In response to Moralism and Anti-raiding Mentality

[commander thrawn]

There have been numerous threads and discussions about the "morality" of raiding, this usually delineates into an argument about right makes right or something about karma and a new hegemony.

The thing is, this is debating the wrong question. The real question is:

Is war morally justifiable.

So lets have a debate, is war alright? If so then can raiding really be wrong?

[Vladimir]

It is the norm on Planet Bob to consider only [i]defensive[/i] wars legitimate. Raiding cannot be considered defensive.

[Bavaricar]

[quote name='Vladimir' timestamp='1285198160' post='2461458']
It is the norm on Planet Bob to consider only [i]defensive[/i] wars legitimate. Raiding cannot be considered defensive.
[/quote]

Looks like done in one here. Excepting of course that some alliances consider every offensive action they take as defensive regardless of common sense, such as the GOONs running around trying to send aid to everyone with a FAC to see who might be aiding Methrage.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Bavaricar' timestamp='1285198488' post='2461468']
Looks like done in one here. Excepting of course that some alliances consider every offensive action they take as defensive regardless of common sense, such as the GOONs running around trying to send aid to everyone with a FAC to see who might be aiding Methrage.
[/quote]
Oh my god sending aid is such an aggressive action they must be stopped

Edit:

To add to the topic: whether or not those on Bob see a war as legitimate has nothing to do with its morality. Unfortunately, from my viewpoint, the morality of war is equal to the morality of the reason for war. This does not help uncover the true "morality" of raiding.

Edited September 22, 2010 by ktarthan

[commander thrawn]

[quote name='Vladimir' timestamp='1285198160' post='2461458']
It is the norm on Planet Bob to consider only [i]defensive[/i] wars legitimate. Raiding cannot be considered defensive.
[/quote]


In a way you are correct, but defensive wars are still an attempt to acquire some benefit, such as securing sovereignty. So I don't see any real difference between the goals of aggressive wars and defensive wars.

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='Vladimir' timestamp='1285198160' post='2461458']
It is the norm on Planet Bob to consider only [i]defensive[/i] wars legitimate.
[/quote]

So your war against Ordo Verde wasn't legitimate?

Good to hear.

[Tautology]

[quote name='Vladimir' timestamp='1285198160' post='2461458']
It is the norm on Planet Bob to consider only [i]defensive[/i] wars legitimate.[/quote]
Where on Earth did you get that silly idea from?

[wickedj]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1285198755' post='2461476']
So your war against Ordo Verde wasn't legitimate?

Good to hear.
[/quote]
Dont forget GPA and god i cant even count how many others

@thrawn, those who dont war are immoral..end of story

[DragonsPhyre]

Anything can be morally justifiable if you use the right buzzwords and have a competent propaganda machine to back you up. All you need to do to confirm this is to look at just about every crisis we've had here and study the wording used in posts from each side and the general perception displayed by the peanut gallery after the first day or hours of the event. A recent good example of this is the series of incidents surrounding the GOONS-Methrage conflict.

[snibbmaster]

[quote name='Tautology' timestamp='1285198769' post='2461477']
Where on Earth did you get that silly idea from?
[/quote]

I think this depends more on who is judging the war. After all, in this past war, both sides and the public as a whole had a different opinion of what was legitimate. To the attackers, the war WAS legitimate.

[Unko Kalaikz]

I have not heard the term "casus belli" recently, but at least before the dark ages there would be a huge public uproar and possible treaty cancellations if an alliance would attack without a strong casus belli describing and proving what the defending alliance had done. Casus Belli's explain how the aggressor is fighting a defensive war. Obviously tech raids do not have casus belli.

[bzelger]

[quote name='Unko Kalaikz' timestamp='1285207358' post='2461659']Obviously tech raids do not have casus belli.[/quote]
Of course they do. If there wasn't a reason for war there wouldn't be one. It is generally something petty like "I want your tech" or "I'm bored," but it's still a justification for war.

[Unko Kalaikz]

[quote name='bzelger' timestamp='1285207764' post='2461671']
Of course they do. If there wasn't a reason for war there wouldn't be one. It is generally something petty like "I want your tech" or "I'm bored," but it's still a justification for war.
[/quote]
Technically, yes; but I was referring to legitimate or defensive casus belli that explains what the target nation had done against the attacker (spying, raiding, tech scams etc).

[agafaba]

[quote name='Tautology' timestamp='1285198769' post='2461477']
Where on Earth did you get that silly idea from?
[/quote]
It is true of a sort, nearly every DoW describes why they are defending themselves by being offensive. Its not often you find a DoW claiming they did it because they felt like it, or because they wanted to steal the alliances cash/tech.

[Vanilla Napalm]

[quote name='Unko Kalaikz' timestamp='1285208168' post='2461682']
Technically, yes; but I was referring to legitimate or defensive casus belli that explains what the target nation had done against the attacker (spying, raiding, tech scams etc).
[/quote]

I find the whole arguement concerning Jus Ad Bellum ridiculously absurd when applied like this. Wars on bob are almost always caused by reasons other than or additional to the stated reasons outlined by the initiating alliance, or at the very least are displayed in a manner to gain popular legitimacy. The entire concept of Jus Ad Bellum is that a war is only just provided it is fought following the right intention, not just because its stated aims correlate to a popular conception of acceptability.

Raiding is just war without the pretense of justification, the casus belli for which is very easily located in the 'reason:' column of the war screen.

[commander thrawn]

[quote name='Unko Kalaikz' timestamp='1285207358' post='2461659']
Obviously tech raids do not have casus belli.
[/quote]


Sure they do. War is a tool like any other in a political world, it is used by wise leaders when it provides benefits by occurring. This is why large bloc wars only escalate when they are reasonably up in the air as to who will emerge victorious.

A tech raid has the implied CB of "you have no one protecting you and I can likely profit from attacking you."

[D34th]

Morality is immoral, therefore all questions about moralism are immoral too.

[Voytek]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1285212938' post='2461767']
Morality is immoral, therefore all questions about moralism are immoral too.
[/quote]
Morality isn't immoral. It's just stupid.

[savethecheerleader]

[quote name='commander thrawn' timestamp='1285197775' post='2461443']
So lets have a debate, is war alright? If so then can raiding really be wrong?
[/quote]
Yes, war can be "alright". That does not mean it always is, and it certainly doesn't mean that raiding is.

[commander thrawn]

[quote name='savethecheerleader' timestamp='1285213119' post='2461770']
Yes, war can be "alright". That does not mean it always is, and it certainly doesn't mean that raiding is.
[/quote]


But a tech raid is no different than most of the wars we have on Bob just smaller in scale. So it ought to be as acceptable as those wars are.

[commander thrawn]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1285212938' post='2461767']
Morality is immoral, therefore all questions about moralism are immoral too.
[/quote]


I have never heard a good argument for how moralism has any correlation with morals. They have no underlying basis as far as I know, they just like to make generalizations about right and wrong.

[savethecheerleader]

[quote name='commander thrawn' timestamp='1285213180' post='2461771']
But a tech raid is no different than most of the wars we have on Bob just smaller in scale. So it ought to be as acceptable as those wars are.
[/quote]
The important point here is that war *can* be alright. If I'm fighting for my existence against enemies who wish me destroyed, I'd say that is an acceptable war. But the existence of some justifiable conflicts does not justify every single conflict.

[commander thrawn]

[quote name='savethecheerleader' timestamp='1285213811' post='2461779']
The important point here is that war *can* be alright. If I'm fighting for my existence against enemies who wish me destroyed, I'd say that is an acceptable war. But the existence of some justifiable conflicts does not justify every single conflict.
[/quote]

When was the last war fought for that reason?

[eyriq]

I think that the most basic way to view the morality of interactions is to ask 'who wins here?'. Win/Win interactions are inherently moral, win/lose and lose/lose interactions not so much. Some times moral agents need to engage in interactions that in the short term lead to one party losing, but ultimately are corrective exercises in themselves and lead to the general win/win for all by progressing sophistication.

[savethecheerleader]

[quote name='commander thrawn' timestamp='1285214019' post='2461791']
When was the last war fought for that reason?
[/quote]
Karma comes to mind, as I think the feeling was mutual for quite a few alliances involved. The formation of the whole coalition began as a tactic for survival for many of Karma's major players.