Support Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression

by elvis70 • 4 years ago

31 20 4 years ago

armitron• 4 years ago

Funding more killing is not ethically justifiable.

atoav2• 4 years ago

Pacifism has no easy way out in this conflict. Of course one could (reasonably) argue more weapons kill more people in the long run — however people tend to have other values than just pacifism. Would one accept a peace when it is an injustice in the way it is executed? If yes, at which level of injustice does this stop to be the case? Any peace for any price as fast as possible is an easy stance to take in theory, but one that does fails to deal with the underlying currents that lead to the war in the first place. Not to speak of the signal this could send ("If you are stronger than your neighbor country just invade it, you will definitly get something out of it and in the end people will accept everything if there is some kind of peace in the end").

Same goes for weapons. One could easily imagine a situation in which no weapons deliveries will stretch a conflict out and lead to far, far more civilian casualties than if the conflict quickly moves into an phase where negotiations are something all sides of an conflict actually want. So a dogmatic "no weapons" stance can easily cost more lives than a more balanced stance that looks at things in a more nuanced way.

Ethically it depends. Are one's ethics about the strict enforcement of fundamental rules regardless of the outcome? Or are one's ethics about minimizing the harm that is created regardless of the rules that have to be broken to get there?

In reality everybody will fall somewhere between those poles.

trasz2• 4 years ago

It’s not even the injustice that’s the problem. Russia is quite clear that they intend to eradicate Ukraine as a nation. They already perpetrated several genocides. Previous attempts at solving the problem by concessions (Crimea) only made them more aggressive. Using force to pacify Russia is the last available option.

jokethrowaway2• 4 years ago

Would one accept a peace when it is an injustice in the way it is executed?

Yes, I would. If another country came to occupy my country I would bow down and hope I'll retain my life and my property. I don't particularly care whether my government is the current thieves I have or thieves from another country.

The balance between me and society is unchanged (assuming it's a pacific takeover and they just won't steal all my stuff or rape / kill me).

If the odds are stacked against my country, I think there is a higher chance of me surviving if I don't fight.

If we have a chance to win, then I'd fight to avoid having to suffer the potential looting. I don't think in modern days countries with similar firepower are likely to fight though.

I imagine future conflicts will stay on very uneven grounds with a large army attacking a small one - like USA vs Middle East, Russia vs Ukraine, China vs Taiwan.

trasz2• 4 years ago

Funding more killing _in defense_ is very much ethically justifiable.

ncr100• 4 years ago

Not funding results in more killing, based on a reasonable analysis.

So, given that, what's the ethical action

iotku• 4 years ago

So, given that, what's the ethical action

Sometimes the winning move is not to play, there's good arguments for supporting the humanitarian funds, but I disagree that foreign civilians should directly fund someone else's military (and the weapons used to kill others).

Of course I'd rather there not be a war at all and I'm a strong proponent of self-defense (I'm not Ukrainian however and Russia isn't directly attacking me currently), but I don't think it's ever ethical (from a principled standpoint) to personally (as a civilian) fund the killing of others (even if it's an unfortunate reality that can't be avoided).

If my elected government is concerned about the interest of my country enough that it believes it is beneficial to ensure the safety/sovereignty of my country (and/or related allies) to support Ukraine's military is an entirely different situation than asking ordinary people to directly finance weapons that will likely be used to kill (even if in self defense from another invading country).

All of that is assuming the weapons remain in the "right" hands as well. Personally I would feel bad if a weapon I helped fund got taken by the opposing soldiers and used to kill people from the side I were intending to help defend. The chances of ever finding out about something like that happening directly is slim, but it's a distinct possibility.

tl;dr I think it's improper to delegate military funding decisions (and potential consequences) onto normal civilians for something that should be at a greater military / governmental level.

srvmshr• 4 years ago

Helping a country fighting for the existence of its people, bracing against forced deportation, mass executions & rapes and more importantly championing freedom against tyranny of a madman, isn't ethically justifiable?

You choose a very poor hill to die on (no pun intended).

mountainriver• 4 years ago

Interesting brand of ethics, if someone invades my house and threatens to kill my family (or worse), I would personally fight

jokethrowaway2• 4 years ago

What if it's not your house, there is a criminal living with you which takes money from you under the threat of locking you in the basement and another criminal comes to replace him?

jhgb2• 4 years ago

Sure. Except supporting Ukraine means funding less killing. A hundred thousand dead Russian soldiers is less killing than many hundreds of thousands of genocided Ukrainians.

moistly• 4 years ago

Not ethically justifiable?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10797707/Russian-br...

I disagree. Torturers need to be eliminated.

Support Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression

Related Stories