Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Debate: Is War Ever Justified? | Learn Liberty
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 июн 2013
- "Debate: Is War Ever Justified?" by @LearnLiberty
► Join us on Facebook: on. 14xAtig
► Follow us on Twitter: bit.ly/14xAJxV
► Join us on Google+: bit.ly/12q2zJ0
► Watch more videos: bit.ly/14xAWB4
Most wars seem to create costs that far outweigh their benefits, but is war ever justified? In this Learn Liberty debate, Prof. Bryan Caplan and Prof. Jan Ting disagree. Prof. Caplan argues that pacifism should be U.S. policy as the costs and benefits of war are too difficult to predict and innocent lives are almost certainly going to be lost. Prof. Ting argues that there are occasions in which war is necessary, such as against ideological or religious perspectives that cannot be reasoned with. He uses World War II as an example when U.S. military intervention did more good than harm. Prof. Caplan contends that this is difficult to measure. What do you think? Should military intervention be an option on the table? Why or why not?
See our other debate on income inequality: • Debate: Is There Too M...
Check out Bryan Caplan's blog! econlog.econlib.org/
The problem isn't determining the consequences of "doing the right thing." The problem is determining what the right thing is to begin with.
You'll find the best , most reliable, way to determine ' the right thing" is to use the Torah, the bible, Gods law . But perhaps what you mean is adequately being able to judge what's right because of lack of thorough information . Countless times I've seen situations ejected one c oi inclusion is seen as clear, but then another perspective is introduced and changes everything. Discerning the truth is never easy because people lie. Lol.
determining what God's law is a mammoth task on its own@@deborahdean8867
Wait what he said we should not intervene to enforce law and order even within his own country? That doesn't make any sense...
I agree that war should be considered as a last resort option. The problem is that this never happens. Ever.
We are a pugnacious people. The idea of educating ourselves on history, and properly assessing the odds of any sort of successful outcome just doesn't occur. People want to fight. Worst of all, they want to trust their politicians. How un-American.
I agree. Everyone always says that war is only the last resort, but people tend to be very quick to declare that everything else failed.
The Problem here is that the Law Professor offers answers in a Legal/moral perspective while the Economics professor offers answers in a economics perspective... it's like comparing apples to oranges
is that right...
***** lol... you don't agree?:P
+Brian Clark you're clearly an intellect
At some point, we have to merge the two views...
William F. Buckley was once asked in an interview if he agreed with the policy of non-intervention. He replied, "I categorically reject the idea. We could have intervened in 1930's Germany with a relatively small application of force. The cost of pacifism, isolationism, and appeasement can be measured by 66 million lost lives."
Is there such thing as a "just war?" In this video, Professor Bryan Caplan and Professor Jan Ting debate the question.
"Debate: Is War Ever Justified?" | LearnLiberty
#liberty #pacificism #debate #veteransday #veteransday2013
"All the best results" Have you ever heard of Iran? Iraq, Egypt, come on man. You can't cherry pick how empire works out great without explaining the places where it has caused massive human suffering.
It is absolutely terrifying that there are people like Caplan out there. Wow... He needs to take a step outside his college's faculty lounge and open his eyes. Wow..
I've got a tall book stack staring me down. While at work today I listened to the CSPAN 1:03 interview with him on this book. Enlightening.
Since the dawn of human kind, when our ancestors first discovered the killing power of rock and bone, blood has been spilled in the name of everything: from God to justice to simple, psychotic rage.
Your point? If you are saying this fact justifies war, you are using fallacious reasoning (appeal to nature fallacy)
War is human nature basically.
Great reply, I loved the effort you put into that.
"Its out business as free citizens to elect leaders whose judgment we trust with those questions". No that is the dilemma, cause there ain't no such thing. I don't trust any of them.
You've hit upon the crux of the problem. There were countless potential leaders who would have done exactly what George W. Bush did in invading Afghanistan and Iraq. 56% of the American people supported the invasion of Iraq. Many more supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Without that support, leaders don't have the guts to commit political suicide for their party. Governments go to war at the drop of a hat. In our country it's people's ignorance of history that allows these things to happen.
It's justified when you win.
very good debate,both maintained the same voice tone and also the respect for each other, very good,please more
It is a huge diffrence between "Are we better off intervening?" and "Is it RIGHT to intervene?". Which is also the reason we see alot more intervening in places where it is economical or strategically beneficial to the intervener.
And always keep in mind that "history is written by the victors". Take america for instance, some of its actions now and in the past certainly meets its own standard for when they should intervene.
Its a great deal of etnocentrism and hypocrisy in american policy.
Both are missing the police state point.
Muy buenas explicaciones
I find it funny that many people tend to resort to ad hominem attacks against Caplan instead of simply admitting that he is a very intelligent person and debating his arguments instead. I too was jealous when I learned under him, but then I began to appreciate his motivation to know the facts and arguments of his personal philosophy and economic views rather than simply adopting views based upon how they sound expressively.
It's almost as if the people here came here for a... Debate.
I've been watching Caplan only very recently/heavily and it's very clear he has tunnel vision and is incapable of seeing things outside his purview. Like the Hammer only sees his nails hold two boards together and doesn't see any other damage it can possibly do, Caplan only sees one side of one bit of economics and immigration to the exclusion of all other issues. Today was my biggest mouth drop though. The complete disregard of what would have happened if the allies lost. Saying our guesses were wrong is also completely dishonest. Just because we don't know the exact effects of electing people who believe in Liberty into office, doesn't mean we can't understand that electing communists into office is far worse, regardless of how off our guesses of the outcomes are.
I dont think hes particularly smart at all. And he isnt very knowledgeable about the subject, or history. At all!
There is evil out there & war will always come. Being prepared for it is the only sensible option. I will not be a sheep & I will not expect others to be sheep.
However, my favorite explanation is commital strategies. For example, with animals that mark territory what they are really marking is an area in which they will fight even to their own detriment, and the further into the area the more they are willing to fight even to the death. So long as both sides know this, violence will generally be avoided since it is harmful for both sides. What I have described is a very basic 'right makes might' scenario where a basic level of property exists.(cont)
I couldn't agree more. This debate wasn't really about "war:" it was about INTERVENTIONISM. There is a big difference.
The fact that most Americans see intervening in foreign affairs as synonymous with the act of war itself simply demonstrates that we have become an imperial power.
Hi
Its because these interventions result in war, and are often so outrageous they indeed are acts of war. Do I don't think it's a big mistake . Most of the time our interventions are bombings and assassinations. War in every sense but admiting the name.
Professor Caplan is obvisouly oblivious to war and war terminology. He declares that Guerrilla Warfare is recklessly killing innocent people and forcing others to join their band of "warriors", whereas what actual guerrilla warfare is small mobile groups using military tactics and the element of surprise to take on larger, less mobile traditional armies. I think before he decides to join into debates on these matters, he ought to study up a little on things he will be talking about...
I'm glad you put that question mark at the end, because I was about to let you have it!! lol
That word "we" I dont like it.
But if somebody believed in the Preemptive strike principle, they would be able to have their fate determined by their own actions, rather than having their fate determined by others, which would happen if they believed in the NAG.
What years did that campaign take place in? (I know I want you to say it)
I met a young German man last year who argued with me that countries need to go to war to defend themselves and they darned well better win rather than lose. I asked him whether it might not be better at times to lose than to win. He responded that my question was crazy. No one ever is better off losing a war, he said. So, Germany today would be better off if the Nazis had won WWII? Or has Germany been better off having lost? He admitted to me that he couldn't argue that.
War is a good thing if you win and not lose and in ww2 it was clear if USSR lost in the east then the allies would have lost therefore Germany prelonging the war til they made nukes
The best way to find the answer to this question is to choose which conflicts to intervene in at random.
Something Kaplan (arguing for pacifism) failed to seize on was that Professor Ting (arguing for intervention) kept suggesting it should be standing with locals fighting for freedom, as though they asked us there. Which of our current/recent interventions does that apply to? Not Iraq, I don't think Afghanistan either. Ukraine explicitly asked for military assistance when Russia moved on Crimea and we said no. Those carrying out our current interventionist habits are not using the logic or reasoning Professor Ting is so what is their reasoning?
What about defending allies? Does that count? Come to think of it why do we have allies in the first place? Probably to ensure defence.
Something can't be moral, a principle, when it's untrue, when it's inconsistent. You've both said "it's an ideology," but I've shown that initiating force being immoral as a truth. Either point out the flaw in my argument or stop wasting my time.
I think it's possible to integrate both opinions.
I'm kind of selective in who I argue with, so I'm not going to. I was just informing you of my stance since you were curious. Nonetheless I'm really curious which paragraph you are referring to as an emotional argument. Is it the one about animals defending territory?
There is time when war is justified. But 90% of the time it isn't.
I agree. I think of ww2, when the uk and France begged Germany to stop, but Germany wouldn’t stop, so the uk and France declared war for the greater good
2. Justification for intervention via cost/benefit analysis? No. The ONLY justification for war is necessity for preservation of life & liberty, & the only litmus test is whether you have the political will to be victorious. Once you are committed to war, it is a moral imperative to win at ALL cost. Strategies & tactics should reflect this. If you lack the will to win, blood or treasure spilled in such an indeavor is unjustifiably wasted. Winning can mean different things.
man these guys have hella good arguments xD I Agree with them both and can't really decide left or right. I wish there is a middle one.
Yes. A lot of people seem to have a misunderstanding on what WW2 was about.
right there with you!!!
A big problem with this debate is that Bryan Caplan seems to care more about attacking Jan Ting's intelligence than really working on an answer to the debate. Altogether, Bryan makes himself out to be a prick in a suit.
"of course it is". Could you elaborate?
Why should we give a damn about innocents in other countries, when the terrorists in other countries didnt give a damn about us?
And its not like these terrorists are created in a vacuum, that are born and raised in a culture which allows this.
Busting out a poll that says the majority in their country doesnt like it doesnt mean jack squat.
Also, you totally missed the point anyway.
Us determining our fate, is infinitely better, then waiting for our fate to be determined by them, who kill us
More debates please
The real problem is that sometimes you have to acknowledge that you are already at war against your will and the right response is to defend yourself or others, that's the case for WW2. Now, starting war where there is none is never justifiable.
Couldn't have said it better myself
On which side?
Source?
Sure, it's less violent to let every bully everywhere have their way, but people stand up for themselves and live life under their terms, not someone else's.
So, violence is justified when:
1) Done by people
2) To attack people who initiated violence against people from point 1)
Private armies financed by people voluntarily can declare war on people who declared war first on innocent people.
War done by the entity of organised violence that the state is and financed by violent robbery which is taxation using slave labour, which the unvoluntary soldiers are, is never justified. Especially now when in wars innocent people suffer because the weapons in use are weapons of mass destruction like bomb carriers, huge range explosives, nuclear weapons that nearly always harm people who didn't initiate violence.
to his questions at 15:50 YES
Not to interrupt, and I'm just kinda playing devils advocate here to help form my thoughts.
If the net result is 5 people killed either way... is it an issue that requires intervention?
Prof. Caplan completely evaded the San Diego/Montreal question.
Yet in the case provided (ethnic cleansing) both choices have known short-term negatives, so now the question becomes which one can you stomach more? Will you go in and defend those that are being cleansed? or will you sit back just to keep your hands clean of the situation?
Would it be too far of a stretch to say anyone you could have saved and didn't is equally counted as someone you helped kill?
Yes
Economist only weigh things as profit/loss. This is why they cannot predict the future at all.
Professor Bryan Caplan around the 5:00 minute mark: There is someone talking about human aggression and war who knows EXACTLY nothing about it.
As a former military member, who grew up in a fighting family in the Marine Corps, has a degree in political science focusing in securities, and identiying mostly libertarian, I say: you couldn't be farther from reality. That isn't the way it works, nor do people think like that when life and death is on the line, much less political influence.
War is often Justified....Just not usually...
Not all of us.
Tell that to all of the war torn 3rd world countries that aren't thrust into war by a centralized government, but by warring factions of people grasping for power.
14:18 Neutral countries have some of the most well equipped armies in the world, the whole point of being neutral is that neither great power can dictate to them. Switzerland and Austria can stay safe cause they have a relatively large army tucked away in mountains that would be a pain in the back to fight.
man these guys have hella good arguments xD I Agree with them both and can't really decide left or right T>T
I don't think that either addressed the real concern of their opposition.
The case for military intervention never asked "what is the maximum amount of harm that you would allow before being willing to respond with violence?" Then follow up with, "Is it possible for that amount of harm to be done in the world today?"
The case for less military intervention never asked "What is the minimum amount of harm that would would require before being willing to respond with violence?" Then follow up with "Is it possible that responding with violence causes at least that amount of harm?"
These questions better address their arguments. That war is a regretful necessity, and that war causes more war.
I believe that Professor Ting successfully argued his case. He spoke his case more eloquently without descending into overly patriotic jingoism. In some instances, intervention is necessary when all other means have been exhausted.
I love love love good debates....and the Chinese guy killed the other guy...Bruce Lee style...
You're welcome.
they should defend themselves. it isnt against the non agression nor a violation of property rights principle to defend yourself against an aggressor.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war. Only until we can get rid of the human nature were some people feel the need to use power at every turn, then and only then can we get rid of our military. We can't choose how people act, but we can choose how we react.
That's why religion is the only answer because all the major religions are about self mastery, self control of the inner man.
Civil discussion with solid arguments on both sides.
What state will you run to in the event YOUR country is invaded?
He keeps saying "in the real world" but the cases they mentioned, like the one in San Diego, are taken from the real world.
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."
-- Georg Hegel
War should be illegal 🪖
Vigilante Justice should be legal 💪🏻
War drags everyone into it.
Vigilante Justice (Street Justice) has way less casualties, especially when it's personal.
Defining terms is a key part of debating. If you want to counter my argument go for it, if you want to define the terms your way, go for it. If you want to counter my definitions, go for it.
They SHOULD do nothing. They CAN voluntarily hire defense companies. People assuming what other people should or want to do is a huge problem with statism.
Well of course if you simply define terms to suit your own argument, then you will always win. By defining non-aggression as one of your two conditions for unjustification, you make it impossible that ANY state violence could be justified, including defence against an aggressor. So when a population is attacked by another population they should...?
1. RE: Prof. Caplan's 1st: "War today inevitably means deliberately or at least recklessly killing innocent civilians..." A categorically false assertion, at least in terms of US forces. The extraordinary measures our troops take to minimize loss of life, often at great risk to their own, ought not be disparaged by those who don't share in their risk. I imagine he's a critic of the "smart" weapons, too. Perhaps he would find carpet bombing more humane. Lacking in historical perspective.
Chaplin's thesis is that the outcome of war is ambiguous - since we cannot predict the outcome of war, we should avoid it. But he fails to apply this idea to the other outcome. We also cannot always predict the outcome of not intervening.
There is! YOU!
very sad that an economist is losing to a lawyer due to logic.
War can only be justified in self defense against an unjust war.
Because war is its own justification, therefore, all wars are unjustifiable.
My only problem is with Prof. Caplin's argument is that A. It was never addressed how pacifism would deal with a radical ideology and B. That he used the Soviet Union Fear argument. If we are going under the idea that we can't predict the future then how can we say that the fear of the Soviet Union made them more susceptible to war? It increased the probability, yeah, but his argument was that we can't operate under probabilities.
Hold on a second, didn't the whole West vs. USSR confrontation actually start in the Russian Civil War, when the League of Nations intervened with 155,000 troops?
Defending yourself and your property (including others that need help/are incapable themselves) is always justified. Attacking someone else and taking over their property is never justified. It's that simple.
It's actually not that simple Joe.
This is a valid discussion and a valid subject for argument that needs to be made. But it appears Professor Caplan is living in a fantasy world. I would not trust him to make any decisions for me or my family's safety.
Even still, the divergence of those resources cannot be forced. The question of benefit is for the person providing those resources to determine, not the supposed "benefactor". Basically, if it were going to help people, the divergence of resources towards defensive action would be voluntary. Therefor, any involuntary tax to fund a defensive war would be unneeded, and if it were to exist would bring the supposed "benefit" into question, not to mention the benefactor (for now, state government)
It seems to be really about intervention - not necessarily war per se. No one argued just war principles. Prof Ting got close but it was still intervention and not defensive war.
The impossibility of predicting the consequences when doing the right thing, is no argument against doing the right thing, in any area of life.
The problem comes, when a country whose own system of politics is utterly corrupt, has the temerity to try to engineer through war, regime changes in other countries -often for reasons that are not to do with the wellbeing of the population, or even the global population at large.
What makes initiation of force wrong? The belief that is wrong is an ideology.
In fact if Bryan Caplan can respond directly to your allegations he would probably counter that government cyber security actually makes us less safe since it provides disincentives for the private sector to seek its own form of cyber security since they can just rely on the government to protect them.
Absolutely. I'll defer to Yaron Brook for this one.
But... if "doing the right thing" constantly causes negative consequences, I think a logical person can make an educated guess to stop doing "the right thing", or at least drastically change their approach.
One question, when you stated "of Germany wanting to take over the world is not true", do you mean that that Germany only wanted to occupy territories that were of strategic importance?
6:26 Prof. Caplan: "Do we have a clear reason to think that the long-run benefits are so wonderful that they are going to outweigh the short-run costs?"
Did Prof. Ting ever disagree with this test? It seemed to me that they both agreed that this was a good test to see if one should intervene. What they disagreed about is the likelihood that real world cases pass these tests. Caplan thinks that there are practically no real world cases that pass this test and Ting thinks there are a fair amount.
The JWT of the Catholic Church: The CC has declared wars "just" and clearly claims this authority. The JWT is a framework for Catholics to know if they can participate in war. If we participate in an unjust war we are committing murder. We must KNOW that the war is just before we participate in it or we employ laxism (strictly forbidden to Catholics). The idea is easy enough to understand. Would someone please answer this simple question?
In any war there can be potentially only one side that meets the JWT. In many wars, no sides will meet the strict JWT. The Church has had the JWT for 1700 years (first introduced in the early 5th century). When, in those 1700 years, have the men of the Church within a state boundary declared a war of their caesar/king/ prime minister/president, prior to or during a war, to be unjust? Did the German Catholic hierarchy declare that WWII, before or during, to be unjust? Did the Pope declare to his diocese of Rome that the war against Ethiopia in the 1930s to be unjust?
Remember, the Church has on many occasions declared wars to be just. This is irrefutable evidence that it has the authority to declare a war unjust. I would argue that the Church has a moral requirement to make this determination for its flock for every instance of homicidal violence.
Our country should not be overseas nation building, however the claim in favor of removing the military in order to achieve piece is very naive.
Nonintervention in North Korea has had exactly the kind of human cost that this pacifist is worried war would.
That does not refute the fact that bombing innocent people is immoral. Would you fly a plane and drop bombs on civilians? In the first 2 weeks alone, 40 thousand iraqi civilians were bombed to death by US en British soldiers. Would you kill a North Korean child for the greater could? Would you pull the trigger? Just because the North Korean power that be are immoral doesn't make it right to be immoral yourself be killing innocent people.
Furthermore, you don;t know the out come of a war with North Korea in the past, so you wouldn't know.
Christiaan Cusell luckily, Im not trying to refute that bombing innocent people would be immoral.
Christiaan Cusell Never is bombing innocent people an okay thing to do. I would support an intervention in a torn, oppressed country like North Korea militarily. War is a terrible thing, however it is absolutely necessary to give power to those who are put down, immorality is not acceptable, and so invading a country of immorality like Iraq and North Korea are a neccessary evil.
Sam Greenrod I see no reason to hedge and call it evil, no more than a hammer is evil. Its a moral neutral, albeit one with very negative consequences if used inappropriately.
It’s a very difficult and challenging question as they say. Kill or be killed in some situations. The case can be made that war protects people from evil. I was brought up and indoctrinated in a pacifist religion. Love your enemies pray for them feed them etc. The motives on both sides can be good or bad. There is something beautiful and noble about protecting your family and those you love for a good reason. Quite often economic agendas, religious ideologies, propaganda, prejudice, fear, and other social issues are being promoted on both sides. The end result is people die…innocent people on both sides. What do we gain? It’s a very old and a very difficult question. I wish we could all agree and live in harmony and work together. Humans need a why that really matters. I believe in love but I don’t know how that really works. I have a lot of friends with ptsd from their experiences in the military. I appreciate the subject and have a lot of respect for those that work to protect me from evil in the world like the law enforcement and military. So many books and discussions have been written and expressed. Incredibly interesting subject.
"I'd say that Bolshevism introduced the idea of "killing someone on the basis of an ideology""
Really? I'd say religion did that.
In fact, I wouldn't just be saying it, I'd be right in saying it.
An absolute truth, since the attacker is the initiator of force.
Uhhhhh
One person can not.
But a system can.
Cultures could for a period.
make a determination that their allies are going to support them, and also understand what the backlash would be (i.e. what countries would attempt to stop them). Caplan really hasn't a clue.
I may choose to own a gun without having intent to ever use it. I may choose to own a gun in the rare case that I MAY have to use it defensively. So, NO Dr. Ting, abolishing the US military is not a logical conclusion that follows having no intention of using it. Believe it or not, you may have a military for defensive purposes without any intent of exercising it in other countries.
Caplan is saying this is costly coz we dont know the outcome and points in line to that for everything. What is actually really predictible in the world? His answer is we shouldnt do anything ever coz we dont know anything for sure.
And he has been talking about how china and russia disarmed their military.
So in that same line of thought, americans rather not have a military if they aren’t ever going to use it. I think you misinterpret that mr.tang brought up the suggestion in the first place lol he is making an example of caplan’s stupid argument. Just sit on your asses and worty about the economics. Caplan is so deep into calculations that he is paralysed
Thats basically whats called paralysis by analysis
This is what I like to call the grey area. One where you cannot objectively define if something is or isnt a threat.
Take the example of a gun pointed in my direction. How do I know he intends to shoot me? How do I not know if he is simply waiting for me to move so he can shoot somebody attacking a girl behind me?
Due to this lack of complete information, one has to make a decision based on what he perceives to be a threat against him, whether it truly was or not
12:40 i consider myself an anarchist.