Topics War

Question I have an opinion I'd like some feedback on. My view on war is generally that it's a bad idea. Aggression against another country or similar entity is difficult to justify. However the fact remains that an outside force can invade and make war on your country. My opinion on this is that an invader should be destroyed completely. Ruthless exploitation of any weakness, and use of any weapon is completely justified to expel the threat, at least until they have ceased their aggression and given back any territory gained. After that it would be difficult again to justify continuing the use of ruthless tactics in an act of aggression towards your enemy in their own territory. My idea of using complete force against an aggressor comes from that you didn't make war on them. They brought war to you. For example, if you were being violently mugged, it would be justified to kill your assailant. However, it would be unjustified to go out and kill someone just because they might mug you. Or, if you were mugged and you used force to defend yourself and did so successfully, but the mugger escaped, it would be unjustified to seek them out and kill them, since there is no longer the threat of being mugged by them. What do you think on this?

Accepted:
May 15, 2008

Comments

This much I'd agree with: There's a big difference between defending oneself against aggression and undertaking aggressive action oneself.

What's not so clear is that one can (let alond should) do absolutely anything in response to aggression. Take the mugging case. It isn't at all clear that, if you are being violently mugged, then you are justified in killing your assailant. If killing your assailant were the only way you could protect yourself, then it would presumably be justified---or better, excusable. And if that were not the only way, but if you were to defend yourself in other ways that were justified and were to kill your assailant more or less accidentally, then you would not be blameworthy. But you do not get to kill someone just because they are mugging you. (And how violent exactly does the mugging have to be?)

The same is true of war, even justified defensive war. Civilized nations have long recognized limits to the conduct of war. The use of chemical weapons, for example, is widely regarded as completely unjustifiable, even to repel an invader.

I agree with the thought that being the subject of aggression does not necessarily license extremely violent responses like killing, and I would add that pacifists believe there can be--depending on the exact pacifist views being considered--principled and/or pragmatic reasons for refusing to respond to aggression with any form of violence directed toward the aggressor.

So, for example, Gandhi believed that a pointed refusal to respond to aggression with violence against the aggressor could serve to change the behavior and attitudes of the aggressor and of other witnesses to the aggression.

A useful summary of some assessments of pacifism by philosophers is here.