John Stuart Mill

[Farnan]

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice,—is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.

Discuss...

[Fenris]

Oh, in many situations war is necessary. Let's just not generalize.

[gigagaia]

Discuss...

John Stuart Mill also wrote "A few words on Non-intervention," so he wouldn't exactly be my first choice to bring up justifying war. Mill really only believed that war was justified when it was on the defence or a grave ill against humanity was being ended, his example being slavery.

I also believe that just because someone doesn't believe in killing or war doesn't believe they have no moral convictions or rights. Would you say that Christ was decayed and depraved? Ghandi? In fact I would say that a society that needs nor wants no violence to solve its disputes is one which is of a much higher moral state than one that does. It is true we might have to defend ourselves against those who wish to use violence against us, but even that is debateable to some and we should not begrudge them for it.

Furthermore You have to remember that Mill was writing at a time and place when war and killing was glorified beyond belief and at the beginning of England's imperial period where War was viewed as "sport." Given that, I hope that we aren't using the same lenses to look at war and its implications and place in society today. War is a terrible thing that does terrible things to people. The heroic notion of warfare is a conundrum, because those who are willing to sacrifice are deserving of honour, but as long as we honour combat as we do, war and violence will exist. We still see war as glorious and just and so are far more willing to use war as a means of policy than we should be. Perhaps because its so hard to disassociate the indiviudals (soldiers; honour) from the cause (war; unjust).

[Ó Cathasaigh]

A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice;

Remind you of anything? :hmmm:

[Farnan]

Don't involve politics here, this is about the quote in general, not applied to any current war...

[Ó Cathasaigh]

What do you want me to say?

"smart guy....well, next topic"

[Farnan]

The premise that war is justified if you are fighting against tyranny or for liberty.

[Fenris]

The premise that war is justified if you are fighting against tyranny or for liberty.

But the main debate in wars is not really this but are WE fighting against tyranny and for liberty?

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Is it a direct result of the fighting? Perhaps.

[gigagaia]

The premise that war is justified if you are fighting against tyranny or for liberty.

And that all depends on your definition of Tyranny and liberty. Mill was very adament that this was not simply a Saddam Hussein case, but more like a global institution like Slavery. Mill would have sanctioned wars to protect humanity (a humanitarian intervention beyond the scale of what we have seen in the past decade or two; ie. a war to end slavery) or civil wars for liberty within (American Civil war). Mill Would not have sanctioned invading countries to impose liberty or end despotic regimes. In fact he explicitly says this is a bad idea in "A few words on non-intervention."

I think you might be misinterpreting what Mill said here...

[bdh]

And that all depends on your definition of Tyranny and liberty. Mill was very adament that this was not simply a Saddam Hussein case, but more like a global institution like Slavery. Mill would have sanctioned wars to protect humanity (a humanitarian intervention beyond the scale of what we have seen in the past decade or two; ie. a war to end slavery) or civil wars for liberty within (American Civil war). Mill Would not have sanctioned invading countries to impose liberty or end despotic regimes. In fact he explicitly says this is a bad idea in "A few words on non-intervention."

One subtle flaw: Tyrants have the terrible habit of committing acts of genocide. So, while tyranny isn't justification in and of itself, the tendencies of tyranny offer ample opportunity for intervention.

Objectively, it would seem the best method for calculating the effects of war is to just measure the benefits and cost against each scenario. Obviously, some situations in which we could justly intervene would only be exacerbated by intervention and vice versa. Hopefully, given all the worlds mistakes, especially in recent times, people have developed superior means of gauging the costs and benefit of war.

[gigagaia]

One subtle flaw: Tyrants have the terrible habit of committing acts of genocide. So, while tyranny isn't justification in and of itself, the tendencies of tyranny offer ample opportunity for intervention.

And are you using the same definition of Tyrant as Mill was? Mill, like most enlightenment philopsophers, was heavily influenced by Greek thinkers, who used the word Tyrant interchangeably with Dictator, thus he probably wasn't thinking about tyranny in as strong language as you are referring. I don't think I have to ask you how many genocides in history have there been vs. how many dictators thus your relation is a bit sparse. Mill used the term in a sense much more concerned with liberty than core human rights (right to life etc...), a tyrant being someone who denied liberty to others, and the vast majority of those people did not commit any acts against their people so greivous as to warrant intervention, at least by Mill's standards.

Ultimately, a Tyrant may or may not committ horrendous acts against humanity, but mere potential to is not an acceptable justification to Mill. The relationship, no matter how strong you or I believe it to be, is not in and of itself a link which Mill made, who is the subject of discussion here.

[bdh]

And are you using the same definition of Tyrant as Mill was? Mill, like most enlightenment philopsophers, was heavily influenced by Greek thinkers, who used the word Tyrant interchangeably with Dictator, thus he probably wasn't thinking about tyranny in as strong language as you are referring. I don't think I have to ask you how many genocides in history have there been vs. how many dictators thus your relation is a bit sparse. Mill used the term in a sense much more concerned with liberty than core human rights (right to life etc...), a tyrant being someone who denied liberty to others, and the vast majority of those people did not commit any acts against their people so greivous as to warrant intervention, at least by Mill's standards.

I understand that, thats why I said tyrants have a tendency to commit acts of genocide. Tyranny can but does not always equate genocide. Perhaps I should have spoken more clearly.

The flaw though exists when you imply the current Iraq situation. Saddam Hussein did commit crimes against humanity, but the war was not justified, why, because it wasn't cost effective and would have most likely descended into violence, not because there was no merit for the action. On a superficial level, Mills would have agreed with intervention, that is at least until he measured the ultimate price for such an action. At which point, he would most likely have changed his mind.

Ultimately, a Tyrant may or may not committ horrendous acts against humanity, but mere potential to is not an acceptable justification to Mill. The relationship, no matter how strong you or I believe it to be, is not in and of itself a link which Mill made, who is the subject of discussion here.

I'm glad we agree.

[gigagaia]

I understand that, thats why I said tyrants have a tendency to commit acts of genocide. Tyranny can but does not always equate genocide. Perhaps I should have spoken more clearly.

The flaw though exists when you imply the current Iraq situation. Saddam Hussein did commit crimes against humanity, but the war was not justified, why, because it wasn't cost effective and would have most likely descended into violence, not because there was no merit for the action. On a superficial level, Mills would have agreed with intervention, that is at least until he measured the ultimate price for such an action. At which point, he would most likely have changed his mind.

*Takes deep breath, hopes this doesn't turn into an Iraq War thread*
Saddam did not committ any crimes against humanity which Mill would have found justifiable for invasion. He was not involved in any campaign along the lines of the holocaust or Slavery. Mill calls actions warranting humanitarian intervention, crimes against the whole of mankind. He was not talking small scope. Perhaps his scope wasn't small enough.

Your relation to tyranny, however, is incorrect. Tendancy and potential are two different things. Because Tyrannys have greater potential than liberal states do to engage in grave crimes against humanity, does not mean they have a tendancy to. A tendancy implies an ineveitibility of sorts. That it is a natural occurance. And yet Mill's tyrannys have no such tendancy. They have displayed potential to engage in such acts, but not a tendancy to. Semantics? Perhaps, but an important distinction. If something tends towards a grave crime against the whole of mankind, then there may be a logical path and fair justification to waging a crusade against all illiberal states. If they merely have potential to, then that justification based purely on the form of government evaporates.

[bdh]

*Takes deep breath, hopes this doesn't turn into an Iraq War thread*

You brought it up, expect it to mentioned.

Saddam did not committ any crimes against humanity which Mill would have found justifiable for invasion. He was not involved in any campaign along the lines of the holocaust or Slavery. Mill calls actions warranting humanitarian intervention, crimes against the whole of mankind. He was not talking small scope. Perhaps his scope wasn't small enough.

Crime against humanity? He DID kill half a million of his own people as well as launch a bloody campaign against Iran in which countless hundreds of thousands died. Also, we need to remember the silent genocide since the Gulf War that Saddam brought on his country. If 500,000 people wre murdered in France during his life, what would Mills say?

In the classical sense, it was justified and Mill most likely would have approved, but it isn't justified by modern standards. Why? Its quite simple. Cost benefit. We don't measure justice in the classical sense because it is fundamentally flawed. Instead, we measure military action by its outcome. Mills is not applicable in the modern world. He does not fit in with modern conceptions of military intervention, and I don't see why you should try and make him appear so. Based purely on his writings, he would have supported intervention in Iraq, but, by modern conventions, such intervention is not considered just.

And yet Mill's tyrannys have no such tendancy.

Tyrannys don't belong to Mill.

If something tends towards a grave crime against the whole of mankind, then there may be a logical path and fair justification to waging a crusade against all illiberal states. If they merely have potential to, then that justification based purely on the form of government evaporates.

All tyrannical governments do have a tendency to oppression and to, to a lesser extent, genocide. Its a mechanism for accumulating and maintaining power. And yes, there is a logical path for waging a crusade against them. Tyranny is, in general, a bad thing. Rather than go to all out war though, liberal states(in theory) have opted to only intervene in states that do cross the line into genocide. Sadly though, many such states have: Germany, Russia, Cambodia, China, Vietnam, Rwanda, Iraq, Palestine, Yugoslavia, Darfur, Tibet, Japan, Armenia, Korea....The 20th was one of the bloodiest centuries.
Mills raised the bar to 'crimes against the whole of humanity,' but such crimes occur too frequently.

[Fenris]

Objectively, it would seem the best method for calculating the effects of war is to just measure the benefits and cost against each scenario.

However we are in real life, and there is no trying the best option possible then loading back to the saved point and starting again until we get the best one. It is impossible to calculate in theory "benifits" from such things. How many points does a life worths? Does it worth more if it's a civilian? How much money does one life equate to? And how do you measure freedom and how much does it worth compared in money or human lives? And how do you measure suffering? Traumatism?

Damn... there is a topic talking about quantification of things... you are the kind of extremist bureaucrat I am referring to in my posts in there.

[bdh]

However we are in real life, and there is no trying the best option possible then loading back to the saved point and starting again until we get the best one. It is impossible to calculate in theory "benifits" from such things. How many points does a life worths? Does it worth more if it's a civilian? How much money does one life equate to? And how do you measure freedom and how much does it worth compared in money or human lives? And how do you measure suffering? Traumatism?

Damn... there is a topic talking about quantification of things... you are the kind of extremist bureaucrat I am referring to in my posts in there.

There has to a point though, a point you know when you absolutely have to act to end genocide. If you cause more harm than good, whats the point? How DOES one decide?

[Fenris]

There has to a point though, a point you know when you absolutely have to act to end genocide. If you cause more harm than good, whats the point? How DOES one decide?

You decide what you think, how can you decide otherwise?

[bdh]

You decide what you think, how can you decide otherwise?

Yes, and I think with a yardstick.

[Fenris]

Yes, and I think with a yardstick.

But one can think what he pleases, what can one do against it? But anyone has the right to disagree.