In the Crusades, Christian knights set forth to eradicate and kill the pagan Muslims and recapture the Holy City of Jerusalem, all in the name of God. Besides braking God’s Will (violation of the 6th Testament “Thou Shalt not Kill”) they are killing innocent (bloodthirsty and armed) Arabic peoples. Is the slaughter involved justified by the fact that they are acting on God’s behalf?
Another example that shows this was the American Revolution. Is it justifiable that thousands of British and Rebel soldiers, as well as innocent bystanders were killed, in the name of liberty?
It is all a matter of personal morals as well as values. The first example was, I believe, a miserable idea, in almost all senses. On the other hand, fighting for Libertas, if the cause is genuine and fair, is (to a certain limit) justifiable. An example of this, as well as the American Revolution, is of the Hungarian rebellion against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). This is an excerpt describing just that, from Wikipedia:
“The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 was a spontaneous nationwide revolt against the Stalinist government of Hungary and its Soviet-imposed policies, lasting from October 23 until 10 November 1956.[3] It began as a student demonstration which attracted thousands as it marched through central Budapest to the Parliament building. A student delegation entering the radio building in an attempt to broadcast their demands was detained. When the delegation’s release was demanded by the demonstrators outside, they were fired upon by the State Security Police (ÁVH) from within the building. The news spread quickly and disorder and violence erupted throughout the capital.
The revolt spread quickly across Hungary, and the government fell. Thousands organized into militias, battling the State Security Police (ÁVH) and Soviet troops. Pro-Soviet communists and ÁVH members were often executed or imprisoned, as former prisoners were released and armed. Impromptu councils wrested municipal control from the Communist Party, and demanded political changes. The new government formally disbanded the ÁVH, declared its intention to withdraw from the Warsaw Pact and pledged to re-establish free elections. By the end of October, fighting had almost stopped and a sense of normality began to return.
After announcing a willingness to negotiate a withdrawal of Soviet forces, the Politburo changed its mind and moved to crush the revolution. On 4 November, a large Soviet force invaded Budapest. Hungarian resistance continued until 10 November. An estimated 2,500 Hungarians died, and 200,000 more fled as refugees. Mass arrests and denunciations continued for months thereafter. By January 1957, the new Soviet-installed government had suppressed all public opposition. These Soviet actions alienated many Western Marxists, yet strengthened Soviet control over Central Europe, cultivating the perception that communism was both irreversible and monolithic.Public discussion about this revolution was suppressed in Hungary for over 30 years, but since the thaw of the 1980s it has been a subject of intense study and debate. At the inauguration of the Third Hungarian Republic in 1989, 23 October was declared a national holiday.“ As you can see, this event was tragic, but the uprising was justifiable (even though the Hungarians lost). The Hungarians stood up for a noble cause: that of freedom, democracy, and nationalism. The Hungarians are proud and patriotic peoples, and were the only Russian client states that rebelled and temporarily expelled the Russians. Violence is an unpleasant factor, but it is justified by a good cause. Of course, a different way must always be at least attempted, for example, diplomacy. This isn’t always possible, as has been demonstrated innumerable times in the past. Strangely, war has always been attractive to most humans. “Men grow tired of sleep, love, singing and dancing sooner than war.” – Homer.
I have included a few quotes related to war that I have found interesting:
“We kind o’ thought Christ went wagin war an’ pillage.” – James Russel Lowell
“I’ve been to war. I’ve raised twins. If I had a choice, I’d rather go to war.” – George W. Bush
“You can’t say civilization don’t advance — for in every war, they kill you in a new way.” – Will Rogers
“We make war so that we may live in peace” – Aristotle
Tags: "I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, "We make war so that we may live in peace", aristotle, bush, conflict justification, crusades, does a good cause justify violence, explanation of war, george bush, homer, hungarian, hungarian rebellion, hungarian revolution, hungary, I'd rather go to war.", james russel lowell, justification of conflict, justification of violence, peace, quotes of war, russians, they kill you in a new way.", vindication, vindication of war, violence, war, war quotes, will rogers
Entries (RSS)
April 28th, 2008 at 8:44 am
I know that this is out of topic, but have you ever heard the song “Back in the USSR”? By the Beattles, they are kind of old, but they are still worth the time to hear a couple of their songs.
June 23rd, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Trouble is, what defines “a good cause”? This too has very grey borders. The Hungarian revolution sounds a good cause. How about the Russian revolution, when Russians fought against the Czar for freedom? Then later the Russians used force to impose communism, arguing that this was a good cause to free the world from capitalism – good? Many communists believed then that the end justified the means. How about separatist movements fighting against their country for freedom? Castro was widely accepted in the early years for throwing out the Americans, as were the Vietnamese Communists. But many other separatist movements have been crushed, as going against the will of the nation. Are separatists allowed to fight for their freedom? When are they correctly classed as terrorists? Is Bin Laden’s cause justified (many moslems would seem to think so). Well, who knows! All seems relative – and thus hard to justify morally.