Ukraine

jpx7 said:
Tell me: why is stomach for war a good thing? I'm surprised that you, particularly, would hold "stomach for war" in a positive, goal-for-society sort of regard.
Click to expand...

1. The responsibility of the state is not the same as that of the individual (punish evil doer & protect citizens vs. turn the other cheek).

2. The state has the responsibility to wield "the sword" (i.e., both internally - policing and judicial system and externally - a military force).

3. When it wields the sword externally it is to wield the sword justly, for the protection of its citizens and those with whom it has treaty obligations.

4. It may wield it on behalf of the innocent in dire need.

5. In order to fulfill #3, it needs soldiers with the courage (stomach) and valor and ability and wisdom to wield it well.

6. In order to fulfill #3, it also needs a citizenry that will support just efforts (again "stomach").

7. Much wisdom, prudence and courage is needed by all that it do these things well.

Make sense?
 
zitothebrave said:
It's some weird social thing where people pine for the past and presume that anyone else sucks.
Click to expand...

I call it the pastoral impulse; it's been present in literature for well over two-thousand years (and it's coincidentally something about which I've written a lot in academic contexts).
 
jpx7 said:
I call it the pastoral impulse; it's been present in literature for well over two-thousand years (and it's coincidentally something about which I've written a lot in academic contexts).
Click to expand...

And it will be present with y'all when you get to be old farts like me.
 
50PoundHead said:
Agreed. Population decline of native populations in European states is a huge issue that not many folks are talking about. The Germans will always be the Germans and they pretty much turn everyone into Germans. I think we've seen where France stands as well, but I don't know if they can be as doctrinaire as the Germans. Don't know if that will happen in other states (Italy, England, Spain).
Click to expand...

It's become a pretty huge issue in the Netherlands, as well, not to mention to a slower extent in some of the Scandinavian states.
 
BedellBrave said:
1. The responsibility of the state is not the same as that of the individual (punish evil doer & protect citizens vs. turn the other cheek).

[...]

Make sense?
Click to expand...

Well, yes and no: things logically follow, so yes you're statement is sensible; however I don't really agree with your initial claim, so no, I don't hold with the overall sensibility.
 
What part of my initial claim do you not agree with?

I also thought your problem with my earlier "stomach" comment was how it didn't seem in accord with my Christian faith (at least that seemed like your implication). I believe my position is in accord with the mainstream of Christian, Just War theory.
 
BedellBrave said:
What part of my initial claim do you not agree with?
Click to expand...

The part I bolded: The responsibility of the state is not the same as that of the individual. I think—even if they're not entirely commensurate—that there's actually a whole hell-of-a-lot of overlap when it comes to responsibilities of the state and responsibilities of the individual.

BedellBrave said:
I also thought your problem with my earlier "stomach" comment was how it didn't seem in accord with my Christian faith (at least that seemed like your implication). I believe my position is in accord with the mainstream of Christian, Just War theory.
Click to expand...

It was—but the specifics of your reply, and your question to me at the end of it, took my subsequent post in a slightly different direction.

I guess personally—based on my readings of scripture, which you are free to take with a solar-sized grain of salt—I don't really find the notion of "just war" tenable within the space of "Christian faith."
 
JP, I'd like to probe your dissent a bit further. What is the responsibility of the State then vis-a-vis war? Are you a pacifist?

You might not find just war theory tenable within the space of Christian faith, but certainly a very large slice of the Church has and does. I suspect in doing so you operate with a canon within a canon (and that's probably an interpretation of the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount). Just my guess.
 
Speaking of empires past and present - came across this tweet:

EJ Dionne ‏@EJDionne 3m
Now that's the way to look at it: RT @PoliticaILine: The last time the Chicago Cubs won the World Series, the Ottoman Empire still existed.
 
What is a Just War?

Black and white, good vs. evil is one thing, but war is anything but. War's palette has a **** load of grays.

Has there ever been a just war? Seems to me it's just war.
 
Gary, wiki actually has a good article on Just War theory. It's not an easy subject. War is hell. I agree with the basic premise that we should abhor war but recognize that sometimes it is necessary (which is one way of describing this view).
 
BedellBrave said:
Gary, wiki actually has a good article on Just War theory. It's not an easy subject. War is hell. I agree with the basic premise that we should abhor war but recognize that sometimes it is necessary (which is one way of describing this view).
Click to expand...

Says the guy who didn't want the revolution to happen. :cooter:
 
i honestly don't see how it would be harder to justify it

if anything, it would easier in my opinion
 
goldfly said:
i honestly don't see how it would be harder to justify it

if anything, it would easier in my opinion
Click to expand...

One of the tenets of Just War Theory is that only a a political authority within a political system that promotes justice within itself can legitimately wage war (the tenet of Competent Authority). This is often interpreted to mean that only a legitimate existing government can wage war (i.e., ruling out revolutionaries). I don't hold to that strict of a definition. I think that when revolutionaries represent the majority will of the people within a context (say Egypt) and they are taking up arms against the existing, but unjust government, then such a revolution (if the other tenets are upheld) can be just.
 
jpx7 said:
The part I bolded: The responsibility of the state is not the same as that of the individual. I think—even if they're not entirely commensurate—that there's actually a whole hell-of-a-lot of overlap when it comes to responsibilities of the state and responsibilities of the individual.

It was—but the specifics of your reply, and your question to me at the end of it, took my subsequent post in a slightly different direction.

I guess personally—based on my readings of scripture, which you are free to take with a solar-sized grain of salt—I don't really find the notion of "just war" tenable within the space of "Christian faith."
Click to expand...

Jp, did you see my further question last night? I'm curious to see what your answer is.
 
BedellBrave said:
JP, I'd like to probe your dissent a bit further. What is the responsibility of the State then vis-a-vis war? Are you a pacifist?

You might not find just war theory tenable within the space of Christian faith, but certainly a very large slice of the Church has and does. I suspect in doing so you operate with a canon within a canon (and that's probably an interpretation of the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount). Just my guess.
Click to expand...

^^^This one.
 
BedellBrave said:
JP, I'd like to probe your dissent a bit further. What is the responsibility of the State then vis-a-vis war? Are you a pacifist?

You might not find just war theory tenable within the space of Christian faith, but certainly a very large slice of the Church has and does. I suspect in doing so you operate with a canon within a canon (and that's probably an interpretation of the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount). Just my guess.
Click to expand...
BedellBrave said:
Jp, did you see my further question last night? I'm curious to see what your answer is.
Click to expand...

I hadn't—but I wasn't really feeling like much "real talk" yesterday.

I'm not sure it's as useful to consider "the responsibility" of the state with respect to war as it is to pursue the question: "When is violent aggression the only viable option?" And I think that sort of calculus is not too different at the collective level than it is at the individual level. Moreover, being in many ways an acolyte of Plato, at least politically* speaking, I think we can learn a lot about the "ideal" state by interrogating our notions of the "ideal" individual, and vice versa.

But I'm not a pacifist, per se—I don't believe in absolutes, and that's a pretty absolute position—I just think there's a lot of wisdom in policies and tactics of avoidance when it comes to armed conflict between institutional entities.

*(As usual, what I mean by "politics" is the relation of individuals to other individuals in the collective environment that characterizes the human condition.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top