The Ethical Review of the eSwedish/ ePoland Aggression on eGermany.
Konrad Neumann
***Disclaimer: This article involve Kantian philosophy and might be hard to understand. Please stick with it as this article offers a different way to discuss this controversial issue.
After reading many articles on both sides on the prelude to war, there are many debates on the legality of war. The eSwedes claims that eGermany’s “trail period” was over and therefore it was legal to engage eGermany as a combatant. The eGermans considered themselves to be a part of ATLANTIS and thus the eSwedes and later the ePoles violated the legal framework of the alliance and thus not legal. However, I am not going to talk about the legality of the war but the philosophical and ethical position of the war. For what might be legal is unethical and what is ethical might illegal. Therefore, just debating only the legality of the war does not gives a complete picture of this issue.
In the ethical debate, to justify anything especially war and combat one must embrace the Principle of Double Effect.
The Principle of Double Effects states that if an action will result in a good effect that out balance, out weights, the bad effect and that the bad effect is foreseen but not intended, it is justified action.
For example: If there is a terrorist building next to a hospital, it is justifiable to use precision bomb the building even risking the wellbeing of the hospital since
(1) It destroys a threat and enemy that can inflict harm (Good) while the risk to harming the hospital (bad) is small and damaging a hospital can be better than letting the terrorist building untouched.
(2) Also the damaging of the hospital is foreseeable, for it might not happen, but not intended.
While the above example can be debatable since there are other factors one must identify and debate, but one can clearly understand what this principle refers to.
So let’s examine the Principle of Double Effects on the eSwedish/ ePolish military actions on eGermany. In the perspective of the Swedes and Poles, gaining new high resource provinces from eGermany is good. However, the war will result in damages and dislocation of many eGermans which is bad. So, does the benefit out weights the negatives?
The regions the eSwedes and ePoland conquered were Schleswig-Holstein and Brandenburg which is high grain areas. The eSwedes have 6 provinces with medium grain and the ePoles have 4 provinces before the invasion. eSweden without the occupied eGermans areas consist of 11 provinces and the ePoles regions without the newly conquered eGermans areas consist of 5 provinces. So, for the Swedes, 6 out of 11 province produce medium grain and 4 out of 5 in ePoland. So, going to war for these regions while it might be good for the eSwedes and ePoles, it does not out weight the cost of the destruction of eGermany, since they really do not need the eGerman provinces for survival etc.
The use of PTO is also unjustified since the action intent to bring harm/ bad to eGermany, to cripple and bring harm to eGermany’s econ and politics, and not a byproduct/ foreseeable badness. Therefore even before the war with Agent Shoot which I will talk more about demonstrates eSwedish and later ePolish intent to bring harm to eGermany shows the unethical nature of this war.
Are there anymore objection morally to this war?
Morality requires that we treat it as ends in themselves and never as mere means to an end.
When you think of yourself, you do not think that you are the means of something else but you are the end of your actions are directed. Since everyone is the end not the means to the end, one must treat all persons as ends themselves and not mere means. Since everyone is and ends, to treat any person as a means is unmoral.
For Example: Rape is unmoral since the rapist treats the victims as an object, (means) to feel control, pleasure, the reason why the rapist commit this act (end).
Before the war, the eSwedes sent many spies and many secret agents, most infamous is Shoot. The eSwedes place these spies even when eGermany was in the ATLANTIS trial period. The purpose of these agents was to bring down eGermany via PTO. The eSwedes in turn fail to treat eGermany as an end but a means to the ends.
eSweden preyed on eGermany’s attempts to join ATLANTIS, lying about their relationship and positioning eGermany vulnerable for a eSwedish invasion in term did not respect eGermany as an end but an object, a mean to push their agenda, their ends. While you might call it political genius, according to Kantian morality, it is unmoral.
So looking at this in the philosophical way instead of the legal way helps settles the debate. While like all debates, it rarely results to a consensus, this does offer a different perspective and way to understand this conflict. I felt that the legal argument while it might be valid (still debatable) I felt they missed the point. What is legal might not be ethical. After looking at this war in a philosophical/ ethical means, I feel it is an unethical war. While it might be legal, it is definitely not moral.
I do hope this article is not too difficult and I do applaud you for sticking with it. Thank you very much and if you like this argument, please vote and comment on it. Take care and good luck.
________________________________________ _________________________________
New eUK Citizen: The following eUK governmental newspaper might be helpful.
Department for Work
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Trade
Bank of England
National Newspaper Association
eUK Home Office
Comments
voted
Voted, yet another great article 😁 Subscribed as well
Good article, voted.
You're talking about moral aspects of this conflict, yes? But what about time BEFORE operation Burning Spirit and before that even. Why does eGermany lost their independence in 2008? Because they invade ePoland (thanks to DKN, Justin Tyme and co.) earlier and wipe us out from eWorld. Sweden helped us then and invade eGermany and I'm talkin about 2008. So who was first huh?
It's easy to say Sweden and Poland have medium Grain region but tell me WTF is Medium? Is nothing. You're sitting on your High Region butts and "blabling" about morality and I want to talk about survival. Or economy was choking becouse we had to many Manufacturing companies and no Land. We had once Volhynia with High Grain from Romania (Hail!) but we lost it in war with eHungary and to be honest thanks for your help UK ... NOT.
If you don't like Poland's lack of high grain regions than move somewhere else is what I say.
If Kant even says this war is immoral, then it must be.
You forgot (or didn't know) that there were THREE main reasons for the war:
1. REVENGE. Germans had broken a treaty with Swedes, called feoes from PEACE to fight against Swedes, threatened them. Poland was once conquered, anihillated by Germany.
2. SAFETY MEASURES. Germans are untrusted and they tried to strengthen their country by union with Austria, so... "The Germans have started wars before and once they get to big they will start more - so better shoot some off?"
3. ECONOMY. You missed the point.
Yes, medium regions are enough for them to SURVIVE, to vegetate.
In eRepublic, for economy of a state it doesn't matter how many region with the same level of the same resource it has. Be it one or ten. Every citizen of Sweden can work in a farm located in a Swedish medium grain region, wherever he lives himself. So doesn't matter how many medium regions a country has got.
But it is CRUCIAL to have at least one HIGH region, with any resource. HIGH region gives TWICE as much productivity with the same employees. Without high region workers in the land sector are receiving only a half of the salary they could earn working in manufacturing or construction. So, without HIGH region, at least one, there'll be almost noone working in the land sector. Got it?
But... GERMANY HAD THREE HIGH REGIONS! Having just one is sufficient to balance man-power in a country. They could give the two frontier high grain regions to their neighbours.
You are wrong.
****
The good for Sweden and Poland was GREATER than the harm for Germany.
****
Johnobrow Dadds 43 e
"If you don't like Poland's lack of high grain regions than move somewhere else is what I say."
Poles to the Pole, then?
Well, why didn't you tell it to the German first? They were the firsts. The Germans invaded Poland a year ago, although Poland hadn't got any high regions. So why? Because they wanted to conquer Poland, just like that. Where where you then, moralists?
"Unethical war against Germany", pheh!
Borzumir: You wouldn't know what the reasons for Germany invading Poland was, because you were "born" in november as I am, both you and me will not understand that time, only be influenced on which side was right or wrong.
And seriously what you are saying here either sounds racist or like you have something against real germans:
"2. SAFETY MEASURES. Germans are untrusted and they tried to strengthen their country by union with Austria, so... "The Germans have started wars before and once they get to big they will start more - so better shoot some off?"
Who are you to say this? Poland is just as untrustworthy if it became to big, as we clearly see in this war. You declare war for no other reason than: "Hey actually we hate you for nothing, so suck it and die"
@ Borzymir
It still does not justify the war. The means does not justify the ends. So your econ objection still violates the Principle of Double Effect. I honestly do not buy your arguments since a lot of it is hear say when you talk of the Ger-Austria Union. How come eGermany cannot be stronger while others can. It is not a good objection. As to the past wrongs, that is not the point of this article. You can write an article or analysis the past etc, but saying something in the past is unethical to justify a present wrongs, it violates the a basic concept that 2 wrongs don't make a right. Therefore your argument does not hold grounds on an ethical debate.
Mortenlor😛
1. Our in-game "age" has nothing to do. I KNOW history of eGermany-ePoland war. You don't know or PRETEND that you don't know - to avoid writing about the unethical past of eGermany. NOW moral issues are soo importent to Germans. When you've lost. You didn't rise them up when you inveded us and when you won. That's all.at was a citation from
2. I'm not a rasists. The sentence you quoted above has been taken by me (see quotation marrks???) from article by misho, former Swedish Minister of Defence, "America forgive us our sins". Go and see all the context.
3. 'You declare war for no other reason than: "Hey actually we hate you for nothing, so suck it and die"'
It is simply a lie. And you should know that if you can read and understand what's written. I've written above three important reasons for the war that Sweden and Poland started agains Germany. Not one of them is "hate you for nothing".
I weren't there, so I can't speak for how morals were in BETA, as for the wiki: It is written baised on the guy writing it.
You are influenced by people around you who tell how it was, however as you weren't in Poland at that time, that is a baised view. Say if you and I had been there at the time, it would have been an objective view from both sides.
secon😛 You use Misho's quote, which does mean you support it. As i see it, it is has a more hatred feeling to it, since it stat we are some kind of "under-people" who can't be trusted because of past mistakes by former presidents. Germany didn't do any wrongs to Poland in November or in operation burning spirit, yet ther hate still exist.
"Germany didn't do any wrongs to Poland in November" - because they were still too weak to try, knowing that Swedes will mmediately attack them. But WE REMEBER. I remember devastated country, when one couldn't find ANY job for two weeks. I couldn't find a job, my friends couldn't find a job. Min. salary was five times too high and we haven't a congress again to lower it. No work offers, no money, hunger. And everyone was retelling the story about Germans who invaded us and destroyed the country.
"it stat we are some kind of "under-people" who can't be trusted because past mistakes by former presidents"... I almost overlooked.
Eheu! Seems you believe or are trying to make others to believe that all past wrongs are fault of your former authorities. Good, peacefull Germans ruled by bad gyus. Wait... But your president didn't win all the battles against Poland himself alone. Or did he?
I'm sad to recognize the pattern here.