Quote for blood meridian "It makes no difference what men think of war, war endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way."
Studying the Great War/WWI I came across these "justifications" of wars by German Bishop Paul Wilhelm von Keppler in the early years (14/15): "Such a war is always just when it a) happens upon order of a regent/head of state, b) happens based upon a just reason as self-defence or the re-establishment of Rights, respectively c) with the goal of re-instating peace" (my translation from German)
We might make some headway on the descriptive debate regarding the necessity of war by clarifying what exactly it is. It seems to me that a war, by definition, is a conflict that involves different political entities - whether these entities be communities, societies, nations, or states. So, for example, a drunken brawl between two bar patrons does not constitute a war, in the everyday use of the term. But even this requirement seems hazy. We don't call skirmishes between rival mafiosi groups a war, even though they involve communities. What separates the example of mafiosi fighting from, say, a non-governmental entity engaging in an insurgency (which would be considered a war in the everyday sense of the word)?
One of the many great questions in the philosophy of war that I did not touch on in this video. People have declared "wars" on drugs, or terror, but should those really be classified as wars or is that just rhetoric? When does a violent protest movement become a revolution? What is the difference between a revolution, a civil war, and a coup? If a coup is a war, is a bloodless coup a war? What about an authoritarian power grab? Where do things like the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, Yahya Jammeh's bloodless coup in the Gambia, the Arab spring revolution in Tunisia, the recent power grab by Tunisia's president, the al-Shabab insurgency in Mozambique, etc. fit on this spectrum? Are these merely branding distinctions or is there a real metaphysical difference between types of conflict?
Thank you Carneades for giving us a general introduction to this subject. Because, for example, I knew of its existence, but anything about the content. Regards from Venezuela
I was thinking about whether or not Carneades made a video about war. As a Ukrainian that was indeed interesting to read a thought of a proffesional. But there is another point I think was missed: there is a philosophy of war started by russia, while there is another level - to protect your own country that has been doing by Ukraine.
In your card " Is War Moral?" you explain there is no higher constitution to judge a war. What about the civiliains/international community? For example in this Ukraine - Russia War many, if not most western people condemn this war/the russian leaders, as far as I can tell.
A good question. Just war theorists of various stripes might make such a case, that if the international community writ large condemns a war, then it is unjust. The realist might argue that the entire international community cannot be in agreement, because at least some of them are waging a war, even if a majority are opposed to it. How many people do you need to question it? Or is the only law the law of the jungle, were those with the nukes make the rules?
The most ugliest is that your video is already the pure evil. Implicitly you set humanity against Ukraine refusing any help to it. I wish the descendants will judge your filthy actions later. You calmly claimed that there were no higher courtesy or force to stop or to prevent a war, but this was the stupidest claim I've ever heard in my life. I know some conservatives hold it, but anyway, you are a coward to dare saying anything like that. Here in Kharkiv people are suffering of daily shelling, and if you say that it's okay to pass away not even lending a hand of help, all your previous nonsense proves you to be just a loser coward. You think you can save yourself hiding between mother's dress? Do not cry a big boy, this won't help you to become a man which you never will be. Besides don't complain about your skepticism, because you're definitely not. If you're wandering a positive dogmatic bulls**t ideas, then you're not a skeptical, but just a hidden conservative whacko. I wish I meet you one day. But you are so "brave" to hide your cutie face under the mask. You won't hide, pal, you won't.
I think that peace is a dynamically unstable state, i.e. it requires active maintenance, in absence of which conflicts can escalate in vicious cycles until war breaks out. So in that sense, "war is natural", in that it's the "base state" that things collapse to in lieu of efforts to the contrary. (And the deepest base state within that is one in which there is a clear and constant victor of that war, an authoritarian ruler continuously winning their war against everyone else.) But we *can* make efforts to the contrary and in principle be arbitrarily successful in those efforts, so we could maintain as much peace as we like if we get sufficiently good at doing so and apply those skills sufficiently much. And we ought to, because war is bad. But that doesn't mean that *fighting* in a war is bad, it means that *starting* a war is bad. If party A starts a war against party B, party B has no choice now about whether or not to be at war, their only choice is who wins it. If party B doesn't fight back and just lets party A roll over them, the end result isn't peace, it's just party A winning their continual war against party B, until party A decides to stop doing that and leave party B alone again. So once one party has begun aggression against another, the only way to re-establish peace is for the aggressor to stop aggressing, and short of the aggressor just having a change of heart, the only way to accomplish that is to deny them what they gain from that aggression, i.e. don't let them win. And the aggressor has, by their aggression, waved any claims against any actions that may be necessary to stop them. It is omissibly better to use the least force possible to stop them, of course, but it is permissible to use however much is necessary to restore peace. Lastly, third parties are free to help defend the victims of aggression within the same limits as the victims themselves. What does that make me?
Interesting view. "War is a natural state that we can overcome if we try" does seem to be an abolitionist position. Your claims about what makes war right are definitely in the just war tradition. A question for you, is war ever justified in the case of genocide? If a country is killing its own people, is another country every justified in declaring war to stop it?
Good, simple and comprehensive introduction to a very complex subject. Just one improvement I request is that you enhance the volume of your recording. Barely audible or comprehendible at times due to low audio levels
I think war realism could be split in some way into moral realists that think war is always morally justified, and moral anti-realists that think moral justification is in some way nonsense, and so we cannot say war is wrong, because we can't truly say anything is wrong.
Questions of its "metaphysical status" aside, what is a "war"? When is people killing people a war as opposed to a "police action" or an "unpleasantness" or a revolution or a coup or....? If I am playing American football, don't want to be subject to the rules of "football" in the UK.
I just realised that you have made many videos on Logic. Can you pls guide me towards learning logic I am not interested in mathematical logic i am more interested in learning how to reason better and the philosophical side of logic especially the Aristotlean Logic.
@@servantoftheexpander9688 yw. i once heard peter boghossian say that learning to recognize your own biases are the number one way to become better at reasoning and critical thinking -- which i would count as very similar things.
You mentioned a lot of concepts that could be used to talk about whether war is justified or not. The medieval discussion of “bellum iustum” was also mentioned. But is any of this actually being used in contemporary philosophy? Can you name any contemporary philosophers that work on Philosophy of War?
Easy way to end all wars: Make the leaders fight the war themselves, not use innocent men to fight them. Also, if everyone refused to fight in a war and be used as pawns, then no wars could ever happen.
A very pacifist sentiment. If the moral onus is put on each and every individual, that soldiers must lay down their weapons, then you might be able to eliminate wars. The challenge is that, it seems if you are being invaded, and the invaders refuse to do the moral thing and lay down their weapons, you might have a justification for picking up weapons of your own. Further, if governments are good at disinformation campaigns (see Putin's Russia) the soldiers may think they are fighting for a just cause, when they are not. All the more reason to think that there is an ethics of epistemology (ruclips.net/video/AtBWy4kBjfQ/видео.html)
No. Just…no. Lots of stuff missing here. Some bits are ok but for those interested in a tighter breakdown see: Just War Theory: plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/ Pacifism: plato.stanford.edu/entries/pacifism/ Realism: plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/
Of course things are missing, as noted it is a short intro video to a broad topic. If you think anything is incorrect feel free to point it out, but generally folks come to my videos for short, accessible overviews, particularlythose in the dumbfounding definitions series. Though I agree that the SEP has longer, higher level, more authoritative versions.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene I get it. I think you do a great job generally, and I have used some of your stuff in classes for exactly the reasons you state, but there are errors here. Traditionalist JWT views track closely to IHL because the norms institutionalized in IHL (and preceding customary and statutory international law) were derived from the Just War tradition, not because Traditionalists are hyper-legalistic. The debate between traditionalists and revisionists is grounded primarily in whether the norms that apply to individual use of defensive lethal force apply to war, or if the collective nature of warfare (The ‘what war is’ question again) allows for the broader permissions granted by Traditional Just War Theory. Additionally, while JWT is well grounded in the scholastic views you present, the same (or very similar) norms have been around in non-Christian and even non-‘western’ normative traditions Sorabji and Rodin did a nice edited collection on this (Ethics of War: Shared Problems in Different Traditions). I’m also not sure that Realism is grounded in the idea that the moral value (null or otherwise) of war is grounded in the lack of a Leviathan. Many claim that states can permissibly go to war if it suits their national interest…some go so far as to claim that doing so is obligatory for states. This might be something to expand on in later episodes given that it seems to be an influential view in many Strategic/Security Studies circles and could be/is being used to justify Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Sorry to pile on, but this stuff gets twisted pretty quickly to suit people’s preferred intuitions, and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing…in more ways than one. Regardless, thanks for the videos, and all the best!
Quote for blood meridian
"It makes no difference what men think of war, war endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way."
Carneades never disappoints. I am convinced that you're a genius!
Thanks! You flatter me. I'm with Socrates, I don't know anything, so I'm only a genius if that mean acknowledging your ignorance. :)
Studying the Great War/WWI I came across these "justifications" of wars by German Bishop Paul Wilhelm von Keppler in the early years (14/15): "Such a war is always just when it a) happens upon order of a regent/head of state, b) happens based upon a just reason as self-defence or the re-establishment of Rights, respectively c) with the goal of re-instating peace" (my translation from German)
Very cool video.
Thanks!
A video about the philosphy of war and no mention of Clausewitz or even defining what war is. Not his best video.
RAM
ROM?
The history of humankind is the history of conflict.
The question is whether the future will be too.
St. Augustine
We might make some headway on the descriptive debate regarding the necessity of war by clarifying what exactly it is. It seems to me that a war, by definition, is a conflict that involves different political entities - whether these entities be communities, societies, nations, or states. So, for example, a drunken brawl between two bar patrons does not constitute a war, in the everyday use of the term. But even this requirement seems hazy. We don't call skirmishes between rival mafiosi groups a war, even though they involve communities. What separates the example of mafiosi fighting from, say, a non-governmental entity engaging in an insurgency (which would be considered a war in the everyday sense of the word)?
One of the many great questions in the philosophy of war that I did not touch on in this video. People have declared "wars" on drugs, or terror, but should those really be classified as wars or is that just rhetoric? When does a violent protest movement become a revolution? What is the difference between a revolution, a civil war, and a coup? If a coup is a war, is a bloodless coup a war? What about an authoritarian power grab? Where do things like the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, Yahya Jammeh's bloodless coup in the Gambia, the Arab spring revolution in Tunisia, the recent power grab by Tunisia's president, the al-Shabab insurgency in Mozambique, etc. fit on this spectrum? Are these merely branding distinctions or is there a real metaphysical difference between types of conflict?
Thank you Carneades for giving us a general introduction to this subject. Because, for example, I knew of its existence, but anything about the content.
Regards from Venezuela
Glad to help. Thanks for watching!
I was thinking about whether or not Carneades made a video about war. As a Ukrainian that was indeed interesting to read a thought of a proffesional. But there is another point I think was missed: there is a philosophy of war started by russia, while there is another level - to protect your own country that has been doing by Ukraine.
Sure Ucraine has not provoked?
I don't know for sure, that is why I am asking, only double-checking...
In your card " Is War Moral?" you explain there is no higher constitution to judge a war.
What about the civiliains/international community? For example in this Ukraine - Russia War many, if not most western people condemn this war/the russian leaders, as far as I can tell.
A good question. Just war theorists of various stripes might make such a case, that if the international community writ large condemns a war, then it is unjust. The realist might argue that the entire international community cannot be in agreement, because at least some of them are waging a war, even if a majority are opposed to it. How many people do you need to question it? Or is the only law the law of the jungle, were those with the nukes make the rules?
The most ugliest is that your video is already the pure evil. Implicitly you set humanity against Ukraine refusing any help to it. I wish the descendants will judge your filthy actions later.
You calmly claimed that there were no higher courtesy or force to stop or to prevent a war, but this was the stupidest claim I've ever heard in my life. I know some conservatives hold it, but anyway, you are a coward to dare saying anything like that. Here in Kharkiv people are suffering of daily shelling, and if you say that it's okay to pass away not even lending a hand of help, all your previous nonsense proves you to be just a loser coward. You think you can save yourself hiding between mother's dress? Do not cry a big boy, this won't help you to become a man which you never will be.
Besides don't complain about your skepticism, because you're definitely not. If you're wandering a positive dogmatic bulls**t ideas, then you're not a skeptical, but just a hidden conservative whacko.
I wish I meet you one day. But you are so "brave" to hide your cutie face under the mask. You won't hide, pal, you won't.
Living in Ukraine, I can say for sure that I hate war deeply. This is ugly side of the world.
I think that peace is a dynamically unstable state, i.e. it requires active maintenance, in absence of which conflicts can escalate in vicious cycles until war breaks out. So in that sense, "war is natural", in that it's the "base state" that things collapse to in lieu of efforts to the contrary. (And the deepest base state within that is one in which there is a clear and constant victor of that war, an authoritarian ruler continuously winning their war against everyone else.) But we *can* make efforts to the contrary and in principle be arbitrarily successful in those efforts, so we could maintain as much peace as we like if we get sufficiently good at doing so and apply those skills sufficiently much.
And we ought to, because war is bad. But that doesn't mean that *fighting* in a war is bad, it means that *starting* a war is bad. If party A starts a war against party B, party B has no choice now about whether or not to be at war, their only choice is who wins it. If party B doesn't fight back and just lets party A roll over them, the end result isn't peace, it's just party A winning their continual war against party B, until party A decides to stop doing that and leave party B alone again. So once one party has begun aggression against another, the only way to re-establish peace is for the aggressor to stop aggressing, and short of the aggressor just having a change of heart, the only way to accomplish that is to deny them what they gain from that aggression, i.e. don't let them win. And the aggressor has, by their aggression, waved any claims against any actions that may be necessary to stop them. It is omissibly better to use the least force possible to stop them, of course, but it is permissible to use however much is necessary to restore peace.
Lastly, third parties are free to help defend the victims of aggression within the same limits as the victims themselves.
What does that make me?
Interesting view. "War is a natural state that we can overcome if we try" does seem to be an abolitionist position. Your claims about what makes war right are definitely in the just war tradition. A question for you, is war ever justified in the case of genocide? If a country is killing its own people, is another country every justified in declaring war to stop it?
"War endures because young men love it, and old men love it in them."
Good, simple and comprehensive introduction to a very complex subject. Just one improvement I request is that you enhance the volume of your recording. Barely audible or comprehendible at times due to low audio levels
Would be curious to see how moral anti-realists square against war realism, if some of them do tend against it.
Kick boxing vs. Judo?
I think war realism could be split in some way into moral realists that think war is always morally justified, and moral anti-realists that think moral justification is in some way nonsense, and so we cannot say war is wrong, because we can't truly say anything is wrong.
It is what it is. Abstract vs concrete.
Interesting claim. Would you consider yourself a war conservative, if you think war simply "is what it is"? i.e. we can't stop all wars?
You need to add an extra section now.
Questions of its "metaphysical status" aside, what is a "war"?
When is people killing people a war as opposed to a "police action" or an "unpleasantness" or a revolution or a coup or....?
If I am playing American football, don't want to be subject to the rules of "football" in the UK.
I just realised that you have made many videos on Logic. Can you pls guide me towards learning logic I am not interested in mathematical logic i am more interested in learning how to reason better and the philosophical side of logic especially the Aristotlean Logic.
propositional logic may be what youre looking for. also important to learn biases and fallacies.
@@ryrez4478 thx for your advice!
@@servantoftheexpander9688 yw. i once heard peter boghossian say that learning to recognize your own biases are the number one way to become better at reasoning and critical thinking -- which i would count as very similar things.
@@ryrez4478 You are right being bais when even the evidence is given clearly is Very much concerning in any setting.
You mentioned a lot of concepts that could be used to talk about whether war is justified or not. The medieval discussion of “bellum iustum” was also mentioned. But is any of this actually being used in contemporary philosophy? Can you name any contemporary philosophers that work on Philosophy of War?
In a way I think going to war is taking your opponent to the ultimate court.
What's your own opinion on this? Where do you stand?
Thank you for the videos, you're great!
Easy way to end all wars: Make the leaders fight the war themselves, not use innocent men to fight them. Also, if everyone refused to fight in a war and be used as pawns, then no wars could ever happen.
A very pacifist sentiment. If the moral onus is put on each and every individual, that soldiers must lay down their weapons, then you might be able to eliminate wars. The challenge is that, it seems if you are being invaded, and the invaders refuse to do the moral thing and lay down their weapons, you might have a justification for picking up weapons of your own. Further, if governments are good at disinformation campaigns (see Putin's Russia) the soldiers may think they are fighting for a just cause, when they are not. All the more reason to think that there is an ethics of epistemology (ruclips.net/video/AtBWy4kBjfQ/видео.html)
Very fitting to last weeks news
No. Just…no. Lots of stuff missing here. Some bits are ok but for those interested in a tighter breakdown see:
Just War Theory: plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/
Pacifism: plato.stanford.edu/entries/pacifism/
Realism: plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/
Of course things are missing, as noted it is a short intro video to a broad topic. If you think anything is incorrect feel free to point it out, but generally folks come to my videos for short, accessible overviews, particularlythose in the dumbfounding definitions series. Though I agree that the SEP has longer, higher level, more authoritative versions.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene I get it. I think you do a great job generally, and I have used some of your stuff in classes for exactly the reasons you state, but there are errors here.
Traditionalist JWT views track closely to IHL because the norms institutionalized in IHL (and preceding customary and statutory international law) were derived from the Just War tradition, not because Traditionalists are hyper-legalistic. The debate between traditionalists and revisionists is grounded primarily in whether the norms that apply to individual use of defensive lethal force apply to war, or if the collective nature of warfare (The ‘what war is’ question again) allows for the broader permissions granted by Traditional Just War Theory.
Additionally, while JWT is well grounded in the scholastic views you present, the same (or very similar) norms have been around in non-Christian and even non-‘western’ normative traditions Sorabji and Rodin did a nice edited collection on this (Ethics of War: Shared Problems in Different Traditions).
I’m also not sure that Realism is grounded in the idea that the moral value (null or otherwise) of war is grounded in the lack of a Leviathan. Many claim that states can permissibly go to war if it suits their national interest…some go so far as to claim that doing so is obligatory for states. This might be something to expand on in later episodes given that it seems to be an influential view in many Strategic/Security Studies circles and could be/is being used to justify Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
Sorry to pile on, but this stuff gets twisted pretty quickly to suit people’s preferred intuitions, and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing…in more ways than one. Regardless, thanks for the videos, and all the best!
After this video I quitted the channel. That was a total disappointment. Too subjective and not serious
Maybe just me, but the audio is really low.
Hmm possibly. I was messing with my mic settings when I recorded this. You should be able to turn it up enough to hear it well.
just you!
@russia @ukraine pls