Grace Seeker
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,343
- Reaction score
- 617
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
Let's take what I think was definitely an immoral war (but not a present one). Now the one that I think is the best illustration is the American Civil War, but not everyone on this forum would be familiar with it. So, let's try what today is called World War 2, I think most people are familiar with it.
Was it a moral war? Well, certainly when one considers how aggressive Germany, Italy, and Japan were in attacking other countries those that they attacked had a right to defend themselves. (I bring only this up, not the Nazi atrocities, because they were not known about until the end of the war, so did not factor into reasons for fighting it.) But remember it takes two to fight, so were Germany, Italy, and Japan in the right to attack. I hope the answer to that question is clearly NO. That means that it was an immoral war. But if you had lived in Germany in the 1930s you would have thought that the restrictions put on your country were themselves wrong and thus to defy them and reclaim land that was (in their mind) "rightfully German" was the just thing to do. So, in the end, where one views the question from determines where one views this as a just cause fight or not. Oppressed Germans saw it as a just cause. Attacked countries saw it as a just cause. Pretty much everyone saw it as a just casue. And yet, it was clearly an immoral war. How can that be?
So, we are engaged in an immoral war. A war of aggression. A war of huge brutality to civilians (especially in China) and what can best be described as criminal behavior (especially in Germany). And many orders were given during this war. So are any of these orders lawful and moral?
Well, first, imagine those that are trying to prevent the brutality and criminal behavior. Certainly the orders given to those officers are lawful and moral. But on top of that (thinking now of just Germany), there were hundreds of orders given about simple things: requisitioning supplies, providing medical care, moving troops from one location to another. I don't think that one could say that these things were unlawful or immoral.
But perhaps the question was not really meant to be so broad. Perhaps when snakelegs asked his question
Personally, I think all of these actions are immoral. But they are not immoral simply because they are being done by a German officer (whom I hope loses), they would be just as immoral if done by an American officer who was trying to defeat Germany. The problem is that nature of war itself is immoral even if there is "just cause" for it. As for the actions being unlawful, if one is going to accept the concept that war can be conducted according to rules, then I guess these things fit within the rules of war. So, the orders given by this young German officer fighting an immoral war are no more unlawful or immoral than any others given in any other war or on any other side.
Was it a moral war? Well, certainly when one considers how aggressive Germany, Italy, and Japan were in attacking other countries those that they attacked had a right to defend themselves. (I bring only this up, not the Nazi atrocities, because they were not known about until the end of the war, so did not factor into reasons for fighting it.) But remember it takes two to fight, so were Germany, Italy, and Japan in the right to attack. I hope the answer to that question is clearly NO. That means that it was an immoral war. But if you had lived in Germany in the 1930s you would have thought that the restrictions put on your country were themselves wrong and thus to defy them and reclaim land that was (in their mind) "rightfully German" was the just thing to do. So, in the end, where one views the question from determines where one views this as a just cause fight or not. Oppressed Germans saw it as a just cause. Attacked countries saw it as a just cause. Pretty much everyone saw it as a just casue. And yet, it was clearly an immoral war. How can that be?
So, we are engaged in an immoral war. A war of aggression. A war of huge brutality to civilians (especially in China) and what can best be described as criminal behavior (especially in Germany). And many orders were given during this war. So are any of these orders lawful and moral?
Well, first, imagine those that are trying to prevent the brutality and criminal behavior. Certainly the orders given to those officers are lawful and moral. But on top of that (thinking now of just Germany), there were hundreds of orders given about simple things: requisitioning supplies, providing medical care, moving troops from one location to another. I don't think that one could say that these things were unlawful or immoral.
But perhaps the question was not really meant to be so broad. Perhaps when snakelegs asked his question
Perhaps, snakelegs was thinking only of those orders given that involved people in the actual execution, the combat, of the war? So, again, I'll place myself in the role of a young German boy. Perhaps I am against the war. I don't understand all the things that have gone on in my country, but I have now reached an age where I am called into the service. Do I resist? Do I run? Do I allow myself to be placed in uniform? This is where the moral decision lays. Not on the battlefield. And because of the nature of war, this young German now might feel that though he is against the origins of this war that he would have no choice but to defend his country as things have gone bad for it. In his mind his goal is to stop the Allied forces from penetrating back into his homeland. Perhaps he hopes that his government will then sue for peace. Of course, that is not what happened, but he does not know the future, he only knows the present. He has to make a moral choice. And once he has made it (though I think it would have been better for him to refuse, it surely would have meant his death if he had) he is placed on the front lines and after a few months made an officer. He receives orders and is asked to give orders that involve saving as much of the men he is responsible for as possible. If he does not, there is some degree of certainty that his unit will be overrun and his men captured or killed. So he orders a retreat and to reestablish a defensive line farther back to a portion of his men, and a wheel manuever to advance on the enemy's flank to another portion thus allowing that safe retreat. And as they move on his own authority, he orders the destruction of some personal property, a farmer's barns, that could be used against him and his men.
Personally, I think all of these actions are immoral. But they are not immoral simply because they are being done by a German officer (whom I hope loses), they would be just as immoral if done by an American officer who was trying to defeat Germany. The problem is that nature of war itself is immoral even if there is "just cause" for it. As for the actions being unlawful, if one is going to accept the concept that war can be conducted according to rules, then I guess these things fit within the rules of war. So, the orders given by this young German officer fighting an immoral war are no more unlawful or immoral than any others given in any other war or on any other side.
