you define murder. Here's a list of things you not only may but must kill your own tribe members https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Leviticus-Chapter-20/

Where? — BitconnectCarlos

IN A LOT OF PLACES!!! In the Old Testament, where not? should be the question. In the Old Testament, not a forgiving peacenik of a Dad like in the teachings of Jesus C.

But perhaps the best example should be this one that is actually quite current:

(1 Samuel 15) And Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

That's from the Christian Holy Bible. But of course as we are talking about Abrahamic religions, then it's no wonder that a certain Israeli Prime minister referred to the same thing: