Self defense? Only on the battlefield? Only to achieve a ‘noble’ end?

  • MimicJar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    I would argue to stop other violence, not necessarily bigger, is also justified. It’s never allowed unrestricted, especially as the bigger entity, but a tactical or measured response to prevent further violence can make sense.

        • arthur@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I don’t believe that is what you meant, but @dewritoninja has a point: on your definition, where is the acceptable limit for the violence-to-supress-violence?

          PS: “An eye for an eye” (law of exact retaliation) was written to suppress escalation of violence. And usually people consider even that excessive.

          • MimicJar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            My point is that it’s an absurd argument.

            Let’s talk real world, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you think a reasonable argument can be made that those bombings made sense? If not, what about in 1945?

            I’m not asking you to agree, just to understand the argument. It’s a discussion worth having, even if you disagree with the answer.

            • arthur@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t think it made sense, even at that time. Those cities were mainly built with wood, and US used a lot of fire against Japan.

              The use of nuclear power against Japan was more like a test and a message, it was not needed to win the war. (At least this is what I remember from this documentary )