JSM and whether war is worse than anything and everything else

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
Sometimes it is *NOT* possible to fight through means other than war. That's the point.

Unless you think war is ALWAYS the worst choice - even if it is done for some purpose like saving humanity, ending slavery, or something of that nature - then you actually agree with the quote. The only way to disagree with it is to argue that war is NEVER preferable to ANY other alternative.

He didn't say "hey, the first time things get a little difficult, go directly to war, do not pass go, do not collect $200."

Some people think no matter what, no matter how many times diplomacy has failed, no matter how many times you've tried a non-war solution and failed, no matter how horrible the thing you are opposing is (like slavery, genocide, etc.) you just keep trying because war is the absolute worst thing.

Mill is saying that is incorrect: that sometimes war, while terrible, is better than the alternative.

I happen to agree, and based on other things you have posted in this thread, I think you do as well.

---

As I said I agree with the point he is trying to make. I agree sometimes one is forced to war, self defense is an obvious example. But the truth is, I have seen pacifists but "morally decayed" is not the adjective I use to describe them. I agree they are out of touch with reality or they are just dreamers or some kind of idealist but I cannot think of them as morally decayed.

Quote:

---

Is there nothing in your life so precious that you would not kill or be killed to defend it?

---

I've actually asked myself that question a few times, and it can be a pretty heavy one to ponder.
What keeps coming up in my mind is protecting my friends and family, especially my nieces and nephews. I've resolved myself to accepting that I'd go pretty ape-shit, and all bets would be off if I saw them being attacked. I haven't been in a fight since I was 14, but I'm pretty sure raw rage would do alot of damage.

The whole idea of war and terrorism as people in the middle east experience it is rather difficult for me to grasp. I've got a pretty sweet life here in Canada, never genuinely feeling my way of life is seriously threatened. It's one thing to understand it or study it, it has to be completely different to actually live in it, even get used to it, however strange -that- could be.

Quote:

---

What keeps coming up in my mind is protecting my friends and family, especially my nieces and nephews. I've resolved myself to accepting that I'd go pretty ape-shit, and all bets would be off if I saw them being attacked. I haven't been in a fight since I was 14, but I'm pretty sure raw rage would do alot of damage.

---

I think you are missing the point to some degree. Any reasonable person would engage in a physical altercation to defend their friends and family. I believe the point of the quote specifies valuing nothing beyond their personal safety (or by extension, their family's personal safety).

Essentially, I believe it refers to the greater whole on a national level. Do you believe that the things you enjoy are worth so much as to put on a uniform and give those things up to defend them? Or, are you willing to accept the fact that you are forever going to be allowed your creature comforts because someone with a sense of duty has provided them for you?

Soldiers give up their rights when they join a branch of military service. I have a nice apartment, a great job working at a local Guard unit, and I get to go to school for almost nothing. I could get a letter in the mail tomorrow that says "Pack your shit and report to this address by next month". Or next week. Or tomorrow.

In a more literal sense, soldiers do not enjoy the same legal rights as John Q either. There is no right against self-incrimination, we are subject to a totally different set of laws and regulations, et cetera, et cetera.

The quote is not about whether you would fight to defend your friends and family. Any moron would do that. It is whether or not you would leave your friends and family and give up many of the things you enjoy to ensure them for others.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Darion

The quote is not about whether you would fight to defend your friends and family. Any moron would do that. It is whether or not you would leave your friends and family and give up many of the things you enjoy to ensure them for others.

---

I think that pretty much sums it up to be honest.

I think there is a very real 'moral decay' in many people today. I think that, because most people are several generations removed from relatives or friends of family that have experience war at home, people do not have a real grasp of what exactly moral right is in the global/war sense. Generations ago, people knew and were raised with an awareness of right and wrong in the global sense... people understood and could empathize with people's rights and freedoms and even life taken away right before their eyes with zero just or righteous reason.

Without that sense of moral obligation, many today are anit-war simply because it's a popular 'thing' to be. They preach the evils of being the heavy hand... of bullying other countries or peoples to live 'our way'... of sticking our nose where is does not belong.

Personally, I think those people ignore the reality of life. Not everyone can defend themselves from oppression or aggression. Not everyone is as fortunate and comfortable as they are. More often than not, I think people who says, "i'm against the war in ____" are as cowardly, immoral and evil as the mother who straps C4 to her infant and hurls it into a vehicle of soldiers. How are you AGAINST providing another human being, a MILLION human beings with basic human rights and liberties? How do you OPPOSE preservation of freedom and life?

In modern context, the people upon who present wars are waged can and WILL (9/11??) attack the US whenever able, can and WILL destroy innocent lives whenever possible. To ignore that fact is ridiculously ignorant. To believe it better to let millions suffer and die without action is selfish and grossly immoral. Simply because YOU specifically are not at risk (yet) does not make the evils carried out around the world "not our business"...

I found it funny that, a while back, a HUGE protest here in Chicago against the war in Iraq was reported as being something near 75% age 17-21 suburbanite white kids. Something near 10% were accompanied by their family attorneys on site.

What do they know about war and right and evil and the world? What were they there for other than a hope that some Chicago police officer threatened them just a little too 'harshly' so they could sue and make a cheap buck?

I think pacifists, as addressed by the initial quote, are disgusting people. If they are so opposed to 'war' in the middle east... they should go there themselves and mediate the hostilities peacefully. Let them see first hand how 'reasonable' the participants are. Let them realize just how bad bad is.

Since I posted the quote that sparked this thread I was going to reply, but I'm not sure I can add to what others have said. There are already some well worded posts making the same points I'd be making. So I'll only add this:

I don't think Mills is exaggerating. I think that if you are not willing to go to war for anything that you are morally bankrupt, showing no concern for anyone but yourself and your family. I'd add that if you're not willing to see war to fight terrorism that I can't imagine what you would be willing to see war for.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
The whole idea of war and terrorism as people in the middle east experience it is rather difficult for me to grasp. I've got a pretty sweet life here in Canada, never genuinely feeling my way of life is seriously threatened. It's one thing to understand it or study it, it has to be completely different to actually live in it, even get used to it, however strange -that- could be.

---

In the US people used to feel pretty safe. Then some terrorists flew two planes into the WTC and another one into the Pentagon and tried to fly a fourth plane into something else. There aren't many attractive targets for terrorism in Canada, which you can take comfort in, but don't think for a second that you're safe because terrorism can't reach you.

Quote:

---

we can not dedicate - we can not consecrate - we can not hallow - this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

President Abraham Lincoln
Gettysburg Address, 1863

---

I think this is a much more "positive" version of John Stuart Mills, but I think it conveys the same sentiment and shows just how important JSM has been to our development as a country.

Lincoln's address always gives me goosebumps. That fucker sucker punches you with responsibility.

I agree, completely. The thing we miss the most now in our country are debates like the Lincoln-Douglas debates. I really, truly, feel that if we had political discourse like that today our country would be truly great.