Philosophy Now Forum

Duane Cady tells us why pacifism isn’t sitting back and letting the masters of war have their way.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/105/Pa ... _Passivism

Philosophy Now wrote:Duane Cady tells us why pacifism isn’t sitting back and letting the masters of war have their way.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/105/Pa ... _Passivism

Regarding the first question, going to war justly requires meeting six conditions:

1) The war must be made on behalf of a just cause;

2) The decision to go to war must be made by proper authorities;

3) Participants must have a good intention rather than revenge or greed as their goal;

4) It must be likely that peace will emerge after the war;

5) Going to war must be a last resort; and

6) The total amount of evil resulting from making war must be outweighed by the good likely to come of it.

There is lots wrong with this. Point one is a moot point. Who says what is just? And point six is totally imponderable.

I think the article falls into a familiar trap. The six conditions fail to address Sun Tzu's most important piece of advice, one ignored time and again since WW2, in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan(twice -by Russia and the USA), namely NEVER FIGHT A WAR YOU CANNOT WIN.

You might argue that a just war ought not have that condition. I disagree. Fighting an un-winnable war is an unjust thing to impose upon your armed forces.

So
7) Do not engage in an unwinnable war.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: There is lots wrong with this. Point one is a moot point. Who says what is just? And point six is totally imponderable.

I think the article falls into a familiar trap. The six conditions fail to address Sun Tzu's most important piece of advice, one ignored time and again since WW2, in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan(twice -by Russia and the USA), namely NEVER FIGHT A WAR YOU CANNOT WIN.

You might argue that a just war ought not have that condition. I disagree. Fighting an un-winnable war is an unjust thing to impose upon your armed forces.

So
7) Do not engage in an unwinnable war.

I agree with your (and Sun Tzu's?) point 7. It is amazing how often that advice is ignored. However, I can't see why you find point 6 imponderable, as to a large extent it seems to overlap with your point 7.

In fact, you could say that fighting an un-winnable war is wrong precisely because the resulting harm to your troops, and probably to civilians, are evils that in that case almost inevitably outweigh any good that is gained.

RickLewis wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: There is lots wrong with this. Point one is a moot point. Who says what is just? And point six is totally imponderable.

I think the article falls into a familiar trap. The six conditions fail to address Sun Tzu's most important piece of advice, one ignored time and again since WW2, in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan(twice -by Russia and the USA), namely NEVER FIGHT A WAR YOU CANNOT WIN.

You might argue that a just war ought not have that condition. I disagree. Fighting an un-winnable war is an unjust thing to impose upon your armed forces.

So
7) Do not engage in an unwinnable war.

I agree with your (and Sun Tzu's?) point 7. It is amazing how often that advice is ignored. However, I can't see why you find point 6 imponderable, as to a large extent it seems to overlap with your point 7.

In fact, you could say that fighting an un-winnable war is wrong precisely because the resulting harm to your troops, and probably to civilians, are evils that in that case almost inevitably outweigh any good that is gained.

Well that's easy. One man's good is another woman's evil.
Not even Hitler set out to do evil. He considered his actions a great good for the German people.

But I think there is a far more difficult problem with 6 in that the unforeseen consequences of any war are immeasurable.