Example: I believe that IP is a direct contradiction of nature, sacrificing the advancement of humanity and the world for selfish gain, and therefore is sinful.
Edit: pls do not downvote the comments this is a constructive discussion
Edit2: IP= intellectal property
Edit3: sort by controversal
Two that may be controversial. 1st There is no such thing as a just war. Both sides will always justify war and believe they’re on the right side of it. I can still look at the war and choose a side but I dont think im morally above someone who chooses the other side.
2nd, warcrimes and rules of war are always valid strategies and people will always brake the rules if they think it would help them win or not lose. I understand the reasons we have them and i support post war trials to punish those who commit them but I dont think I’m morally above people who commit war crimes since I’d do exactly the same thing if it helped me not lose a war.
3rd one: you have a moral duty to defend your country from invasion.
I understand the concept of Just War and the broad strokes of your point, but how do you feel about “self-defense“ with aggressor nations? If you prescribe to just war theory, it does provide a carve out where if you have a reasonable chance of success and attempt to minimize harm that self-defense is a morally correct move. Do you agree with that or not? Not challenging you, just curious about your thoughts
If someone attacks you then you should fight back or make peace. Nothing wrong with defending yourself.
With me saying “just war” doesnt exist I’m trying to attack the justifications used for war. In history we see nations saying "we have to go to war because “all these things have happened that justify our moral right to war”. Its not “the moral thing to do” there is another reason why you want you to go to war. Say that instead of hiding behind this moral reason that supposedly entitles you to go to war morally.
Like Ukraine defending itself against russia. Its (in my opinion) not enough to say they do so because they were attacked and so they are justified. They do it because they want to hold their territory and think with the support of the west they can retain it.
I think the issue here Is there is actually a specific term called “Just War,” it’s a specific criteria (top of which is self defense), but you are saying there is no such thing as a war that is just, correct? Not talking about Just War proper?
Yes there is no such thing as a war that is just. This also applies to rules of war because one side will break them if they need to survive and I can’t blame them for doing so.
The cost of war in my opinion is to high for us to be making a framework of when its OK to go war. Also its unfair since major powers abuse the framework to justify their war then turn around and label another war unjust. Its just not how war should be treated. If you want to go to war just do it. There are enough alliances and countries who look unfavourably on warmongers that I think just war is pointless.
My comment might be rambly became its 5am and I’m on my phone in bed.
I think I get what you’re saying but yes I am not entirely clear because we’re not really defining terms or using specific examples. No worries!
3 seems to contradict 1 otherwise it wouldn’t be a moral duty.