Transcript
debatablediscussions: Hello and welcome back to the Debatable Discussions podcast. Today you join me and Diane as we're going to delve into some some of the moral issues surrounding war and protests.
Dejan: Yeah, thank you everyone. Nice see you again, John. And today we've got sort of current topic. I was walking out of a university opening day and I see about...
Dejan: 8,000 people march, some of them half naked, tops off, screaming and shouting and sort of bashing the government.
debatablediscussions: Wow.
Dejan: And I googled it up, it's a so far right protest that I was i was lucky enough to sort of encounter. But yeah, it's it's a current topic. A lot protests last week, big protests on Palestine.
Dejan: and Again, so it's quite a current affair.
debatablediscussions: And similarly with war, obviously, if you've listened to our last episode, and please do after listening to this one, ah you would seen that me and Diane were discussing the Iran-Israel conflict that is occurring at the moment.
debatablediscussions: And this form has passed the myriad of wars that that are occurring across the globe. Now, Diane, all of these beckon one question, one overall question of whether more is war is moral.
debatablediscussions: However, before we get to that, I thought we could perhaps say or sort argue over, is war ever justifiable? We may have the same opinion on this or not. So, Diane, is war ever justifiable?
Dejan: Well, I think, again, I think it's justifiable, but I don't think it's morally right. And I think that's that's going to be a point of contention for later.
debatablediscussions: Yeah.
Dejan: But I do think you can justify war, and such as the Second World War. I think that's pretty justified, trying to stop so Nazis from dominating the world. after Other wars, i think they're justifiable. You know, if you get invaded, I think it's fair enough that you you stand up and fight and you don't just surrender.
Dejan: Do I think it's morally right to initiate war? Probably not. No, I don't think it's compatible with religious values. I don't think it's compatible with sort of ethics of trying to preserve life and not lose it.
Dejan: But yeah, I do think you can justify it, but don't think it's right. John?
debatablediscussions: Yeah, so um um I similarly believe that war can be justifiable. I think wars, let's say, against oppressors, ah for example, that is um justifiable.
Dejan: Yeah?
debatablediscussions: For example, a classic sort of example would be ah the North American colonists in the 13 colonies of Britain. They viewed the British as being oppressors.
debatablediscussions: Therefore, they engaged in this conflict from 1775 1783, in which they simson eighty three in which they fought against them for their independence. So I believe any conflict such as fighting for independence can be justifiable.
debatablediscussions: But I believe i' have a sort of more... a more sort of morally, I'd say, ah selective approach on whether war can be justifiable. I think if you're fighting against an oppressor, it is justifiable war.
Dejan: OK.
debatablediscussions: However, if you're, for example, and this is globally recognised as not being justifiable, but any war sort of like Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, obviously that is not justifiable because in that sense, that is for pure greed.
debatablediscussions: And I think wherever greed is involved, war is never justifiable.
Dejan: Yeah.
debatablediscussions: Moving on to sort of, you said, Diane, the of second part of that question of is war ever justifiable? I slightly differ from you here. And I think because war can be justifiable for me, i think there are circumstances in which it's morally wrong So I would say, let's say if you're a Christian, for example, a retaliation, that would be a morally wrong time for war.
debatablediscussions: And in many ways, I do think some acts of retaliation which engage in warfare can be deemed as morally wrong. However, anything which I think is for the append independence, for the um for the freedom of a country type thing, I think that is a morally acceptable and morally right, one could say, instance for war.
debatablediscussions: But my example for this would simply be because... It matters how you look at morality. If you look at it from absolute principles, this is where we may clash, if you look at from absolute principles, you're doing something wrong.
Dejan: yeah
debatablediscussions: You're killing, for example, you're engaging in warfare.
Dejan: yeah
debatablediscussions: However, if you look at it from more of a consequentialist ah point of view, if you focus on the consequences, that short-term pain and short-term suffering inflicted upon a country delivers long-term consequences.
debatablediscussions: However, that is a selective sort of, that is a quite selective sort of reasoning for war, because not many wars are fought against oppressors in the same manner that, let's say ah the 13 colonies did against the British.
Dejan: Yeah.
debatablediscussions: And actually, I think with a lot of war, think of Russia, Ukraine, um think of obviously Iran invading Kuwait,
debatablediscussions: A lot of warfare nowadays is to do with greed, simply. Countries want more power, more money or more land. And that's what motivates them. And so I don't think that's ever justifiable.
Dejan: Yeah, I mean, I agree you that I think, again, you've made a good distinction there, it just depends how you look at it. I think for me, justifying something and having it be morally right are two different things.
Dejan: I've been giving the example this, for example, speeding.
debatablediscussions: Yeah.
Dejan: I don't think you can make, i think you can make the case that speeding is justifiable, for example, you to go to the hospital. I don't think it's morally right, don't think you can make the sort of argument that just because it's necessary in that case, it's actually morally right. I think the two the two notions and the two concepts are bit separate.
Dejan: But that's that's sort of quite different from the mainstream.
debatablediscussions: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I agree that the two notions can be separate. I just think that, that I think they can be separate. So think there are some wars that are justifiable, but which aren't morally right.
debatablediscussions: So in a way, in e i even though I said I'm sort of against wars of pure retaliation, one could say that wars of retaliation can be justified.
Dejan: Yeah.
debatablediscussions: Um, for example, um you know, the US involvement in the Middle East, one could say, i mean, i don't I don't think that's justified at all.
Dejan: i know I'm not sure about that one.
debatablediscussions: But I think some people would say that's justified purely if they're from, let's say, a family that was perhaps very badly impacted by nine eleven or any of those events that occurred in the States.
Dejan: Yeah.
debatablediscussions: But I don't think that was justifiable. But I think that ah there will be circumstances, I think, of probably retaliation ah which are justifiable but not morally right. But then I think there is an instance where moraldi but where some wars are morally acceptable and morally and justifiable general.
debatablediscussions: But that's a slim sort of segment I've produced, mainly for independence.
Dejan: Yeah.
debatablediscussions: Another thing you mentioned earlier, Diane, was sort of aligning war with your Christian values. um So perhaps can you talk about that intersection? Obviously, one could think they're opposed, but actually they're not really opposed, are they, war and Christianity?
Dejan: Well, yeah, I mean, this this is too big. schools of thinking I'm three actually two and a half and one is the sort of adjustable theory by Augustine of Hippo like he puts all these sort of conditions that need to be met for war so basically if you've got sort of chance of success if it's given by just authority if the sort of there's not a big power imbalance for example you're fighting peasants who've got like
Dejan: hand you know makeshift swords and just drop a bomb on them for example you can't do that but you know um that's sort of school number one then you've got the people who say well okay but jesus was a pacifist uh he would have never endorsed war he would have never sort of said it's fine to go kill somebody as long as you know it's you've fell out the can do the terms and conditions to be really And there's a second and a half school of thought which we discussed in previous episode with Nigel Bigger where he makes a good point that Jesus was never concerned with sort of affairs of the state per se, especially when it comes to war, so it's a bit unclear um to know.
debatablediscussions: Oh, yes.
Dejan: But, I mean, I find it very difficult to subscribe to the first theory.
debatablediscussions: Yeah.
Dejan: i mean... having a sort of list for war is to me heavily against the core values of Christianity, which is to love your neighbor as yourself.
debatablediscussions: yeah
Dejan: I don't know what do you think, John.
debatablediscussions: Yeah, I mean, I think i think there is, i think there can be an intersection between Christianity and warfare. I think... I think so many view them as almost totally opposed, but I don't believe that they will always necessarily be totally opposed. I mean, there are I think there are examples, you'll probably know best than me, Diane, but there are examples in the Old Testament where war was where war took place.
debatablediscussions: And I think... With that whole Christian ethic of love thy neighbour, they would recognise that one it's fine for one to be against war because some may want to show those values of love thy neighbour.
debatablediscussions: But in order to love thy neighbour in the future or in order to show those Christian values of love and kindness, one may have to engage in warfare um for the consequence to be that to be people being able to freely show those values.
debatablediscussions: But I thought we could just go into the just war theory a bit more. I've recently looked at this at school, um but I'll ask you for your opinions, Dan. But just before that, there are many flaws with the theory, which I believe...
debatablediscussions: sort of mean that it's got promise, in my opinion, but it lacks the performance. And actually, i let you speak now. but And I simply say that because I think it's got promise in the sense that it's good almost to have a moral framework for war, just so that um parties you know, there can be a framework for parties so they don't do anything deemed totally immoral, or that they don't totally wipe out another party, another party in the war.
Dejan: Thank you.
debatablediscussions: So that's the promise. However, the performance and the major challenge to it ever performing is who enforces it? um We were talking about this before the episode, Diane, in the School of International Relations of Realism ah by John Mayersheimer.
debatablediscussions: But if you're going to break the just war theory, there's no one you can call because you're at the top of the world. There's no one who there's no one who can really enforce it because the UN can enforce it, one could say.
debatablediscussions: But I don't think many countries are bothered about that.
Dejan: i mean yeah no that definitely it's it's of interesting thing because there are don't know i think there are about seven warrants icj icc warrants for benjamin netanyahu i think it's about the same number for putin not quite sure there but you know you've got all these people who technically the moment they said five their country they should be arrested i mean netanyahu visited so hungary two weeks ago nothing happened
debatablediscussions: Yeah.
Dejan: what what What are you going to do?
debatablediscussions: and least Yeah. Yeah.
Dejan: what you know You can't just say, hello, I've seen Benjamin. You can't just call the police and say, I've seen Benjamin Netanyahu on the streets of Budapest. Come arrest them.
debatablediscussions: yeah
Dejan: it's to serve At the top, it's an anarchic world.
debatablediscussions: yeah
Dejan: You don't have the safeguards in place that you have. ah normal level of living, because as soon as you get to the level of being a head of state, so laws and rules don't reapply to you anymore.
Dejan: Again, you can't really say, hello, Vladimir, I know Vladimir Putin's address. It's ah the Kremlin in Moscow near the Red Square. i mean, everyone knows that, but what can you do?
debatablediscussions: tech and these
Dejan: You're going to go in in the night and break into the Kremlin and get Putin?
debatablediscussions: yeah
debatablediscussions: yeah
Dejan: I mean, you can't do that.
debatablediscussions: And these are two men, as you said there, who've definitely broken the just war theory. And they just really show case in point.
Dejan: Yeah.
debatablediscussions: It can't be enforced. um And there are a few other flaws with the just war theory one um when one thinks about it. In your explanation of the end, you alluded to one of its terms, which are that yeah For a war to exist, you need two log legitimate authorities to declare the war.
Dejan: Yeah.
debatablediscussions: However, a deeper exploration into that idea reveals what is a legitimate authority, because did the 13 colonies, a group of American colonists, did they have legitimate authority to declare war against the British?
Dejan: Exactly.
debatablediscussions: No, because they weren't head of state. They were just ah a group, basically, people.
Dejan: Yeah.
debatablediscussions: um Similarly, there have been so many other wars fought against oppressors, where in reality, those people fighting against their oppressors, they did not have legitimate authority to start that war.
debatablediscussions: So, yes, it's very flawed. As a final question, Dan, to perhaps bridge over into our next section on protests. What is the difference, in your opinion, between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?
debatablediscussions: Are they same or are they two different things?
Dejan: ah Well, i mean, it's a very fine line to be honest. Having to think about many freedom fighters, they were probably they were probably terrorists at the same time.
debatablediscussions: So, like, Afro-Jazz, yeah.
debatablediscussions: Anyway, yeah.
Dejan: um Because, you know, the definition of a terrorist someone who can't harm civilians in order to cause mass fear.
debatablediscussions: Yeah.
Dejan: And in order to be a successful freedom fighter, sort guerrilla fighter, if you like, you do have to have that sort of shock factor about you.
Dejan: Now many, many resorted to sort of public executions of people, etc.
debatablediscussions: Yeah.
Dejan: i mean, Che Guevara is a very good example of that, someone who was a freedom fighter fighting for Cuba, but, you know, did execute a couple hundreds of people himself.
debatablediscussions: Yeah.
Dejan: You've got other people, you know, I think if you are sort of some ISIS members, they would say they're freedom fighters and they're not terrorists.
debatablediscussions: Yeah.
Dejan: Al-Qaeda members would probably say that as well, you know, all these sort of what we call terrorist groups. I think they didn't they didn't see themselves as that. They just see them sort of doing some things to get more publicity and sort of get their presence known.
debatablediscussions: Yeah.
Dejan: I think it's very hard to separate. I mean, successful freedom fighters that have sort of no history oh cool doing stuff just to cause mass fear probably exist.
debatablediscussions: Yeah.
Dejan: I don't think I really know them. I mean, it's especially in modern history. I mean, if you think sort of um earlier, maybe you could say George Washington was a freedom fighter and not terrorist.
debatablediscussions: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I agree with you there. I think there's a very...
Dejan: Maybe, maybe so you can say like Simon Boliva, the guy who liberated South America, could say maybe he was a freedom fighter, but again, it's a very fine line.
debatablediscussions: Yeah.
debatablediscussions: Yeah, I mean, I agree with you there. And there's a very famous old quote which sort of reflects how it's hard to determine the difference, actually, between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. And that quote is, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
Dejan: Yeah.
debatablediscussions: um And that really just goes to show how one can view someone as a terrorist, but the other can view them as a freedom fighter. And it's simply two different sides of the same coin. Yeah.
debatablediscussions: An example of this is many have viewed people such as Nelson Mandela as a freedom fighter, but many you many yeah as you said there, many also viewed him as a terrorist.
Dejan: some of you must have yeah
debatablediscussions: So it's actually quite hard to distinguish between the idea of a freedom fighter and a terrorist. And actually, I think whether this is right or wrong, it's ultimately one's own subjective opinion and one's own political outlook.
Dejan: yeah definitely
debatablediscussions: but Yeah, politically, we view Nelson Mandela as a freedom fighter. Why? Because of the values we have in us. We believe and we correlate with the values that Mandela was showing.
debatablediscussions: However, if you don't correlate with those values, then ah then you may view him as being a terrorist, wrongfully in our opinion.
Dejan: Yeah.
debatablediscussions: um So yes, I think it's ultimately to do values, as you said there, Diane. Perhaps moving on to sort of focus more on that idea of protests. Do you think then, is civil obedience ever morally justifiable?
Dejan: Well, it's it's an interesting question. for but yeah First of all, with we need to make clear that you have a right to assembly.
debatablediscussions: but yeah. Yes, yeah, yeah.
Dejan: So yeah you have a right to assembly as part of your democratic rights. um And that right does come with the fact that's come with some responsibilities as well. And responsibility is that your protest is basically peaceful.
Dejan: Now, the protest I witnessed this morning was initially peaceful. I'm not sure how it ended up. I don't really want to know.
debatablediscussions: Yeah.
Dejan: But It was sort of big march, people screaming, shouting, you know, save the children,
debatablediscussions: yeah
Dejan: you know, all of these things. But if you look at other protests, such as some protests by the English Defence League, that have gone in as initially peaceful protests and have ended up as ah huge riots, basically, people just beating each other up on the street, you know, that obviously cannot happen.
debatablediscussions: So, yeah.
Dejan: Because your right as ah as a citizen to assemble also means you have the responsibility to not harm anyone whilst doing that.
debatablediscussions: Yeah, so carrying on with that idea there, what would you say does count? Or what do you think does describe or define a just and justifiable protest?
Dejan: I think any any sort of gathering, any assembly of people that It's peaceful. I think that's, you can justify that.
debatablediscussions: Yeah.
Dejan: As as long as basically you don't start attacking each other or and or members of the general public verbally or physically and, you know, do whatever you want.
Dejan: If you want to assemble and protest for the prices of burgers at McDonald's, you know, go ahead.
debatablediscussions: Yeah.
Dejan: Who am I to stop you?
debatablediscussions: Yeah. I mean, I agree with you there totally. I think, as you mentioned there, protests are part of being in a democracy. And really, the idea with a protest is showing your freedom of speech.
debatablediscussions: um Therefore, if you follow that line of reasoning that that we are allowed to protest because it's an essential part of our freedom of speech, one can therefore draw the conclusion that there is no need for protest to ever be violent.
Dejan: okay
Dejan: please that he's got sick
debatablediscussions: And it's actually against the point of a protest for it to be violent. Why? Because the reason for protests is simply to showcase an opinion or to express an opinion in a public manner, aligning with that value of freedom of speech.
debatablediscussions: And I believe you lose that as soon as you have a... So yes, protests are part of freedom of speech. You're expressing an opinion.
debatablediscussions: Therefore, a violent protest contradicts that idea of what a protest really is. And that is an expression of your opinion. It's not an opportunity to be violent. I think if it does, if it is violent protest, it is unjustifiable simply because it's just group mass violence rioting.
debatablediscussions: this
Dejan: Yeah.
debatablediscussions: and causing harm um however if you think of that idea of a protest being for your freedom of speech um therefore it it justifies protests as a manner of expressing oneself and it only justifies them in a peaceful manner yeah
Dejan: Yeah, I mean, you're not going to achieve anything by sort of starting your protest for, don't know.
Dejan: lowering the price of fries at McDonald's, if you stop just trashing the store, you know, you're obviously not going to get taken seriously.
debatablediscussions: Yeah. Yeah.
debatablediscussions: yeah
Dejan: And that also works in sort higher level protests, if when you're actually protesting government policy, etc.
debatablediscussions: yeah
Dejan: and If you just stop thrashing the place and show that you cannot, you know, just behave no normally in society, then obviously your demands are not going to be met.
debatablediscussions: yeah An interesting question I've also got for you, Diane, following on from the idea of peaceful protests, is that many protests set out to be peaceful.
debatablediscussions: However, the consequences are far from it, simply because of counter-protests. So should protesters have a moral obligation to know the consequences of their actions?
Dejan: Yeah, I think, you know, at the start of a protest, you should be briefed. And basically you should be told the following information. If you start beating each other and or other members of the public up, this will happen to you.
debatablediscussions: Yeah.
Dejan: If you start attacking stores, breaking windows, breaking into sort of restaurants and shops, this will happen to you. Because
Dejan: yeah The problem is this, because and at the protest that happened today, sort of the far-right protest near King's College London, there also was a counter-protest at the same time, going from the House of Parliament, protesting against that protest.
debatablediscussions: OK.
Dejan: And it's just... I mean, I get it, but I don't think it's the smartest decision to schedule them on the same day, I'll be honest.
debatablediscussions: Yeah, I mean, i think they have a right to protest, of people, as you said, but I think they should be aware of the consequences.
Dejan: Yeah.
debatablediscussions: And I think they almost are actually obliged to know the consequences if they're a counter protest. and that there is, you know, a consequence could be violence, which does contradict, as I said, that idea of protesting as an expression of your freedom of speech.
debatablediscussions: Therefore, I do believe there should be somewhat asernance in certain circumstances obliged to know the consequences, especially, and you see this with many protests, some protests do go out to sort of cause a bit of violence, to cause rioting, and they've...
Dejan: I mean, you know, most of the EDL protests and the far-right protests do do do that.
debatablediscussions: yeah
Dejan: i mean
debatablediscussions: Yeah, definitely.
Dejan: I mean, you know, you can't tell me honestly that having 10,000 men with their shirts off being sort of moderately intoxicated and you genuinely don't think that that will go on and be a violent protest.
debatablediscussions: Yeah.
Dejan: I mean, it's just, you know, it's just naive, really.
debatablediscussions: yeah
Dejan: um I mean you know fights have stopped because people weren't allowed to go into pubs like like I think that's just the pretext you know you definitely before the day you wanted to get violent and you're like oh you didn't allow me to the pub so I had to respond it's a bit like did you really
debatablediscussions: Yeah. Yeah.
debatablediscussions: yeah
debatablediscussions: yeah Yes, and I agree with you there completely. So, as a quick summary for our listeners, today me and Diane have explored the many moral issues that arise with both war and protest.
debatablediscussions: We've delved into these issues, mainly focusing on this idea of, are they ever justifiable?
Dejan: Yeah, thank you, John. And as always, do please ah drop us a comment if you liked the video. Do give us a review and watch some previous episodes of the podcast. um We touched on the topic of war just last episode, but also our later, our sort earlier episodes on the same topic. We have um quite quite a large number of them. So do give a listen.
debatablediscussions: Okay, anyway, see you soon.
Dejan: See soon.
debatablediscussions: I'll end that.
