Reasons for War

[UK]

Or have we no reason at all? Is Might always Right? Does it go against our morals, even if we are following base insticts for fight? Are we doing the right thing by having a war to impose our beliefs and laws onto others? Why does killing a civilian in your home country, no matter how horrible they may have been, have such large consequences, yet killing a civilian or a soldier have practically no incriminations?

[Indonesia]

In philosophy, letting your emotions take control over you is how conflict starts. When you disagree and let your emotions take control, the anger triggers war. T-T

[USAlex]

UK: “Or have we no reason at all?”

There is always a reason for everything. Every effect has a cause, every cause creates an effect...nothing is unconnected.

UK: “Is Might always Right?”

No, that would be dumb. We have an ethical sense, even from a very young age (re: months old, ever read the article "The Moral Life of Babies" by Paul Bloom from the New York Times Magazine? It is somewhat relevant to this. Also, another good one is "The Moral Instinct" by S. Pinker, also printed in the New York Times Magazine. They can be found online.). That ethical sense is opposed to such an idea, and so obviously even evolutionarily (in both biological and cultural evolution), being ethical is actually beneficial. And, plus, although I know it is a mixture of my genetics and culture that compels me to think this way, being ethical is just plain right. Might does not equal right because right has very much to do with other laws of ethics as well, although there is a bit of room for utilitarian ethics.

UK: “Does it go against our morals, even if we are following base instincts for fight?”

It does. Now, the thing is, our moral / ethical sense is simply a weighing of different "rules" of morality. It is not always a black-and-white "this is immoral, therefore I do not do that ever" scenario, instead, our morality (generally has been found to) operate on a, "this is the most moral action I can take in this situation" way. For example, lying is generally immoral. What to do if a clearly enraged person with a gun walks in to a room, and yells, "Where's Mike?!...he's done it this time and I'm going to kill the bastard". Lie (which is immoral), and potentially save Mike's life, or tell the murderous person where Mike is? Most would agree lying, though generally immoral, is justifiable here. Now, how this type of reasoning translates to killing others (e.g., in a war) due to some threat or killing they have done, I do not know. That is a closer call, so it will be less obvious and different people will see it differently. But just know that it is Moral Reasoning which is informing us of our answers to these questions, not an absolute moral law.

UK: “Are we doing the right thing by having a war to impose our beliefs and laws onto others?”

I personally do not think that is a justifiable cause for a war, in general. The only exception to my opinion on that would be if said "beliefs and laws" that the other group lacked were causing an even more immoral situation to occur. For example, if one group just started a genocide. Then I would be of the opinion that everyone would be morally compelled to intervene. Now, of course there are other options beside war to consider first, and which should be considered first, but I think there are such instances where one immoral thing actually SHOULD be stopped by actions which are, in a slightly lesser way, also immoral. People say two wrongs don’t make a right, but what if one perceptively “lesser” wrong can stop a “more serious” wrong from occurring?

UK: “Why does killing a civilian in your home country, no matter how horrible they may have been, have such large consequences, yet killing a civilian or a soldier have practically no incriminations?”

You mean in a state of war? Tradition/cultural expectations, unfortunately, for better or for worse, is why one form of killing is accepted over another. Plus, one instance (killing a civilian in your home country) is usually an action carried out by an individual or a small group, whereas the killing of a soldier or civilian of a nation which one is at war with is perpetrated by a large group. This, obviously, does not really justify it ethically at all, but it is why some people rationalize it. It's why, psychologically, people let it happen, I think.

[US Virgin Islands]

I think there's no need for war at all.
What's so hard about COMMUNICATING? DO people even KNOW that THAT'S the solution? Well, they SHOULD!

There's no need to be killing innocent random people, shedding blood and making lots and lots of people mourn the death of someone that didn't really had to die but DID die 'saving his country.'
Don't get me wrong, I do not intend to offend anyone, much less the soldiers. I actually ADMIRE them, as what they're doing is brave and strong. They leave their families, their LIFE to go and fight somewhere else, without knowing what might happen, if they will die, if they will get injured.

Unfortunately, such is life this days, and as much as I want World Peace, this will not be acquired without everyone cooperating.

World this days think that everyting is resolved with a gun and the end of a life.

I KNOW World Peace will be acquired, but till everyone realizes that guns, violence and just plain war aren't going to solve our problems, we have to face the reality that it will not be reached.
Yet hope is the last thing you lose, so we'll have to wait till then.

[USAlex]

hallelujah.