Just War?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;105599 wrote:

But if there is justifiable killing, that doesn't make pacifism incohernt.

Incoherent: different or incompatible by nature

If we are talking about war, I argue that pacifism is different or incompatible with justifiable killing in war.

The pacifist position holds that killing is never justified, under any circumstances.

But like I have said, surely there are situations that require killing e.g. stopping genocide.

If those situations require killing, and if pacifism holds that killing is never justified, how can pacifism be a coherent position to hold since we acknowledge some situations require killing?

How could anything but killing have stopped WWII?

The very notion of pacifism is incompatible with such, and thus incoherent.

kennethamy;105599 wrote:

It makes it false. Anyway, in simply saying there is justifiable killing, you are just denying that pacifism is true. And I suppose the pacifist will deny those cases are justiable killing. So you an the pacifist will be at impasse. You will not have shown he was wrong unless you can show that your cases of killing are justifiable.

A couple justifiable cases of killing in war: self defense against unjustified aggression e.g. WWII, humanitarian intervention e.g. stopping a genocide

---------- Post added 11-24-2009 at 11:41 AM ----------

fast;105614 wrote:

War is not a physical entity, but it's not a concept either. There is a difference between a war and a war concept. A war concept (or concept of war) is a mental entity, but war is neither physical nor mental.

How I have always defined war proper: fighting which involves a number of belligerent parties.

@stew phil,

[QUOTE=stew;105645]How I have always defined war proper: fighting which involves a number of belligerent parties.[/quote]
You cannot define war, but with sufficient skill, you may be able to define the word, "war," but you needn't try, for it has already been done. What the word, "war" refers to is at issue, and the underlying mistake being made is (I think) that it's an entity, and another mistake being made (I think) is in the thinking that all that exists is an entity of some kind. I speculate that war is not an entity at all but rather an activity.

---------- Post added 11-24-2009 at 03:02 PM ----------

Actually, "war" refers to the class of all wars, but the term for a specific war would not refer to any specific entity.

@RDanneskjld,

fast wrote:

We have to distinguish between our concepts and what our concepts are concepts of. For example, there is a difference between a cat and a cat concept. One is physical, and one is mental. Let's get more specific. Consider my cat, "Crooked Tail Kitty." I have a mental concept of my cat, and if my cat were to die, although I would no longer have my cat, I would still have my concept of my cat, and what my concept is a concept of is my cat, Crooked Tail Kitty.

A point you may have unintentionally made here is that when one thinks of war, they think of a war. Just as when one thinks of cat, they think of a cat (in your case, Crooked Tail Kitty). That is, there is not a general concept with which one refers to when one speaks of categorical terms such as "cat" or "war". People generally mean something specific, even though they use a categorical term. For example, if one were to ask, "Do you like sports?", surely this person has a sport in mind. Would you agree? If not, what makes you think they are speaking of the set of all things sport?

I suspect this is what you meant when you said, "War is not a concept". You were trying to say that there is no concept of the set of all things war. Am I correct in my assessment?

None of this means that there is not a concept of war, though. A concept of war most definitely exists. When we say there is a concept of war, it should be assumed that we are speaking of a particular concept of war, but we are still speaking of a concept of war. And, I think, it's reasonable to suspect that our concepts are very similar. So, when someone says "concept of war", or "concept of the television", or "concept of cat", I don't usually have a problem with this. We should sometimes ask for clarification, yes, but we should not deny that concepts of these things exist altogether. Because concepts of these things do exist.

Quote:

There is of course a difference between a cat and a war, where one is physical and one is not, and just as there is a difference between a cat and a war, so too is there a difference between Crooked Tail Kitty and the Iraq War. Just because the war is neither physical nor mental, that doesn't mean there's still not a difference between a concept and what a concept is a concept of.

I'm wholly aware there is a difference between a concept and what the concept is a concept of. What in my posting made you think I did not understand this?

@Zetherin,

[QUOTE=Zetherin;105833]A point you may have unintentionally made here is that when one thinks of war, they think of a war. [/QUOTE]I have no idea why you would think this. When I think of war, I may come to think about a specific war, like the Vietnam War, but not necessarily.

[quote]People generally mean something specific, even though they use a categorical term. [/QUOTE]Again, I'm not sure why you say this.[/SIZE]

[quote]For example, if one were to ask, "Do you like sports?", surely this person has a sport in mind. Would you agree? If not, what makes you think they are speaking of the set of all things sport? [/QUOTE]Because that's what they say. If you ask someone if she likes sports, she may say yes because she likes a variety of sports. She may (or may not) give an example of her favorite sport.[/SIZE]

[quote]I suspect this is what you meant when you said, "War is not a concept". You were trying to say that there is no concept of the set of all things war. Am I correct in my assessment? [/QUOTE]I say that war is not a concept because the word, "war" doesn't refer to mental entities. A concept is a mental entity. World War I is not a concept either, even though it's a specific war. The term, "World War I" refers to World War I, which isn't a mental entity either.[/SIZE]

[quote]None of this means that there is not a concept of war, though. A concept of war most definitely exists. [/QUOTE]On this we agree. We have concepts, but war is not one of them. One concept we have is the concept of war (or war concept). It's a mental entity. And yes, the concept of war exists.[/SIZE]

[quote]When we say there is a concept of war, it should be assumed that we are speaking of a particular concept of war, but we are still speaking of a concept of war. [/QUOTE]Why would you speak about the concept of war? You can, but why would you? If you want to speak about war, then speak about war. You need not speak about the concept of war to do so. You may need to have a concept of what war is to do so, but that is a different matter.[/SIZE]

I don't assume that we are speaking about a particular concept of war when speaking about war concepts, nor do I assume that we are speaking about a particular war when speaking about war in general.

[quote]And, I think, it's reasonable to suspect that our concepts are very similar. [/QUOTE]Sometimes, I suppose.[/SIZE]

[quote]So, when someone says "concept of war", or "concept of the television", or "concept of cat", I don't usually have a problem with this. We should sometimes ask for clarification, yes, but we should not deny that concepts of these things exist altogether. Because concepts of these things do exist.[/QUOTE]I don't necessarily disagree, but I'm not confident that we're talking about the same things.[/SIZE]

Four things to keep separate:
1) Class of all wars
2) A particular war
3) Concept of war
4) Concept of a particular war

Only 3 and 4 are concepts. Only 3 and 4 are mental entities.
Neither 1 nor 2 are concepts. Neither 1 nor 2 are mental entities.

@RDanneskjld,

Yeah, I suspect we are speaking on different wavelengths here.

I don't know what a "mental entity" is in comparison to a "concept". What is the difference?

Quote:

On this we agree. We have concepts, but war is not one of them. One concept we have is the concept of war (or war concept). It's a mental entity. And yes, the concept of war exists.

You say "One concept we have is the concept of war", but you before said, "War is not a concept". I think when it was said "War is a concept", it meant, "There is a concept we call war". Why would you think that when we say "War is a concept" we are saying that the thing war is the concept war? One would have to have some sort of mental illness, or extreme outlook, to not be able to differentiate a concept from the thing that the concept refers. If I genuinely thought my cat was a concept, there would be room for concern, don't you agree? Did you sincerely not understand the implication that "War is a concept" brings? Did you sincerely think that people were saying that the physical manifestation that we call war is the concept war? That seems odd to me.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;105612 wrote:

Sometimes people use excessive force to teach lessons.

I disagree with this principle. I don't you're "teaching" anybody anything; I think that is a personal justification for excessive violence.

Quote:

For instance, if a thief attempts to steal my wife's purse, I may be able to get it back without doing much harm to the thief. But, I may choose to, instead of just grabbing the purse back from the assailant, break his arm, or trip him with a very hollywood-esque karate move. The thief may think twice about trying to grab my wife's purse again, eh, don't you think?

Not neccessarily. It's also possible that the theif calls his friends and 20 seconds later you get shot dead by somebody, or maybe they all jump out of the car and beat the hell out of you & rape your wife.

Historically, escallating a situation doesn't solve anything and often leads to either equal or greater violence, and/or a long-term continuation of hostilities.

You're assuming that the person to commits the initial action (eg. the purse-snatcher) is operating under the same intellectual rules that you are using. But you're not taking into account that the other person may be desperate, crazy, or lacking in morals.

Take the situation with North Korea, for example. Sure, the USA or other Western nations could easily crush them in a military conflict and, arguably, may even have reason to do so.

However there is also a crazy person running the show over there. One reason the US has not engaged in military brinksmanship with NK is because nobody wants to push Kim Jong Il over the edge. Even through is own nation would be obliterated in a military conflict with the USA, he might not care and would nuke Tokyo just because he's unstable.

There is a time and place to escallate the use of force in a defensive posture. However the escallation from a offensive posture is fraught with peril.

In the purse-snatcher example you gave earlier, the way I would personally handle the situation is to try to get the purse back in the moment, if possible using force only to match force.

Breaking the guy's arm would be excessive and that sort of Cowboy mentality will get you killed on the street.

My key point here is: If you use excessive force, then you become the aggressor and you're no longer in a secure moral/ethical position.

Quote:

In the case of war, perhaps fast meant that sometimes applying excessive force ensures that the leader/country "gets the message", and this can sometimes be good!

Please give an example of this tactic being used effectively in more than one situation. I say more than one because one time can be a fluke, but multiple times suggests a patern.

-ITL-

@RDanneskjld,

IntoTheLight wrote:

I disagree with this principle. I don't you're "teaching" anybody anything; I think that is a personal justification for excessive violence.

I was not advocating the principle or laying testament to its effectiveness. I was merely noting that that is one reason someone may use excessive force. And I think this is true - to use excessive force after being wronged is a common tactic. Whether it's effective or the right thing to do is beside my point. Personally, I think it can work, but I agree that it doesn't always, and I'm most definitely not in any position to try to convince you of anything by displaying some pattern of events (no matter what I say, you could always rebutt that there was a better course of action I could have taken).

@Zetherin,

You could've fooled me Zetherin.

You certainly seemed to be advocating use of excessive force in your post.

But if you say you weren't....

-ITL-

@IntoTheLight,

IntoTheLight;105861 wrote:

You could've fooled me Zetherin.

You certainly seemed to be advocating use of excessive force in your post.

But if you say you weren't....

-ITL-

Even if I was, that wasn't the point of my initial post. The point of my initial post was to answer why someone would use excessive force. I noted a reason why someone would.

But, I do think that excessive force can be effective sometimes (as I just noted in my last post). I've had it work for me in the past. For instance, a couple of people were having a catch with a baseball near my 26" monitor and it was making me uneasy (as I didn't want the baseball to accidentily hit my monitor). I politely asked them to stop but they did not, and sensing I was becoming uneasy, they continued to throw even harder. In response, I caught the baseball, threw it at one of catcher's legs and gave him a rather large bruise. I, then, before he could reach down to get the ball, ran up, got the ball, and threw it out the window (we lived on the 12th floor). They stopped playing catch, and I became easy once more. The excessive force was me throwing the ball at the person (I think), but it taught him not to throw a ball near my command center again. I assume this because they never played catch near my command center again.

@Zetherin,

[QUOTE=Zetherin;105849]I don't know what a "mental entity" is in comparison to a "concept". What is the difference?[/quote]
All concepts are mental entities, but not all mental entities are concepts. For example, an idea is a mental entity.

[quote]You say "One concept we have is the concept of war", but you before said, "War is not a concept". [/QUOTE]That's right, and that's partly why I explained the difference between a concept and what a concept is a concept of (the concept versus its content). Two examples: 1) Your mental concept of war is one thing, and what your concept is a concept of, namely war, is another thing, and 2) Your concept of World War II is one thing, and what your concept is a concept of, namely World War II, is yet another thing.[/SIZE]

[quote]I think when it was said "War is a concept", it meant, "There is a concept we call war". Why would you think that when we say "War is a concept" we are saying that the thing war is the concept war? One would have to have some sort of mental illness, or extreme outlook, to not be able to differentiate a concept from the thing that the concept refers.[/SIZE]
If I genuinely thought my cat was a concept, there would be room for concern, don't you agree? Did you sincerely not understand the implication that "War is a concept" brings? Did you sincerely think that people were saying that the physical manifestation that we call war is the concept war? That seems odd to me.[/quote]

Generally, there is no big issue when we're distinguishing a particular cat (a physical entity) with the concept of a cat (a mental entity) because a particular physical cat is clearly (to most anyway) very distinguishable from the mental non-physical concept of a particular physical cat.

Once we move away from a discussion comparing physical entities (a few examples including, a cat, a picture of a cat, and a statue of a cat) with mental entities (a few examples including an idea of a cat, a thought of a cat, and a concept of a cat), then start comparing the relationships between things that are not physical, confusion tends to set in for some folks, myself included sometimes.

So, although I may not expect much confusion between a cat and our concept of a cat (which I only use for illustrative purposes), I have come to expect confusion between such things as a war and our concept of a war. The confusion is compounded when we throw in the class of all wars and start distinguishing between physical, mental, and abstract objects. Add a dash of classes and spice it up with the members of classes, and let nothing be physical, then we have a concoction that rarely results in mutual understanding, let alone agreement.

By the way, there is no concept that we ought to call war. Either way, in ordinary conversation, I wouldn't think much of it, but within the context of a philosophical discussion, I find it sometimes helpful to make explicit what may otherwise go unnoticed.

@RDanneskjld,

Thanks for the explanation of your reasoning, fast.

I find that much of the time that goes into my philosophizing consists of me discerning, and attempting to understand, the use of language by others. And this is a necessary first step, I think. Otherwise, as you note, confusion can most definitely arise. It's important everyone is playing the same game here, on the same page, if we are to achieve effective communication.

I now understand why you made the distinction you did, and I agree with your reasons for having done so. Moving on,

Quote:

By the way, there is no concept that we ought to call war.

I'm really going to need clarification on this one. "Ought to call...". Are you speaking of some sort of normative prescription here? You kinda just tossed this statement with a deep philosophical tone in the middle of your conversational thought.

Quote:

Add a dash of classes and spice it up with the members of classes, and let nothing be physical, then we have a concoction that rarely results in mutual understanding, let alone agreement.

Where can I learn about classes and members of classes? Are you referring to the work of Wittgenstein here (class resemblance)?

PS: Why do you keep changing your font and making your last paragraph smaller? Are you doing this intentionally?

@Zetherin,

[QUOTE=Zetherin;105881]Thanks for the explanation of your reasoning, fast.[/QUOTE]Oh, you're very welcome.

[quote]I'm really going to need clarification on this one. "Ought to call...". Are you speaking of some sort of normative prescription here? You kinda just tossed this statement with a deep philosophical tone in the middle of your conversational thought. [/QUOTE]I say this because I think we should only say of something what it is and nothing else.[/SIZE]

Some terms are referring terms, and referring terms refer, and what referring terms refer to are called referents. For example, "Crooked Tail Kitty" is a term (in this case, a single term composed of three words), and because there is a referent to the term, "Crooked Tail Kitty", namely Crooked Tail Kitty, the term, "Crooked Tail Kitty" is a referring term. In short (and to recap), the term, "Crooked Tail Kitty" is a referring term that refers to its referent, Crooked Tail Kitty. Notice that I always put the term in double quotes and never put the referent of the referring term in double quotes.

Not only is "Crooked Tail Kitty" a term with a referent, but so too is the term, "concept of Crooked Tail Kitty." They both have referents, but the referent of the term, "concept of Crooked Tail Kitty" refers not to Crooked Tail Kitty but to the concept of Crooked Tail Kitty.

To recap:
1) "Crooked Tail Kitty" refers to Crooked Tail Kitty
2) "concept of Crooked Tail Kitty" refers to the concept of Crooked Tail Kitty

Earlier, I said, "By the way, there is no concept that we ought to call war." That's because the term, "war" refers to war whereas the term, "concept of war" refers to a concept of war.

[quote]Where can I learn about classes and members of classes? Are you referring to the work of Wittgenstein here (class resemblance)? [/QUOTE]I don't have a good answer for either of those questions, but I can expound on the issue a bit.[/SIZE]

Each class (or group) has members that belong to that class. For example, either something is or isn't a war, and if it is, then it's a member that belongs to the group of all wars. Another example: either something is or isn't a cat, and if it is, then it's a member that belongs to the group of all cats.

I think of the group (or class) as an abstract object. For example, Crooked Tail Kitty is a member of the class of all cats. In that example, a physical object is a member of an abstract object, but that need not be the case in all examples. The Vietnam War is a member of the abstract group of all wars, but the member of that group is not a physical entity at all (I think). I think war is physical just as a sport is physical, but neither is an entity-more like (like, I say) an activity. Neither is mental.

Quote:

PS: Why do you keep changing your font and making your last paragraph smaller? Are you doing this intentionally?

I usually begin composing my response here before transferring it to Word for spell checking, and though I have recently been trying to correct for the inadvertent consequences, it doesn't always work for some reason.[/SIZE]

@richrf,

War (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

@RDanneskjld,

I understand the concept of referrings terms and referents - we actually went over this earlier (I think kennethamy and I did, I can't remember the thread title).

fast wrote:

I think of the group (or class) as an abstract object. For example, Crooked Tail Kitty is a member of the class of all cats. In that example, a physical object is a member of an abstract object, but that need not be the case in all examples. The Vietnam War is a member of the abstract group of all wars, but the member of that group is not a physical entity at all (I think). I think war is physical just as a sport is physical, but neither is an entity-more like (like, I say) an activity. Neither is mental.

When I said "set" earlier, I meant the "class" here that you describe.

I highlight this paragraph because this is when I start to lose you. What is the difference between an "entity" and an "activity"? Pointing out that soccer is an engagement (activity) and not a physical entity, is just telling me that there is no physical entity with which soccer is outrightly referring to, correct? But some referring terms do refer to physical entities, like my cat Joe.

What makes my cat Joe a physical entity and the Vietnam War not? Is it because we can better discern where Joe starts and ends (physically, spatially, temporally even), and we have much more trouble with the Vietnam War? Or, is it because even though the Vietnam War is a member of a class, the member is actually a culmination of various other things (one would have to name every person, place, thing, event, etc. involving the Vietnam War)?

Should we be confident in expressing the Vietnam War as a member of the class of war in the same context as when we express my cat Joe in the class of cat? In other words, is it possible that the Vietnam War (and all other wars) is in a class of its own? Or, perhaps a "sub-class" of some sort...

For those classes which have members which do not refer to physical entities - should these classes be distinct from classes which do have members which refer to physical entities?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin,

That's a lot of questions, I'm running short on time, and I'm getting into an area where I'm less confident in my answers. I don't mind the questions (not at all), and with the holiday nearing, I'm not sure when I can at least try to give a shot at answering some of them, but upon returning, I'll take another look.

You mentioned that you had a conversation with Kennethamy. That is good. What I can't answer, I'm sure he can.

Have a happy Thanksgiving!

[QUOTE]For those classes which have members which do not refer to physical entities - should these classes be distinct from classes which do have members which refer to physical entities?[/QUOTE]By the way, terms refer--not their referents.

@fast,

fast;105647 wrote:

You cannot define war, but with sufficient skill, you may be able to define the word, "war," but you needn't try, for it has already been done. What the word, "war" refers to is at issue, and the underlying mistake being made is (I think) that it's an entity, and another mistake being made (I think) is in the thinking that all that exists is an entity of some kind. I speculate that war is not an entity at all but rather an activity.

---------- Post added 11-24-2009 at 03:02 PM ----------

Actually, "war" refers to the class of all wars, but the term for a specific war would not refer to any specific entity.

Whole lot of sophistry going on here.

fast;105647 wrote:

You cannot define war, but with sufficient skill, you may be able to define the word, "war," but you needn't try, for it has already been done.

Uhh What? When we use definitions, they are meant to ostensively describe what it is we are referring to. Common sense tells us when we refer to acts of war, we have a conceptualization of what war is. That conceptualization requires a definition. If war refers to our common sense notions of belligerent acts of violence, then be defining the word "war," are we also not defining the concept for which the word "war" refers to?

fast;105647 wrote:

What the word, "war" refers to is at issue, and the underlying mistake being made is (I think) that it's an entity

Common sense tells us war is some thing, and we do have quite a tangible belief about it. If by entity, you mean it has real existence, then yeah of course, war has real existence. We are not disputing war is real at all. Just watch the history channel. If you mean it has corporeal existence, like a chair or table, don't we say "swimming" has corporeal existence too? Even if it is just an activity, swimming is still some thing. We can go out and check in the real world if need be. Not sure how your eagerness for metaphysics could have missed that.

fast;105647 wrote:

Actually, "war" refers to the class of all wars, but the term for a specific war would not refer to any specific entity.

So swimming can describe acts of swimming in general, but swimming can not refer to particular acts of some one splashing around in water? How is that not referring to a specific entity? Do not generalizations require a particular in order to make such a generalization, coherent?

Besides, you are completely missing the point of the O.P. Whether war is justifiable or not. If people want to debate the metaphysics or phil of language regarding war, it's probably bets left for one of those forums.

@stew phil,

stew;106457 wrote:

Common sense tells us war is some thing, and we do have quite a tangible belief about it.

War is something, but it's not some thing. Let's compare the Iraq War to Crooked Tail Kitty. Both are something, but only the cat is some thing.

Some thing implies something, but something doesn't imply some thing.

Tangible belief?

@fast,

fast;107070 wrote:

War is something, but it's not some thing. Let's compare the Iraq War to Crooked Tail Kitty. Both are something, but only the cat is some thing.

Some thing implies something, but something doesn't imply some thing.

Tangible belief?

Does something need be tangible to be a thing?

@Zetherin,

[QUOTE=Zetherin;105903]Pointing out that soccer is an engagement (activity) and not a physical entity, is just telling me that there is no physical entity with which soccer is outrightly referring to, correct? [/QUOTE]Yes.

[quote]But some referring terms do refer to physical entities, like my cat Joe.[/QUOTE]Yes.[/SIZE]

[quote]What makes my cat Joe a physical entity and the Vietnam War not? [/QUOTE]I am still coming to terms with how to properly use the term, "entity," so forgive me as I am fumble about on this.[/SIZE]

The term, "entity" does refer to objects that are not physical (as well as to objects that are physical). For example, an idea (which is a mental entity) is not a physical object.

So, the term, "entity" is broad enough to capture non-physical objects, yet I'm not ready to say that it's broad enough to capture all non-physical objects.

For example, the term, "three" is neither a physical object nor a mental entity, and it's what I would characterize as an abstract object, but I'm not so sure that we should refer to three (the referent to the term, "three") as an entity. It's certainly not an object in the narrow sense of the word, so when I say that three is an abstract object, I do not mean to invoke the narrow sense of "object".

The term, "war" refers to none other than war, and the term, "war" refers to the class of all wars (or what you're calling the set of all wars). A class is not a physical object.

The term, "Vietnam War" is a particular war, and like soccer (a particular sport), it is physical, but it's not what I would characterize as a physical object. I may accept that it's a physical entity though. I need to think about that some more.

---------- Post added 11-30-2009 at 11:44 AM ----------

Zetherin;107072 wrote:

Does something need be tangible to be a thing?

No. There is a broad sense of the word, "thing" that is equivalent with the word, "something." At least, it seems that way to me.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;105881 wrote:

Where can I learn about classes and members of classes? Are you referring to the work of Wittgenstein here (class resemblance)?

Guide to Logic, Sets I

(Classes and Sets are about the same thing)

Wittgenstein used the term, "family resemblance", but that had nothing to do with the logic of classes (sets).

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know