Your point is taken, that indeed in past centuries the Bible had a greater influence on the direction of policy. But I think that it was probably used to justify murderous impulses that originated in the individuals, rather than compelling them.
The quest for power at all costs came first.
And - also - in this modern age, with our modern ideals of critical thinking - we would hope that those in power do not use ancient stories written for ancient peoples to justify their immoral actions.
Y
I’m not an expert on what’s going on in Gaza. Some of the military operations probably qualify as “genocide”, others do not. Does the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and Dresden, Tokyo, and other cities bombed with conventional weapons) qualify?
I once read a book by Oliver O’Donovan, former professor of moral theology at Oxford. He’s the son of famous short story writer Frank O’Connor (pen name),and is an Anglican priest. He claims self-defense is an inadequate justification for war, because of Jesus’ admonition to “turn the other cheek”. Instead, war can be justified as an attempt to restore the Christian virtue of “justice” to the world.
I have some issues with the “Just War Theory” you cited. First, the “legitimate authority” clause seems to preclude revolutions. Surely a revolutionary attempt to “restore justice” might occasionally be appropriate. Second, the “reasonable chance of success” seems silly. Should Custer have refused to fight because he was going to be slaughtered anyway? What about Leonidas at Thermopylae? Roland at Roncesvalles? The protection of “civilians” may seem reasonable, but it reminds me of the “women and children first” edict for sinking ships, which infantilizes women. What about civilians who (as is always the case in modern warfare) are working in the military/industrial complex, or farmers who are feeding the armies? Chivalry is a Christian tradition, but it is also a sexist one.
Of course I agree that the young Israelis advocating killing babies are evil. That’s genocide at its most extreme, and the harm it does to the killers is almost as horrifying as that to the victims. As I wrote earlier, we are all going to die, but we are not all going to murder.
Firstly I think it’s a topic we need to be careful with.
Not for the obvious reason – that it involves death and suffering, and is happening in the world today – that would be true of talking about any conflict, and I don’t think those are quite as sensitive.
My issue here is more that it seems to be human nature to think tribally and put people into boxes.
I’ve been in countless threads that claim to be making some objective and dispassionate observation and it turns out to be motivated and broad-brushing is employed.
Anyway, in terms of the OP, it’s an interesting exercise but I can’t think of a case.
We don’t pre-emptively kill people on the basis of a possible future threat.
And even if we think of wild hypotheticals, I still think it’s a stretch to call it genocide. For example, let’s say that we think the crime of blibble is so terrible that it justifies the death sentence. And, it happens to be that there’s a 1:1 correlation between people living in Countryland and people who have committed blibble (everyone, knowingly).
In this case, we would be justified in killing the entire country (assuming the justification of the death sentence was valid). However, we were not trying to wipe out Countryland, it was entirely coincidental. If another native of Countryland were to show up, who was innocent of the crime, we would have no beef with him, but, conversely, if a native of Republica were to appear who was guilty; he’d get the death penalty.
Yeah, definitely a good question to be asked - links to a response I made in another thread about Ethics. Is there some truck to the idea that having been bought-in (i.e born into…) being human, mean that we have specific moral restrictions around being human.
This, in practice, would mean that our “use” of animals is fine because of our being embedded in the fact of being human, and not other animals. I’m not really sure. Intuitively, this seems to be hte right way to do things - but hten when you expand the moral circle, eventually pets are obviously included. And then working animals. And then “sport” animals (hunting, racing etc..). So is it that these animals are also bought-in (in the same involuntary way humans are, by their nature) to the human escapade and therefore morally relevant?
As i noted above, I was quite uncomfortable with what I had written because the idea that “well, you’re not human so fuck you” doesn’t work. But I also don’t know where the line is.
Well, we would hope so, but let’s look at America; Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of War, is a Bible-believing literalist. Aren’t the Middle East’s internecine squabbles largely based upon claims of scripture and holy books?
All I am saying is that Western culture is underpinned by foundational stories that can make mass murder seem morally acceptable. And some people still take these tales as literally true.
I would say there is no moral way to fight a nuclear war.
I’m not sure I agree that the concept of “justice” belongs only to the Christian tradition. For example, indigenous peoples of North America had very well-defined principles of justice well before European contact.
Yes, I agree, there may be some interpretation in what is meant by “legitimate authority” - in the case of revolution it might be the revolutionaries if they are acting on behalf of the people
I don’t think Custer thought he would be slaughtered. He underestimated the enemy. But when I read this example, I thought of the indigenous people involved and wondered if the “reasonable chance of success” was a concept that might instead apply to them.
This strikes me as a false equivalency. Saying “don’t murder women and children in war” is not the same as saying “save women and children during disasters.”
Nuclear war suggests apocalyptic horrors. But from a practical, ethical point of view more people were killed in the fire-bombing of Tokyo than in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Bombing cities is actually an ineffective tactic, as proven in both WWII and Viet Nam. However, the only time it was effective was in using the nuclear option, which cowed Japan into surrendering.
Of course I agree. I was citing a book from an Anglican priest, who (I assume) thinks Christian morals take precedence over others. You and I may disagree.
I could have used Chief Joseph as an example, and chose Custer because I knew it would be controversial. The heroic last stand may have virtue, however, which contradicts your “Just War Theory”.
Both arise from notions of chivalry (of course they are not the same). Chivalry, like O’Donovan’s theories of just war, is a Christian notion, although in Ariosto’s “Orlando Furiosso” Rogero the Moor models it. Of course he has to convert to marry his beloved Bradamante. Bradamante, by the way, is a warrior maiden, so decrying killing her as worse than (say) killing her brother Renaldo seems sexist. By the way, it’s interesting that French, Italian and Greek epics include warrior women, whereas in King Arthur stories women are there to be worshipped, loved and rescued. I wonder why, especially given Boudicca, the British Queen who led a revolt against the Romans, and whose troops slaughtered 70.000 of them, many of whom were doubtless civilians.
I’m not sure “murder” is the right word to describe civilians killed when cities are bombed (although in Gaza and elsewhere civilians are murdered during war). Claiming that people killed in bombings are “murdered” reduces the culpability of those who shoot defenseless civilians, or send them to gas chambers.
Boudicca’s tribe, the Iceni tribe, were ancient Britons. Therefore their traditions came from societies prior to the various invasions of the Angles, Saxon’s, vikings etc. Who brought in more “modern” notions like the superiority of men.
Does it boil down to an us vs. them dynamic? There are nations that commited this sin but I’m relieved, if true, that now civilians are called and messaged of impending airstrikes or ground assaults. The powerful nations also seem to be concerned about not turning civilians against the troops by using precision munitions. There’s also the Geneva convention on what’s permissible treatment of POWs and there’s restrictions on armaments that are designed to hyperkill like cluster bombs. Whether nations at war follow these rules is another story. Furthermore in the midst of battle tensions run high, kill/die means bad decisions are inevitable.
I think destroying infrastructure can come under genocide if it constitutes the annihilation of the way of life of a race, or group. For example in Gaza, all these things as buildings are destroyed, the roads and farmland bulldozed. So the people have no choice but to live in tents on the beach.
We can see this in the newly updated satellite images on Google Earth, or street view. Like these images of Rafah, the first the centre of the city. The second if you zoom out.
