War Is Always Wrong Do You Agree

Wars are always wrong. Do you agree?

Not all wars. Nazism was defeated, by a war. Our nation gained Independence with a war. Slavery and a nation kept in tact by a war. And many other examples. Some wars are questionable because of the politics involved but over all war is necessary.

Is war always wrong?

No, it is not, since war often needs to happen to stop dictators and genocides (remember WWII). However, most agree that need must be defined by a) getting attacked by another nation or b) getting approval from the UN Security Council. Otherwise, in examples such as the war in Iraq, when neither objective was met, the war violates international law.

Is "murder" always wrong?

First off, MURDER is a highly technical legal term.
It is defined as killing with Malice aforethought[1].
BY FAR not every killing is murder. Killing a terrorist who broke into your house is not murder, it is self-defense. Execution is not murder. Military casualties is not murder.

So if you ask "is KILLING always wrong" the it the answer is an obvious NO.

So now to come back to your question "is MURDER always wrong?"
I still agree with you and say that the answer is no.
The well known example is people who are lost at see. They know that if they just keep not eating all 3 will die, but if they will kill one, they 2 remaining ones have a much higher chance to survive by eating the corpse. In England these people would almost always be convicted of murder, but then immediately pardoned by the Queen.
See for instance "Dudley v. Stevens" case[2]
This is truly a case of a MURDER that is not wrong.

Is war always bad?

Obviously. Nothing good can come out of it. Even victors have that short term happiness of having won a war, but there is always a part of conscience neglecting whatever happened. And if there is no neglect, and every person finds it a good way of achieving peace, war will be continuous and inevitable. It is neither, most of the time.

Do you agree with the statement that "great men are almost always bad men?"

No I don't agree. Was Martin Luther King Jr a bad man? Was Gandhi, or Nelson Mandela, Thomas Edison, Leonardo Da Vinci, Plato, Socrates? The list is endless. Yes absolute power corrupts, but it doesn't corrupt absolutely every great man. I think you are confusing greatness with power. Not every man with power deserves to be called great. Greatness comes from what you do, not what you have.

In war, is it always the winning side and losing side? Or can there be a good side and a bad side?

No, there's not always a winning side and a losing side.  Many wars end with negotiated peace treaties where no one gets everything they want.  See: the first Gulf war, the Korean War, the war of 1812, etc.As for good guys and bad guys, that's a narrative we try to impose on wars because we need stories to tell ourselves.  And, coincidentally, whoever tells the story generally comes off as the good guy.Sometimes, there's a clear aggressor, which we usually call 'the bad guy'.  Unless, of course, we started the war, in which case we say it's justified.Sometimes one side is guilty of war crimes and atrocities.  That's why it's clear that the Nazis were the bad guys in World War 2.  So evil, in fact, that we could ally ourselves with Stalin and still consider ourselves the good guys.  More often, though, both sides have some atrocities to their name, and picking the "good guy" is all about who you want to support.We often try to get reality to conform to the stories we want to tell, but things are very rarely so simple.  The world isn't divided into good guys and bad guys, the good guys don't always win, and the line hero doesn't end up riding off into the sunset.  The real world is far messier than that.

I always think that people are moral, am I wrong?

Yes sir/ma'am,You are wrong.What is a definition of moral? Can one define it for each and every one of us? I have a very apt example from Indian Mythology, that might assist you in understanding that there is nothing perfectly moral for everyone. What is moral for you could be excessively immroral for me and vice versa. Here it goes. This is a situation from the Indian Epic named, Ramayan.A perceived negative party was the King of Lanka (now Sri Lanka), called Ravan. He was portrayed as a villain in this Epic, because he kidnapped the wife of a perceived deity in Hindu Mythology, named Ram.This led to a war between Ram and Ravan. Our main points of focus here are the decisions taken by the brothers of Ravan in this war. Ravan's decision of kidnapping Ram's wife was based on the physical attack that was made by Ram's brother on Ravan's sister in self-defense. And Ravan had no intention of returning his wife back, although he took very good care of her, and had not caused her any harm.In this situation, one of Ravan's brothers, Vibhishan, revolted and went against Ravan, trying to convince him to return the wife. He threatened to revoke his support in case Ravan did not do so. Upon Ravan's refusal, Vibhishan left Ravan, his own family and went to Ram's team and assisted Ram. This is a breach of moral duty of always standing by the family, without thinking of other consuquences. Family was supposed to be the first priority. So, Vibhishan broke the moral code and betrayed his own family to do the right thing.On the other hand, Kumbhakaran, Ravan's other brother stood by Ravan. In the time of war, he killed many for the family, and the protection of the family. In this situation, he broke a moral code as well by killing so many. But did he break a moral code when he stood by his family? This explains how every situation is a moral dilemma, if not for you then for someone else. Everyone is moral as well as immoral at the same time. It depends on the eye that observes the action.If the employer hires you because you are family, you might not consider it immoral because it was good on you, but the other more deserving candidate will see it as immoral, for he/she had a fair chance. By 'you', I mean any random person. I hope I made my point.

Are there some things that are always right and some things that are always wrong? Why?

Are there some things that are always right and some things that are always wrong? Why?Sure, you should never, ever use soy sauce as a substitute for vanilla extract in a recipe ever. Oh wait, there are a certain percentage of people who will, (ugh) like that.Did you mean things like child abuse or more specifically sex with a child? One would think so, but then we have people like Milo Yiannopoulos who believes that children are perfectly capable of initiating and engaging in all forms of sexual activity. There are indeed a large group of people who agree with him, and more that don’t. Fortunately the law sides with the kids, not Milo. Don’t jump for joy yet, though. Remember there is a religion who has a special religious figure who was married at 6 and had her marriage consummated at 9. This is A-OK in this religion, don’t even try to argue with them about it, after ll, you simply do not understand.Murder? Well, it’s OK if it happens in a war, at the direction of the government or in self defense situations like Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia where it was somehow “justified”.So, if sex with kids is not 100% denounced and you can shoot unarmed men walking the streets, then I can’t think of ANY situation where it’s 100% settled that “X” behavior is “bad”.People love saying that this morality thing has been settled by their holy book and they might have a leg to stand on if everyone who followed that holy book actually agreed with each other, but they don’t.I live in the land of reality. This is what reality shows to be true. Morality is subjective and people can justify any behavior, some declaring it “bad” while others call it “good”. This is why the law is constantly being refined and rewritten allowing for nuance in the interpretation of the laws and the behavior in question.You can pretend all you want that there is an absolute, but until you can demonstrate it as fact, then it simply doesn’t exist except as anything more than wishful thinking.

Do you think it is morally wrong to kill?

We are strickly talking about people killing people here, correct?IF that's the case, then it depends on the circumstances. If your a soldier, as long as you feel you were justified in killing the enemy, then you did nothing morally wrong.The people that declared the war your fighting in MAY have done so for immoral​ reasons, but you are a soldier, so that is not your worry. You have orders, so that is not immoral.If your protecting yourself or your family from harm, then the law says it's not immoral to use deadly force, if deadly force will be used on you.If your on a jury, and they are seeking the death penility​, and You have voted him guilty, and have already told the DA under oath that IF he was guilty that you wouldn't have a problem doing so. Then again, your government says you did nothing morally wrong.In those cases you have to believe that your government would not ask or order you to do something immoral. And that the law knows the difference as well.It all comes down to what YOU believe. Some people believe there is NEVER a good reason to ever kill anyone. These folks believe this way because of their religion​. Not what the Law says is right or wrong.So, the bottom line is to always know where you stand leagely, if you have to take a life.IF you take that life or not is morally Your Decision in the end.

Why do pacifists think war is wrong?

Pacifists believe that we should not kill or harm other people. And if killing is wrong, war must be wrong - because war is basically a matter of killing. Bertrand Russell pointed out that 'patriots always talk of dying for their country, but never of killing for their country'. Yet that is ultimately what war means: being prepared to kill other people and inflict suffering on them.War may bring a sort of freedom to one group of people, but usually only at the expense of other people's freedom. In war, the side that 'wins' is not necessarily the one with the most justification, but the one with the greatest power. And the idea that you can get peace by fighting a war is about as sensible as planting weeds and expecting flowers to grow.