Outlook on War

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Aedes
 
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 04:59 pm
@dharma bum,
dharma_bum;106186 wrote:
As long as nobody gets seriously injured, and as long as it's not done out of anger or contempt, I see few things wrong with fighting.
So that leaves boxing, fencing, martial arts competitions, wrestling with your kid brother, etc.

But that's probably a minority of fighting, which is done out of emotion and aggression, and that is a slippery slope to injury and death. It's also beneath the way humans can resolve differences -- we don't need to be decking each other to solve problems.
 
dharma bum
 
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 11:09 am
@dharma bum,
I believe we're getting sidetracked Smile

To clarify, when I said agree with physical fighting, I meant a fist-fight between two friends who both agree to it and who both wouldn't seriously harm the other. Everybody needs a little risk and a little suffering in their lives. And this should certainly NOT be a way to resolve conflicts.

But that's far from the point of the thread.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed so far, by the way. I must say that I have begun to question by prior belief. I am still debating with myself whether war can be justified.

If war is justified because the enemy has made morally wrong actions, how can we as humans determine whether or not these enemies deserve death?

If one defines morality as basic guidelines that progress the human species by doing what is logically best for all, and a group of people break that morality, do they deserve the severest of all punishments?

Wouldn't our morals dictate that nobody deserves death, because beliefs can be changed and it would be better to have converted our enemies than kill them?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 28 Nov, 2009 11:37 am
@dharma bum,
dharma_bum;105844 wrote:


I think the best way I could put it is that in a civilized society, there should be no need for soldiers, and there should be no politicians to force them into situations where they must kill.



Now that is puzzling! I would have thought you would have believed that we need war in order to appreciate the pleasures of peace. After all, wasn't it you who wrote the following?

We need suffering in the world. Without suffering, we have no comparison to know that we are happy. In order to appreciate something (life, happiness, good health), we must have a
recent memory of the way our lives were without those things.
 
deepthot
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 05:55 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;106643 wrote:
Now that is puzzling! I would have thought you would have believed that we need war in order to appreciate the pleasures of peace. After all, wasn't it you who wrote the following?

We need suffering in the world. Without suffering, we have no comparison to know that we are happy. In order to appreciate something (life, happiness, good health), we must have a
recent memory of the way our lives were without those things.



Ken

I would like to remind you that there will be suffering whenever we lose. And there will be losses!

When you lose some points in a game, or you lose money - little is lost.
When health is lost, much is lost.
When you lose your faith , or a friend, or your life - all is lost.
We need to have faith in something. Those who have faith in nothing are sorry characters. When a loved one is gone, one WILL SUFFER.

It doesn't take war to cause suffering. Losses will do it.

Isn't it high time that war be forever banned?

It's blowing in the wind...... The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind.

Known individual terrorists can be arrested by Interpol. It is a criminal matter; a "military solution" is no solution at all.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 06/22/2021 at 10:44:40