***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