Is self defense immoral for nations or individuals?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Simply put if you fight back against someone who is attacking you… are you wrong to do so?  Is violence, even to preserve your own life or the life of another, wrong?

I clearly disagree.  But some among European intellectuals seem to believe that fighting is always wrong… even in self defense.

Discuss.

[BigFatCoward]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Simply put if you fight back against someone who is attacking you… are you wrong to do so?  Is violence, even to preserve your own life or the life of another, wrong?

I clearly disagree.  But some among European intellectuals seem to believe that fighting is always wrong… even in self defense.

Discuss.

 

Do they feel the same about violence in protection of another? 

if so I'm totally down with not risking my safety to protect others. 

[Heartofice]

46 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Simply put if you fight back against someone who is attacking you… are you wrong to do so?  Is violence, even to preserve your own life or the life of another, wrong?

I clearly disagree.  But some among European intellectuals seem to believe that fighting is always wrong… even in self defense.

Discuss.

In relation to Russia, which I guess this is about then I think the pacifist argument is that Russia is so powerful that too many people will die if you don’t surrender. 
 

I think it’s a stupid position and there is far too much wrong with it to take it seriously. Mainly because it’s not true about Russia and Ukraine.

My main problem with it, is simply the disregard for the opinion of Ukranians. Why should they roll over if they want to fight for their country. It’s an opinion that treats them like children.

[Jace, Extat]

5 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

 

Do they feel the same about violence in protection of another? 

if so I'm totally down with not risking my safety to protect others. 

What constitutes safety or protection? 

Is my food part of my safety? It keeps me alive, if I don't have enough I will likely expire. If I give food to someone engaged in warfare (defensive or otherwise) who cannot sow her own fields have I perpetrated violence through the continued actions of the newly fed? 

I've never had much time for philosophy. It's cute and all, and you can get some great insights from philosophical observances, but mostly I find the practice to be intellectualized excuse making sessions. (The stuff modern folks drone on about at least)

I've endured violence at someone else's hands. Telling a victim not to resist, and to imply unworthiness of them for seeking aide from wherever they can get it (including far right militant groups that oppose your OPPRESSOR), is grosser than what Putin is doing in my mind. He's such a coward that he has to kill and invade anyone who doesn't show their belly upon demand. Worse, certain peoples would seem to insist that he be allowed to do so, all for the sake of their peace of mind or distant distant distant concerns of world catastrophe that could effect themselves rather than just those unlearned Ukrainians who just don't know when to beg. Oh, wait, that argument looked a little selfish at second glance didn't it? Let's pivot to blaming the side that did nothing to make this happen and then -for like the first time in my life- actually stepped up to the plate and did the right thing by supporting the PLUCKY REPUBLIC while they fight an EVIL EXPANSIONIST EMPIRE, even at the cost of financial damage to the U.S. Which, to be clear, is like the least you can do. But America did it! And yeah, the MIC is getting its red meat. Sorry, America is kind of a shitty militant strongman. Just the truth. But, uh, Russia be stealing babies you fucking twats. They're literally stealing babies. 

At least Americans will buy your baby from you.

[Luzifer's right hand]

Only if it does endanger valuable Western European lives obviously.

Ukraine should take one for the team and just surrender. I mean lives for people in places like Chechnya are just awesome. Why would you not prefer your country ruled by a Russian puppet and your people at the mercy of its security forces?

/s

[Week]

A more accurate, and difficult, question IMO -- is it immoral provide arms to someone in their self-defense against another? Further, is it immoral to do so while not putting yourself in danger and refusing to hear the argument that it might be/should be putting you in danger?

I agree in supporting, funding, and arming Ukraine though I do see some issues with that stance. Being honest, I'd say I put morality aside there because it *feels* justified.

[Zorral]

Self-defense -- and helping defend those who need help -- I'm down with that.  There are many ways of doing the latter, for sure, more than doing self-defense alone, because helping defend those who need help -- as with Ukraine for instance -- will involve so many more people than just one person defending herself and / or the kids, etc. from abusive and homicidal spouses and parents.

I admire very much the conscientious objectors to war, who may be pastors or just any person, who go to wars to drive ambulances, work in hospitals, refugee centers and all the rest. Admire with all my heart.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Are we giving oxygen to an incredibly small and powerless group of people by entertaining this topic?  Is this how extremism and polarization happens?

 

[Luzifer's right hand]

8 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Are we giving oxygen to an incredibly small and powerless group of people by entertaining this topic?  Is this how extremism and polarization happens?

 

A 140k people signed the open letter to the German chancellor already and many more think that way at least in Germany in Austria.

That group is only growing as long as the conflicts and the sanctions effect our lifestyle. Just like with COVID many people are not willing to make sacrifices for the greater good and if they are not challenged they will win just like the anti COVID measure groups did. It is no surprise that there is a huge  overlap between those groups. Just a little fuel price spikes has governments backpedaling like crazy on taxes on CO2 emmisions and there is even talk about fracking in Germany. We are not capable of giving a shit as societies just like we don't give a shit how people in the rest of the world pay for our wasteful lifestyle. Empty words is the only thing we are good for.

[Conflicting Thought]

56 minutes ago, Babblebauble said:

At least Americans will buy your baby from you

Except when they are in cages, then they will steal them, or if you are first nations, or black, or brown or.. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

15 minutes ago, Luzifer's right hand said:

A 140k people signed the open letter to the German chancellor already and many more think that way at least in Germany in Austria.

That group is only growing as long as the conflicts and the sanctions effect our lifestyle. Just like with COVID many people are not willing to make sacrifices for the greater good and if they are not challenged they will win just like the anti COVID measure groups did. It is no surprise that there is a huge  overlap between those groups. Just a little fuel price spikes has governments backpedaling like crazy on taxes on CO2 emmisions and there is even talk about fracking in Germany. We are not capable of giving a shit as societies just like we don't give a shit how people in the rest of the world pay for our wasteful lifestyle. Empty words is the only thing we are good for.

Did not realize that many had signed it. Last I saw it was like 30 people.  Also thought Scot was possibly referring to a smaller group as several comments have made it sound like the letter was asking for Ukraine to surrender.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

44 minutes ago, Zorral said:

I admire very much the conscientious objectors to war, who may be pastors or just any person, who go to wars to drive ambulances, work in hospitals, refugee centers and all the rest. Admire with all my heart.

Agreed.  100%

[Rippounet]

The question isn't whether self-defense is immoral (who the fuck would claim that?). The question is whether encouraging others to prepare for war, and then profiting from the weapons sales and/or the geopolitical outcome is.

Providing weapons isn't an innocuous decision. By doing so you not only choose a "side" in a conflict, but you also mechanically discourage peaceful resolution. Unless you also very strongly encourage a diplomatic solution, chances are the "other" side will then feel pressed to intervene. This is when -as a rule- claims that no peaceful resolution was possible anyway come in, and this is where I become excessively wary of such claims. Since there has to be peace in the end, the question becomes what the war will change, what it is supposed to achieve.

In the case we're actually talking about, I'm increasingly certain that the West is not merely helping Ukraine to defend itself. In fact, the rhetoric used in these very threads makes it rather obvious.

[Luzifer's right hand]

49 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Did not realize that many had signed it. Last I saw it was like 30 people.  Also thought Scot was possibly referring to a smaller group as several comments have made it sound like the letter was asking for Ukraine to surrender.

About 30 intellectuals(the most famous is a leading German TERF) and artists were the original signatories but 140k have added their signature at this point.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

22 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The question isn't whether self-defense is immoral (who the fuck would claim that?). The question is whether encouraging others to prepare for war, and then profiting from the weapons sales and/or the geopolitical outcome is.

Providing weapons isn't an innocuous decision. By doing so you not only choose a "side" in a conflict, but you also mechanically discourage peaceful resolution. Unless you also very strongly encourage a diplomatic solution, chances are the "other" side will then feel pressed to intervene. This is when -as a rule- claims that no peaceful resolution was possible anyway come in, and this is where I become excessively wary of such claims. Since there has to be peace in the end, the question becomes what the war will change, what it is supposed to achieve.

In the case we're actually talking about, I'm increasingly certain that the West is not merely helping Ukraine to defend itself. In fact, the rhetoric used in these very threads makes it rather obvious.

Aiding a nation outgunned and outmanned defend itself from invasion by another nation… is wrong?  It was wrong for France to declare war on Germany due ro the invasion of Poland?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Aiding a nation outgunned and outmanned defend itself from invasion by another nation… is wrong?  It was wrong for France to declare war on Germany due ro the invasion of Poland?

Not sure anyone is saying that here. Ripp's stated concern is how the profit motive impacts nations' decisions to extend conflicts.

[Winterfell is Burning]

Depends- if the nation doing the invading is an enemy of the US and the West and the other nation is an ally, then self-defense is immoral. Likewise, if Americans, Europeans, Australians, etc, are supporting that nation in defending itself, then they are being evil and only do so because they want to profit from the war and benefit the military-industrial complex.

For example, Poland supports the Ukrainian cause because they're US puppets controlled by imperialism, the fact that they have a long history of being invade by Russia and received millions of refugees is just a convenient excuse.

The first two paragraphs might sound ridiculous, but that's what those intellectuals and some people like them believe, or at least seem to. Supporting Ukraine in anyway one can is pretty much the only reasonable and moral thing one can do.

[Kalbear]

43 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The question isn't whether self-defense is immoral (who the fuck would claim that?). The question is whether encouraging others to prepare for war, and then profiting from the weapons sales and/or the geopolitical outcome is.

Providing weapons isn't an innocuous decision. By doing so you not only choose a "side" in a conflict, but you also mechanically discourage peaceful resolution. Unless you also very strongly encourage a diplomatic solution, chances are the "other" side will then feel pressed to intervene. This is when -as a rule- claims that no peaceful resolution was possible anyway come in, and this is where I become excessively wary of such claims. Since there has to be peace in the end, the question becomes what the war will change, what it is supposed to achieve.

Giving weapons to the other side isn't discouraging a peaceful resolution. This kind of rhetoric is odd - it implies that peacefully being murdered is better than violent resistance. 

When someone is coming to kill you - not take your stuff, or rule over you, but actually kill you - how is not fighting back a peaceful resolution?

43 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

In the case we're actually talking about, I'm increasingly certain that the West is not merely helping Ukraine to defend itself. In fact, the rhetoric used in these very threads makes it rather obvious.

If that were the case the west would be sending cruise missiles and long range weapons to do more than just fight back.

But there is also the point of actively stopping someone from being able to kill your people. Or do you advocate just fighting every 10 years or so?

Oh wait, you advocate Ukrainians to get murdered instead so that war is stopped. 

[Winterfell is Burning]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Not sure anyone is saying that here. Ripp's stated concern is how the profit motive impacts nations' decisions to extend conflicts.

While that surely is a factor in some cases, even if the USA and Western allies didn't send one single round of ammunition to Ukraine, would the war end? Is "doing everything to stop the war now" include "let the side that literally kidnaps babies win and have strength to fight another day later?". It's non-sense.

The best thing that can be done for the war is to help turn any Russian victory from unlikely to impossible. Russia as long as Putin is in charge is the biggest threat to world peace- it has invaded Georgia and Ukraine, crushed Chechnya until they bought Kadirov Sr and Jr, financed rebellions in Transnitria, helped crush rebellions against brutal dictators in Syria, Belarus and Kazakhstan, etc. And will not stop in Ukraine unless they are forced to- anyone that claims otherwise is either a liar or a fool.

[DMC]

This isn't a "moral" question.  The basis of the objection is the US/West is fomenting conflict to serve their interests, which is both true and so detached from reality it doesn't really warrant a response.  Will the MIC profit from the demand for more weapons?  Of course.  But ultimately that's like saying umbrella salespeople will profit when it rains. 

The notion the Biden administration is or was in any was seeking this conflict is preposterous.  And the bill for the aid the US government is providing - plenty of it not weapons related btw - is being footed by the US taxpayer.  Hell, Biden's most recent funding request literally included just giving Ukraine and others money to buy more weapons.  

Anyway, again, I don't think this topic merits much discussion at all.  The west is helping Ukraine because Putin invaded it -- oh and btw, they asked.  The village idiot comes to that conclusion before the vaunted "intellectual."