War as "necessary evil"

[Agback]

Good points, Agback.

No, I think I have completely misunderstood Barsoomscore's point.

If I walk up behind Barsoomscore and beat his head in with a mace, that isn't a fight, it's a murder.

If the Syrians start at the border and march to the sea, shooting every Jew they see, that isn't a war, it's a massacre.

If the Luftwaffe starts bombing Rotterdam (for example), although the Germans have started the violence, it is still not clear that there is going to be a war. The Dutch have it in their power to abstain from resistance, and give the Germans the choice of conducting an annexation or a massacre (or both). Neither an annexation nor a massacre nor a combination of the two is what we term a 'war'. So without the Dutch resisting, the Germans cannot fight a war with the Dutch.

Only when people on both sides are fighting do we call it a war. And so a group of defenders (or, rather, victims) who are prepared to be massacred rather than fight can prevent a war by not defending themselves, even if the attackers resort to lethal violence in the absence of opposition.

Being killed isn't Evil, is it? If making war were evil, Good people might submit to subjection and slaughter. As Christ enjoined us to do.

Regards,


Agback

[Edit] My error was a false dichotomy. Just because an aggressor has determined that there is not going to be peace, does not leave war as the only alternative.

 

[barsoomcore]

If I walk up behind Barsoomscore and beat his head in with a mace, that isn't a fight, it's a murder.

Not if I'm wearing my "mace-resistant hat" it's not.

Only when people on both sides are fighting do we call it a war. And so a group of defenders (or, rather, victims) who are prepared to be massacred rather than fight can prevent a war by not defending themselves, even if the attackers resort to lethal violence in the absence of opposition.

That's very well stated, Ag. And illustrates very well what I've been trying to say -- that the defender CHOOSES to start a war. It is one response among many that they may select.

Understanding that makes the defender's decision-making easier. Rather than taking for granted that the war has started, a defender can come to a reasoned decision as to whether or not war is required.

Being killed isn't Evil, is it? If making war were evil, Good people might submit to subjection and slaughter. As Christ enjoined us to do.

Now THAT'S an interesting point. To go back to an earlier interchange on Aikido, there is a school of thought that a victim bears some responsibility for allowing violence to happen.

Please note: this is not some "Nanking was dressed provocatively" argument. If it sounds like it is, then I'm explaining it poorly.

The idea is first of all that we are all of us sensible, powerful, independent grown-ups. We are capable of controlling ourselves and through ourselves we can control our surroundings and help direct the people around us in healthy ways.

If we don't do that, we are failing in our primary responsibility as human beings -- to make the world a better place.

So if somebody punches us in the head (or say, clonks us with a mace), then in some fashion we have allowed our surroundings to degenerate to a point where such an act is possible -- which we should not do. We should be able to handle all situations through peace and love. Yep, all. We should be able to protect the people around us (even random strangers walking by) from degenerating to such a point that they even consider such actions.

The fact that being able to do so is very, very difficult should not dissuade us from making the attempt. Our recurring failures to do so should not discourage us.

We cannot do this through simple submission. Submission only encourages threats and bullying. We cannot do this through superior firepower. Firepower only frightens and builds resentment. We can only do this through love.

Whoa. That got a little heavier than I expected (probably the mace blow to the head). Sorry about that. Now returning you to your regularly scheduled argument...

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Being killed isn't Evil, is it? If making war were evil, Good people might submit to subjection and slaughter.

however, in many ethical systems, allowing others to be killed is evil...

Good people can do things that could be considered evil, if all other alternatives are worse. I think some of the adjectives thrown around this thread (decadent, tyranical) to try to describe the societies which might grow up under the worldveiw suggested are way off the mark. They can still go to war if all other options have failed and they can still win, and they can even respect those who fought in the war - as long as those who fought mourn the enemy dead with their own and take no pride or trophies from their fighting.

Also, the philosophy is only being put up against truely unprovoked invasions by the fundementally evil. And how realistic are those really? Sure its a staple of fantasy and GI Joe, but its actually pretty silly. A society which saw war as a great evil would only have survived if they behaved in ways which prevented war in the first place. To perhaps expand on what Barsoomcore was saying, if a horde of nasty barbarians sweep in from the desert, isn't that because you have allowed them to be trapped in a lifeless desert which they eventually MUST try to escape from? If your neighbor tries to annex your lovely river port, can't that be seen in part because you allowed the river port to become a key in how well off your or your neighbor could be?

Wars don't start because one side is evil, or because some punk assassinated the ArchDuke of Austria. In a world (an entire world, was the impression I got) where war was seen as a (sometimes neccassary) evil, many of the wars we take for granted would likely never have been fought. Obviously you'd have to ease up on the prevelance of inherently evil races, but I can't say I'd miss them...

Kahuna burger

 

[Kesh]

Wow. I never knew all that about Aikido.

Out of curiosity, barsoomcore, are the form's teachings inspired by Taoism, Buddhism or another philosophy? Many of your points sound very close to Taoist belief.

Especially the 'necessary evil' part. One core belief in Taoism is that causing harm to others is anathema to a Taoist, because you are interfering with their life. There's an old parable about that:

A Taoist master had been teaching about the importance of doing no harm, when a student asked a question. If a madman broke into one's home and attacking his family, would a Taoist refuse to act?

The teacher responded that, no, for allowing the violence to continue would be causing more harm than acting. "How then," asked the student, "can a Taoist defend his family and maintain his faith? A madman will not listen to reason, and nothing short of murder will stop him."

In response, the teacher stated, "Then the Taoist, finding no other solution, would have to kill the madman. However, he would take no pleasure in the act, and furthermore would be saddened that he had no other way to stop the madman."

Taoism recognizes that murder is an evil act, but there are times when one must act in order to prevent a greater evil. One should always regret having to take that action, though.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Have you ever heard the saying, "Fear the apathy of good men."

War is not always an evil thing, even if you start it. If a good nation starts a war against an evil country, then I see that as a good act.

Describe how people in-game determine "good" and "evil," please. And resorting to the fact that these concepts are arguably concrete in D&D is rather weak, since the game doesn't actually require that good and evil be known to state or private actors.

Example, if Cormyr decides they are going to start a war with Thay to topple their evil government and free the thousands of slaves they keep, then I consider that a justified and good war, not a "necessary evil". But a noble and voluntary sacrifice by a group of good people to help a group of oppressed people. I would judge the others who sit idly by claiming they will defeat a nation like Thay with words and diplomacy as weak and deluded.

So diplomacy, in that case, should not even be tried, hmm? If I knew that I would have a reasonable chance of success if I DID try persuasion against Thay, shouldn't I do it? Your argument suggests that Cormyr should just go and kill people and have done with it. My point, which I think IS reflected in the first post, is that violence can be seen as "evil" as opposed to "good." It can be transformed into a non-evil (I hesitate to say "good") act by context, whether that context is casus belli, self-defense, or some other cause that less pacifist types than myself might find valid. However, adding context doesn't make violence "good"; it merely justifies it, which is something else entirely. I would hope, in the Cormyr context, that Azoun would at least have some reservations over going to war with Cormyr. As an example of a good act, I might cite giving money to orphans, healing the sick, or making someone you love feel better; I doubt most people have serious qualms over those sorts of deeds, whereas I hope they do over killing people. The fact that those people are "evil" and the tools of a repressive, hostile government may justify the killing, but I don't think they magically make the act "good" sui generis.

 

[Fundin Strongarm]

To perhaps expand on what Barsoomcore was saying, if a horde of nasty barbarians sweep in from the desert, isn't that because you have allowed them to be trapped in a lifeless desert which they eventually MUST try to escape from?

I'm sorry, but whatever excuse the enemy uses to invade is not the fault of the one being invaded. If a heretofore peaceful horde that was content to live in the desert suddenly sweeps in, the correct action of a free country is to defend itself.

If your neighbor tries to annex your lovely river port, can't that be seen in part because you allowed the river port to become a key in how well off your or your neighbor could be?

Let's break that down further. If your neighbour tries to annex (steal) your car are you going to argue that you've provoked it because you have a nicer car than him (or that you have a car and he doesn't)? Is your neighbour's theft justified? This is why the Aikido philosophy proposed by barsoomcore (assuming he has laid it out correctly) can often be silly. I do not agree with his definition of who starts a war (or perhaps the problem is the definition of war itself).

Also, the philosophy is only being put up against truely unprovoked invasions by the fundementally evil. And how realistic are those really?

Actually, looking at the world, there has not been a war between free countries. They have been between collectivist countries amoungst themselves or between collectivist countries and free countries.

"How then," asked the student, "can a Taoist defend his family and maintain his faith? A madman will not listen to reason, and nothing short of murder will stop him."
In response, the teacher stated, "Then the Taoist, finding no other solution, would have to kill the madman. However, he would take no pleasure in the act, and furthermore would be saddened that he had no other way to stop the madman."
Taoism recognizes that murder is an evil act, but there are times when one must act in order to prevent a greater evil. One should always regret having to take that action, though.

I would be saddened that the madman would/did not follow reason. However, while not taking particular pleasure in the act, one could feel pride in knowing that one has acted properly.
I think one ought to distinguish between murder and killing. Premeditated killing is murder and is indeed wrong. Killing in self-defence is not. See Elaer's posts on Just Wars. Context is everything.

I believe Lord Pendragon and Elder Basilisk have answered fairly well Dogbrain's original (flawed) premise about how it would apply in game terms.

 

[Altalazar]

War is always evil and is full of evil acts. Tell me - how can one explain war as anything other than evil when you've had what would otherwise seem to be LG armies on BOTH sides? War is evil, pure and simple.

Beware those who claim to be good and yet seem to champion it - it is a common political tool to keep control of a population through fear.

Even against "evil" races, where can war lead? If they are beyond redemption, then you must kill the women and children or else you'll be fighting them again. So as your troops slaughter defenseless babies, try justifying it as a "good" war. And if they are NOT beyond redemption, then it is a moral failure that the differences could not be resolved short of the mass evil that is war.

A LG nation would simply make itself strong enough so that no nation would go to war against it - it would never actually need to fight one, and would certainly never start one.

 

[barsoomcore]

I'm sorry, but whatever excuse the enemy uses to invade is not the fault of the one being invaded.

Until the "defender" accepts his responsibility for the actions of the "attacker", no lasting peace can be found.

the correct action of a free country is to defend itself.

The correct action of a superior country is to deal with the situation so that the invasion never occurs, making both groups stronger in the process.

If your neighbour tries to annex (steal) your car are you going to argue that you've provoked it because you have a nicer car than him (or that you have a car and he doesn't)? Is your neighbour's theft justified? This is why the Aikido philosophy proposed by barsoomcore (assuming he has laid it out correctly) can often be silly.

It isn't ever silly, but I apologize if I haven't stated it very clearly. It can be difficult because at first glance it seems so passive. It isn't, and thinking that "the Aikido philosophy proposed by barsoomcore" advocates submission or passivity in the face of violence is a great misunderstanding of what is being presented.

If you're trying to decide whose fault something is, you're not solving the problem. If you're trying to prove it's somebody else's fault, you're not solving the problem.

If you take responsibility for it right from the get-go, and look for ways to solve the problem rather than point fingers, you'll accomplish infinitely more. So just make it your fault. Be responsible for it. And then solve it with whatever method is best (if that happens to be shooting your neighbor when he puts a greasy paw on your shiny new car, so be it -- determining the correct response is a different issue).

My advice would be -- don't live next to people who steal cars.

I would be saddened that the madman would/did not follow reason. However, while not taking particular pleasure in the act, one could feel pride in knowing that one has acted properly.

But surely you agree that a non-violent solution of equal effectiveness and finality would be better?

 

[tburdett]

Armies marching do not constitute war. People committing acts of violence against each other do. Until the defender resists the incoming army with some sort of violence, there is no war.

Once you have violated the sovereign territory of a foreign power you have committed an act of war. That starts the war, not the violence.

 

[barsoomcore]

Also, the philosophy is only being put up against truely unprovoked invasions by the fundementally evil. And how realistic are those really? Sure its a staple of fantasy and GI Joe, but its actually pretty silly.

It serves a purpose in fantasy literature, which by its nature is a metaphorical examination of the nature of power.

I find that a hard path to follow in a D&D game, where you aren't able to construct metaphors since nobody's in control of what's going on. So all to often unprovoked invasions by the fundamentally evil serve only to provide escapist fantasies of morally justified slaughter.

Which is totally fine. I'm always up for a little morally justified slaughter.