Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    If the Thebans are aggressors violating rights, fighting ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Fighting against the Thebans is evil.

    If the Thebans are aggressors violating rights, fighting against them satisfies jus ad bellum criteria and cannot be condemned as evil.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Rights violations justify defensive force; Theban aggression creates legitimate self-defense necessity satisfying jus ad bellum.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Just war theory permits wars against unjust aggressors; if Thebans initiate wrongful harm, responding satisfies moral criteria.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Moral permissibility requires just cause; defensive wars against rights-violators possess just cause by definition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Jus ad bellum requires legitimate authority and right intention; satisfying just cause alone doesn't guarantee moral permissibility overall.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Wars may satisfy jus ad bellum yet fail jus in bello or jus post bellum; fighting justly-caused wars can involve immoral methods or consequences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Determining aggressor status requires impartial judgment; partisan claims about Theban violations may misrepresent complex historical causation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Justice & Punishment1 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    Determining aggressor status requires impartial judgment; partisan claims about ...Fighting against the Thebans is evil.Jus ad bellum requires legitimate authority and right intention; satisfying just...Just war theory permits wars against unjust aggressors; if Thebans initiate wron...
    +3 moreShow less
    Moral permissibility requires just cause; defensive wars against rights-violator...Rights violations justify defensive force; Theban aggression creates legitimate ...Wars may satisfy jus ad bellum yet fail jus in bello or jus post bellum; fightin...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit