All general rules, by definition, are simplistic. They give us a touchstone, a default. We add "nuance" in the application. Peace is preferable to war. Like, duh. The converse is downright reptilian.
The converse does not necessarily follow from a negation. General principles should also start as a foundational concept that doesn't need further explaining to be useful. "Starting wars is wrong" isn't a good place to start. Also, peace is not necessarily preferable to war. If the peace is onerous, such as the peace of slavery, then it is not preferable to a war that may end the injustice. Very unnuanced of you, Karen. ;)
Just war theory is a very old tradition, and doesn't need me explaining it. But there is plenty of room for starting wars as just cause. The problem is in not recognizing that war is not an unmitigated evil. It is the reasons for war, and the way in which war is waged, that may make it wrong. It is not intrinsically wrong. Not even as a general rule.
I think you are confusing prominent with plentiful.
I believe they are both plentiful, and prominent, ideas.
Is that a rhetorical question or are you asking my opinion? If the latter, then, no, I don't think it was wrong.
We started the war there. The taliban did not attack us. There were some here in the States and in Europe that believed we were very wrong for invading Afghanistan. Even self-defense is clearly an evil to them, at least when it is the United States acting.
Derek |
