The morality of war

[sexobon]

Dani, all's fair in love and war. The morality of one is the morality of the other. The Laws of Land Warfare are not altruistic conventions between "civilized" nations, they're placebos for non-combatants in nations; or, other movements wealthy enough (including human resources) to have a subset of their population do their fighting for them. The primary objective is to keep those who can afford not to do the fighting themselves and their loved ones from being attacked. The secondary objective is to ease their consciences about having someone else do their dirty work for them. It only works in conflicts between the wealthy; unless, the disparity between wealthy and poor in a conflict is so great as to render a so called war nothing more than a police action.

When the survival of a nation or movement that can't afford the luxury of non-combatants is threatened, anything goes. It's not unlike embattled parents, who can't afford to go their separate ways, using their children against each other even to the point that a depressed child commits suicide; or, an angry child perpetrates violence on others. When the latter happens, we've authorized our police to use even deadly force if necessary to protect innocents which may include our own loved ones. Why would anyone consider not doing the same for soldiers, who are somebody's loved ones, fighting an opponent that will use any means available?

My question was rhetorical: People are either too far removed from the realities of war to comprehend some necessities, they're deluded into thinking that if wealthy nations which can afford non-combatants set the example then poor desperate movements will follow (apples and oranges); or, they consider soldiers to be a lower cast that's expendable just to ease their consciences.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Dani, all's fair in love and war. The morality of one is the morality of the other. The Laws of Land Warfare are not altruistic conventions between "civilized" nations, they're placebos for non-combatants in nations; or, other movements wealthy enough (including human resources) to have a subset of their population do their fighting for them. The primary objective is to keep those who can afford not to do the fighting themselves and their loved ones from being attacked. The secondary objective is to ease their consciences about having someone else do their dirty work for them. It only works in conflicts between the wealthy; unless, the disparity between wealthy and poor in a conflict is so great as to render a so called war nothing more than a police action.

When the survival of a nation or movement that can't afford the luxury of non-combatants is threatened, anything goes. It's not unlike embattled parents, who can't afford to go their separate ways, using their children against each other even to the point that a depressed child commits suicide; or, an angry child perpetrates violence on others. When the latter happens, we've authorized our police to use even deadly force if necessary to protect innocents which may include our own loved ones. Why would anyone consider not doing the same for soldiers, who are somebody's loved ones, fighting an opponent that will use any means available?

My question was rhetorical: People are either too far removed from the realities of war to comprehend some necessities, they're deluded into thinking that if wealthy nations which can afford non-combatants set the example then poor desperate movements will follow (apples and oranges); or, they consider soldiers to be a lower cast that's expendable just to ease their consciences.

I do not agree with your glib dismissal sexobon. I am not a soldier, I have never been in combat and it is extremely unlikely that I ever will be. IIRC, you have been in combat, though. I sincerely doubt that for those in combat, those members of countries or movements wealthy enough to have others fight and die for them, who themselves are fighting and dying, consider Laws of Land Warfare a placebo.

Are there no such soldiers who believe in and benefit from laws of war? Real rules for real situations? That sounds like the opposite of a placebo to me; an inert tonic to soothe the ills of a hypochondriac. Are there not laws that are more than some purty words to salve the consciences of those who are able to avoid the real pain of fighting? Is it an imaginary benefit that we receive for mutually agreeing to not use chemical weapons? Or are you saying that the benefit might be real, but the word "law" is an illusion, just as I might find my headache cured by a sugar pill?

I think "placebo" is inappropriately cynical and harsh. I also agree with your larger point that at some extremity, anyone can be pressed to sacrifice their love for law on the altar of their love for their child or cause or country.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Like all laws it won't prevent, it just allows the winner the excuse to punish the loser.

[sexobon]

BigV, I associated placebo with noncombatants.

Originally Posted by BigV

I do not agree with your glib dismissal sexobon. ... I sincerely doubt that for those in combat, those members of countries or movements wealthy enough to have others fight and die for them, who themselves are fighting and dying, consider Laws of Land Warfare a placebo. ...

You disagreed; but, by associating placebo with combatants.

Apples and oranges.

Originally Posted by BigV

... Are there no such soldiers who believe in and benefit from laws of war? ...

Soldiers of most militaries are indoctrinated into believing things that will give them a perception of moral superiority to enhance their motivation and resultant combat effectiveness.

Originally Posted by BigV

... Real rules for real situations? ...

Someone's been watching too many reality TV shows.

Originally Posted by BigV

... That sounds like the opposite of a placebo to me; ...

Applying what I said about noncombatants to combatants sounds like the opposite to me.

Originally Posted by BigV

... Are there not laws that are more than some purty words to salve the consciences of those who are able to avoid the real pain of fighting? ...

Yes, as I explained above, soldiers [combatants] of most militaries are indoctrinated into believing things that will give them a perception of moral superiority to enhance their motivation and resultant combat effectiveness. The same laws which enable this also provide a placebo effect for noncombatants. Two birds with one stone.

Originally Posted by BigV

... Is it an imaginary benefit that we receive for mutually agreeing to not use chemical weapons? ...

When the shit hits the fan, those agreements won't be worth the paper they're written on.

Originally Posted by BigV

... Or are you saying that the benefit might be real, but the word "law" is an illusion, just as I might find my headache cured by a sugar pill? ...

Laws can be rescinded, superseded; or, suspended (simply not enforced). The leaders of most nations (incl. ours), or movements, already have the autonomous authority to do this in the interest of national security.

Originally Posted by BigV

... I think "placebo" is inappropriately cynical and harsh.

In the case study of one dwellar, placebo was entirely effective in diminishing the participant's reading comprehension to the point he was able to rationalize that apples and oranges are the same without suffering any of the ill affects associated with being a pumpkin head.