Philosophical Reasons For War based on "Essential Prerequisites Before Going to War"
...into freedom is in itself forcing them into slavery simply with a new title. The idea of a war being waged on the notion of Good vs. Evil is absurd. No one can claim that their side is more correct then another unless the logically evaluate their actions along side the prerequisites of war. To, similar to Bush, say that acts of terrorism are committed because the terrorists are evil and we are good is contradictory on the grounds that the terrorists could say that we stockpile weapons and threaten to use them because we are evil and they are good. Good vs. Evil is not accurate because in itself it suggests religion as a basis for war. This would suggest that one religion is correct, and that we have proof of this, to which neither case is true. Because good and evil cannot be given a meaning, they cannot be reason for war. The idea that a war should take place to hold up one’s dignity and honor, or that it is one’s duty is not acceptable. Saying that those who do not support the war are not honorable is also inaccurate because war is not logical, and honor and dignity cannot be defined in empirical degrees therefore they cannot be considered as a basis for war. Saying that war is the only well-conscioused action makes no sense. It cannot be proven that we even posses a conscious, and if we do, then it gives a moral value to the actions, and morals are no way to create a war-like conflict. Creating war to end war is a circular response that is completely contradictory. If the intentions are to stop war, then a failure occurs at the creation of a new war. Therefore trying to deter a potential threat is also circular given that the initial action one take could create the supposed impending threat. Action creates reaction, not inaction. War is drastic measure, an extremity that should not take place unless prerequisites are considered. The goals that any war should possess are all rooted in logic and not emotional responses that hold no empirical value at all. In current wars, fought for oil, or to stop the supposed impending threat of terrorism that looms around every corner, none of these prerequisites were evaluated at all, making them illogical, and unjust. If however, a war is inevitable and it adheres to the prerequisites, there remain certain other factors that must be considered. There has to be an open debate in order for a war to take place. It should be open to anyone who has an educated opinion, so that all angles can be looked at and considered. There has to be a unanimous consensus that war is the only possibility. This would allow any unforeseen possible alternatives to come out and be recognized so that a war will not take place without complete depletion of all possibilities. Wars cost an enormous amount of money. They can evidentially take a surplus into a deficit in a matter of days. Before a war can take place it must be true that it is the best possible way to spend the money. In current military conflicts, money used to take countless lives could be used to save countless lives all over the world. This money could feed those that are starving, or give shelter to those who are homeless; therefore this money is being prioritized in an area that evidentially should not be a priority. When in a state of war, every fact should be disclosed to the public. It has been evident that this is not the case with the current conflicts. We are told little to nothing about information that is gathered, and therefore this war cannot be just. When drastic measures are taken to keep the truth from the public, in no way can a war be just. Atrocities committed not only by the enemy, but by our own should be disclosed immediately as to not sway public opinion. Facts should be presented so that logical opinions can be formed. In current conflicts, this is not the case, therefore they are unjust. Because these prerequisites are not followed, we, like any nation, have the right to remove our unjust government. As the article “Prerequisites Before Going to War,” explains any nation is justified in the removal of a militant government. Having a militant government, who always threatens and warns, does nothing but promote war or war-like activities. Being militant shows other nations that you are hostile, and therefore hostilities can grow against you. It can be argued that war is created because of insensitivity to killing or the ending of life. The idea of innocent deaths being explainable by way of them being little more than casualties of war is not acceptable. Every life should be valued the same; therefore one Iraqi villager who has died is as important as a Major in the military. Most of the arguments and justifications for our current militaristic conflicts are circular to the point that they offer no logical sense whatsoever. These wars basically go against every prerequisite mentioned in the article. It is a war of aggression, a war of oil, and a religious Good vs. Evil war. It has been said that we are entangled in these conflicts to put an end to terrorism, and to do so, we will commit terrorist acts upon the terrorists in turn making us terrorists, susceptible to the same punishment we inflict upon them. The damages and losses in themselves are enough not to participate in any military conflict. The loss of...