If Civilians are an important part of the war effort then to win the war you must eliminate all important means of the enemies war effort this includes civillians. — Vishagan

You could be facing an enemy with the same value for civilian life, that is only attacking your military targets, or beat an enemy that is willing to kill your civilians by attacking their military targets and having a larger, more powerful military.

Though ultimately people will pick government that promise to protect them by any means necessary.

A mediating body could be helpful too. Although once a world war breaks out anything goes and the so-called ‘rules of war’ go out the window.

You have 2 competing rules:

1. You have the right to defend yourself.
2. You are forbidden to kill the innocent.

Your question is what happens when the killing of the innocent is required to defend yourself, which is often the case in war.

You conclude you must allow yourself to die if the killing of the innocent is required, but that doesn't follow. That conclusion only follows if you choose to negate Rule #1 by prioritizing Rule #2, but you provide no basis for that choice.

I'd submit the opposite as you have, and hold that self-preservation is of the highest priority, meaning you have the right to kill the innocent to save yourself, meaning I prioritize #1 over #2 when there is a conflict.

This conflict betweenv#1 and #2 is an ancient one, resolved by distinguishing between (1) killing and (2) murdering. Note that the Biblical prohibition is not correctly translated as "thou shalt not kill, " but it is "thou shalt not murder." That is, that set of ancients saw a need to distinguish differing sorts of killing.

https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/the-difference-between-killing-and-murdering/

The concept of self defense being a duty (not just a right) also has roots in secular Western philosophy, meaning pacifism for the sake of protecting the innocent among your enemy is itself immoral.

https://www.dcs.training/the-moral-right-to-self-defense/#:~:text=In%20summary%2C%20we%20have%20the,doesn't%20befall%20innocent%20persons

The concept of self defense being a duty (not just a right) also has roots in secular Western philosophy, meaning pacifism for the sake of protecting the innocent among your enemy is itself immoral. — Hanover

I have not seen any evidence for this? Immoral to protect innocent people?

You have 2 competing rules:

1. You have the right to defend yourself.
2. You are forbidden to kill the innocent.

Your question is what happens when the killing of the innocent is required to defend yourself, which is often the case in war. — Hanover

Required? The "Fog of War" syndrome is working overtime here. Mistaking an innocent for an aggressor is one thing in war, but one being required to kill non-aggressors so as to defend oneself from aggressors is incredibly topsy-turvy reasoning.

Person A holds an innocent child in front while holding a loaded gun at person B. Person B is not thereby required to shoot the child. Person B has options; the more forethought, the more options available given the particular context. And if person B were to have no other option while being an upright individual, person B's then murdering of the child (the newspeak Orwellian language of "collateral damage") so as to save their own life would weigh heavy on person B's conscience. For why ought person B judge their own life more valuable than that of the child's?

[...] self-preservation is of the highest priority, meaning you have the right to kill the innocent to save yourself, meaning I prioritize #1 over #2 when there is a conflict.

[...] The concept of self defense being a duty (not just a right) also has roots in secular Western philosophy, meaning pacifism for the sake of protecting the innocent among your enemy is itself immoral. — Hanover

So what, then, makes it immoral for one or more of those innocents you speak of to hold the same exact views toward their assailants (e.g., in regard to their assailants’ innocent loved ones) in the name of “self-defense”, and to then act accordingly in return?

In term of tribalism/patriotism there is a vague case here maybe. Vague though.

In term of tribalism/patriotism there is a vague case here maybe. Vague though. — I like sushi

Short of immorality in willfully killing innocents, can you spell out the "vague case" here. I'm so far having a hard time understanding it.

The first misstep is to believe there is such a thing as a 'just war'.

Once a nation goes to war, and thus commits itself to mass murder, it must accept that it has lost any and all rational ground upon which it might consider itself 'moral'.

The only question is how deep it is willing to sink into depravity in order to attain victory - on the individual level, how much of one's humanity one is willing to sacrifice for survival.

And the mass murder of civilians is used as an example, but this is not a prerequisite. The idea that soldiers are fair game and may be butchered by the thousands without moral cost is philosophically short-sighted, repulsive even.

So I agree with the premise; the only moral option is not to go to war.

1. You have the right to defend yourself. — Hanover

I would note here that war itself is not an act of self-defense, and that self-defense only applies when one has ran out of viable alternatives.

While I respect the overall sentiment of your post, I disagree in war never being an act of self-defense.

One could address the issue via individuals or via groups of such. War, or course, consists of the latter. But since addressing individuals is far more simplistic:

If person A is walking home and person B assaults and batters person A, person A can either do nothing and potentially end up dead or could defend themselves for as long as person B persists their aggressions. This, I believe, would be a just use of aggression on the part of person A. What would be an unjust use of aggression would be for person A to then assault person B beyond what is needed for person B to stop their unprovoked violence. (To not here also address person A's aggression toward non-aggressors as being unjust.)

Same, I so far believe, can be said for groups of people - where the term "war" can become appropriate. If group B assaults and batters group A, then group A is justified in using aggression in the same manner as person A is, and this to the same limitations: no more aggression than is required to desist group B's aggression, and no willful aggression toward non-aggressors.

Would you disagree with the examples just given?

I agree that there is such a thing as self-defense. I just don't think it applies to war in general because what is actually being defended is not a person, but an idea of a state, territory, national pride, etc.

When a person is backed into a corner and has no viable alternatives, that is in my view when self-defense appiles.

As long as a person has other options open to them, which includes running away, it is not self-defense.

And it should go without saying that self-defense only ever means the protection of oneself and harm that may befall others whilst protecting oneself can only be excused if it is unavoidable and unintentional.

So I agree with the first example since it clearly states person A has no other options besides protecting themselves or suffering serious harm/death.

The second example I don't agree with.

The fabled ‘collateral damage’ argument. Bombing factories to cripple an nation that is a legitimate strategy, so replying in kind could be argued to avoid outright defeat and the further slaughter of a nations citizens.

The stretch is taking the ‘defend our citizens’ to ‘defend at all costs’.

To say this is somehow a Western philosophy is a bit of a stretch too. It is a human condition with multiple examples throughout history - across the globe. Ghengis Khan springs immediately to mind. For a modern day example there are unfortunately too many examples of this on the African continent too.

Where there is patriotism people will die for an imaginary force; just as you do for religion. Nothing I have seen makes such an idea specific to any particular continental trend. I am guessing maybe it could be also be tied to judeo-christian commonalities as opposed to more eastern mindsets? Even then … many questions.

I am still not entirely sure what Western means and/or whether anyone is referring to the same item when they say ‘Western’.

This is all a bit context-free isn't it?

This is an aspect of a very general problem for good people everywhere. Good people limit themselves to good, or at least justified actions. Bad people though will readily stoop to good actions whenever such will further their nefarious ends. This means that bad people always have the advantage of playing by the rules when it suits them, and cheating when that suits them better.

Tough shit, suckers!

This means that bad people always have the advantage of playing by the rules when it suits them, and cheating when that suits them better — unenlightened

But this is what I'm challenging, which is that you can have an ethical ethics system if it gives advantage to those you consider unethical.

Ethics is not a suicide pact.

It's worthy to note that no one abides by such an intellectually concocted theory anyway, which is why nations go to war with minimal philosophical hand wringing when threatened or attacked.

The solution to a might-is-right free for all is to have global rule of law, no?

But this is what I'm challenging, which is that you can have an ethical ethics system if it gives advantage to those you consider unethical. — Hanover

Then you can't have an ethical system; you are reduced to 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' backed up with 'an eye for an eye' and 'God favours the big battalions.' And the good are no different from the bad.

I don't think that follows. What I'm indicating is that you have priorities of rules, with self preservation over the unethical at the top. That is, if an evil band of murderers exposes your peace loving society to death, oppression, subrogation and the like, and you have the ability to stop it, you must, even should it means devastation to the peaceful members of the murderous invaders.

To proclaim yourself super-moral for allowing the murderers to take over your society when you had the means to stop it makes your morality not just unsustainable, but, I'd submit evil and not moral at all.

As I've also noted, the morality I've described is what prevails in most every nation. To the extent that is now challenged is what poses the greatest risks today to those countries. We cannot civilize ourselves to literal death.

Are you at all able to imagine a scenario where e.g. you're the leader of an ancient tribe that is slowly being encircled by a dangerous enemy who is mobilizing around your borders?

. If you go by the moral clause of not eliminating civillians and if that directly means your defeat in war, then you must either be horrible and kill or accept your own defeat. — Vishagan

I've never heard this idea i.e. "we must kill all their civilians or be killed ourselves" as an actual thing. Soldiers should never intentionally target civilians, otherwise they are murderers and not soldiers. But yes very often civilians will die in the course of a country targeting legitimate military targets and this is a legitimate ethical question, i.e. how many enemy civilian casualties ought a country tolerate in bombing a legitimate target?

But it's not as simple as "oh our sense of humanity holds us back" because often news spreads of dead "enemy" civilians and there are repercussions and the populace turns may turn more against you.

That is, if an evil band of murderers exposes your peace loving society to death, oppression, subrogation and the like, and you have the ability to stop it, you must, even should it means devastation to the peaceful members of the murderous invaders.

While everyone agrees with your premise as written, it underscores a different issue, namely that a leadership structure when faced with external threats to their power, rally their constituants by posing the threat in exactly the overly simplistic terms that you used. "Evil band of murderers" indeed.

As they say, the first casualty of war is truth.

To be clear, I'm not criticizing the practice since telling simple folk what they want to hear is an extremely effective strategy.

Are you at all able to imagine a scenario where e.g. you're the leader of an ancient tribe that is slowly being encircled by a dangerous enemy who is mobilizing around your borders? — BitconnectCarlos

Sure. I'd urge everyone to get out of there.

So just run. Cede to the wicked. Abandon your farmland, homes, and storage centers to them.

As I've also noted, the morality I've described is what prevails in most every nation. — Hanover

You need to show that what prevails is moral. And you need to show how a moral individual, or a moral society behaves differently to an immoral one. If your morality is simply to sink to the level of behaviour of the worst, then whatever you call it, I will call it immorality. But if a moral society or a moral individual behaves differently on principle to an immoral person or an immoral society, then to that extent the moral are at a disadvantage . Have it which way you want, but not both ways. Don't claim the moral high ground and the right to murder, rape torture etc. Virtue has a price.

This is not the scenario that I posed to Tzeentch. I posed him a hypothetical one involves tribes in antiquity.

So just run. Cede to the wicked. Abandon your farmland, homes, and storage centers to them. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure. The choice between my soul and my possessions is easily made.

So if they wanna get proportional back with the ratio to even make it 10 to 1 in favor of IDF killing the most innocents. I can't blame them, they're the victims. — Vaskane

What do you think the ratio of Germans who killed Jews versus Jews who killed Germans was in 1945? Do you think the Jews ought to have "gotten even?"

Many Jews did return to their homes only to find them occupied by Germans. Yet there are virtually no accounts of concentration camp survivors going around revenge murdering and raping Germans. Thank God. No, Jews did not just murder Germans who occupied their homes. They tried to build new lives for themselves.

In the case of the nakba it's a little more complex because immediately after Israel declared/gained statehood, the Arabs attacked so Israel had to counterattack and in doing so annexed "Palestinian" land. We wouldn't be in this situation had there been no aggression from the arab states/palestinians.

Don't claim the moral high ground and the right to murder, rape torture etc. Virtue has a price. — unenlightened

I didn't. Rape, murder, and torture isn't necessary for the protection of one's society. I do impose a duty on a society to defend aggressively in order to protect the civility within its own walls from the barbarism outside its walls. That is the case even if that aggressive defense allows for some acts that may be moral violations within its walls.

While it's understandable that someone steeped in the traditions of inside the walls will protest the actions of those protecting the walls, that protest is not a special right, but it's only a privilege provided by those protectors.

Protection has a price.

Where we differ most is my assertion that protection is a virtue.

Immediately upon declaring Statehood they stole the homes of a million + Palestinians. — Vaskane

Immediately upon declaring statehood they were attacked.

Cause they weren't able to contend with the power of a State. — Vaskane

Or because Jews are not murderous people. They are used to be being minorities in countries and having to keep their heads down. They also possess a tradition that places a high value on courts and the rule of law rather than wanton murder.

I didn't. Rape, murder, and torture isn't necessary for the protection of one's society. — Hanover

They are used as weapons of war. If you don't use them, then my original point stands, that the virtuous put themselves at a disadvantage by renouncing immorality. Once we have agreed that far, we can argue about what acts in particular we might find it seemly to renounce in all circumstances, and what killings and maimings of innocents we can tolerate while still enjoying our moral superiority in difficult situations.

of society hitherto owes its origins to the splendor of those barbarians mighty enough to carve their will through blood and declare what is "Good." — Vaskane

You've misread if you've read a moral subjectivity into what I've said. Morality is contextual, not subjective. All matters must be considered, including the net result of not aggressively defending and what that would mean to the now defeated previously moral nation and what would happen to those citizens.