Can a war be noble?

[Ssthat]

I would say so. Defending your (country's) beliefs is noble in my opinion.

 

[nowme_cres]

I read a chapter titled "noble war" in a novel on rrl. Got me thinking, can a war be noble?

define noble.

 

[WeaverofFables]

"To introduce into the philosophy of war itself a principle of moderation would be an absurdity." - Clausewitz

Clausewitz argues that there exists the concept of a 'pure war' -- an ideal of Violence itself -- which is liberated from all moral, ethical, organizational and so on limitations. I suppose you could say that this is a noble pursuit, violence for the sake of violence, where instead of humans, who would warp this ideal with our greedy little paws, abstract entities take our place.

As if to say, Violence itself is not evil; we are.

Can a war be noble? I'd say yes. Can we ever have one? Absolutely not.

 

[melchi]

If the nobles are fighting it, of course!

I was thinking the same.

 

[Bobple]

Anything can be Noble, as long as your PR team is good enough.

 

[LORD_SHAXX]

"And I think he knows a little bit more about fighting then you do pal"

 

[TheEldritchGod]

Your side is always noble. The other side is always evil.

 

[Theirl]

Only noble war is war to protect. Ex going to africa to stop bad people of kidnaping childreh, making them into child soldiers and forcing them to kill their own parents

 

[NotaNuffian]

war
/wɔː/
noun
a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country.
"Japan declared war on Germany"

Paste as plain text, this is the reason why I think that war isn't noble. Because war itself involves parties, willingly or otherwise, to be in grievous harm and death.

The idea can be noble, their actions might be perceived as noble, but war itself is never noble.

It is semantic, I know. And there are a lot of people here has stated that the one defending from an aggressor is noble, which is true. But the conflict itself, there is no good juju out of it. War is something not to be glorified, but to be extinguished swiftly, like the threat that brought forth it.

And attrition is always the worst yet the most common, dragging in more casualties than it should.

 

[FluffyGura]

No, initiated for noble reasons but done through underhanded and brutal methods after all for normale soldiers its a world of kill or be killed.

 

[CarburetorThompson]

It can be based

 

[Sebas_Guzman]

Everyone is taking the serious, grounded approach. I'll go for the fantastical approach.

It really depends on consequences, finality, and degree of collateral damage involved. In other words, it depends on the setting.
If you have a world where the lives of people aren't actually endangered, like a VRMMO, you end up with war rhetoric, and also end up with easier 'noble' justifications for war. When you strip riches and life from the equation, you end up with people picking fights for ideological reasons, and dont have to deal with too much of the negative baggage.

There's other ways you can draw up a noble war. Imagine a scenario where you have a necromancer in a closed off country. This guy has no intention of ever leaving his country, but he's populated it with undead. It wouldn't be hard to call something "noble" if the attacking side gets involved to to prevent, say, further defilement of the soul, as according to their beliefs.

Someone else mentioned a war to stop a country from committing evil to its people. You could play that kind of thing up and just create a totally evil empire, where going to war with them is justified.

So, in the world of fiction, yes. 100% anyone can force noble wars if they're clever with covering their bases. I do think you need REALLY black and white situations to make it work though.
The more nuanced the sides get, the less noble it becomes, and the more the 'noble' side needs to argue for why they're right

 

[NotOriginal]

No.

 

[Gryphon]

Morally speaking no, since there is no good reason to ever start a war. However, some individuals might believe war to be noble through whatever bias or perspective they have due to their living conditions and growth. It's one of those things were it really depends on the perspective of the person receiving the question.

 

[SailusGebel]

Everyone is taking the serious, grounded approach.

Yes we do, and you should act like us or get out.

 

[Deleted member 54065]

War is noble? It depends on how good (well-oiled) your propaganda is.

Like for when Ukraine was attacked by Russia (2022). Evil.
But when US invaded Iraq (2003), and Syria (2011), bombed Libya (2011) and did nothing in the Rwandan Genocide (1994). Good.

Note: I don't support any wars. I'm pointing out the coverage bias.

 

[Anon2024]

Only if it's a war by a power that does not need benefits and does not cost lives that do not need to be lost. I guess it depends on whether you believe in God or not.

 

[Aaqil]

This is the first time I've seen a vote on here be 50/50,

 

[Sabruness]

depends on what aspect you look at. the reasons for a war can be noble (WW2 is an example as fighting fascism is a noble reason) but the actual process of fighting a war is not noble in itself.

that said, within battles there can be noble actions taken by combatants just as there can be ignoble actions taken. generally, the highest level of award that can be given to soldiers of a nation (your countries particular top medal may vary) usually is awarded for actions that are greatly noble (which is why a lot of top medals are awarded posthumously).

ON THE POLL: i havent voted because the question is too simplistic for me to vote directly one way or another.

 

[Bartun]

No war is noble. What is noble for some is terrible for others. I would argue even wars to defend one's country aren't noble, I mean, nobody said "We have beaten the Nazis back to Germany, now we are fighting in their country so they are fighting a noble war now, let's just stop" Also, humans are diverse and different, and every country has their own vision of what is good and what is right, and forcing our values, morals, and ideals to other people who don't share those values, morals, and ideals through force is evil.

A defensive war can be noble. For example, Ukraine defending itself from Russia.

I hate being the one saying this, but many people would argue that Ukraine was already shelling its own people way before Russia invaded. You have to look at it from their perspective too, there is a reason why there are many pro-Russian people in Ukraine fighting against the Ukrainians. From their point of view, the Russians are helping them, and their cause is noble for them too.

Also, certain situations could be used to describe a war as noble. The Nazi concentration camps killing millions could easily be said to have given the other side a noble cause. Similar for the second half of the American Civil War, with the Union fighting in opposition to slavery.

If the Nazis had won, we would be all soap and their cause would have been written down in history as being noble too. I mean, they were fighting to eradicate those "evil Jews" and those "impure" and "sub-human". I'm not saying is right, just saying that "right" or "wrong" is subjective and every country has its own values and morals. See where I'm going?

But what do I know, anyway? I'm just a dinosaur.