War. What is it good for?

>Aren't people generally good?
What is "good?"

I guess you could argue that from a biological standpoint "good" would be behaving in a manner that continued the propagation of one's own species or gene pool. There are plenty of circumstances, awful as they may be, where killing other people or worse achieves this end.

For fucks sake, one of the reasons Rome was able to grow in it's early years was due to a mass rape, and that civilization arguably has helped propagate functioning society more than any other.

>but in having trouble figuring out why two medieval nations go to war.

>People this ignorant actually exist

Come on now, books are a thing!.

...

>moral relativism

Wars aren't started because you just love killing. There's millions of interesting dramatic reasons countries go to war.

Think about fucking 9/11. It was
*Bush destroys twin towers*
"Hey, Iraq, uh, we think the people responsible came from here. Can we just kinda occupy you and look around?"
"No? We'll tell you if we find the people responsible."
"Yeah, that's not good enough. We're occupying you."

Some people probably started wars because they loved killing.

I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just trying to explain why somebody might go ahead and choose to do those things.

>*Bush destroys twin towers*
Uh-huh, sure.

When do you start college, user?

>Expansion
>Trade
>Client States asked
>They got in the way while marching on an enemy they previously declared war on
>Reunification under a single nation

Advancements in technology and medicine.

well it could be religious, it could be both kingdoms want control over a certain resource, it could even be because the kingdoms have been enemies for so long that they simply consider weakening each other via the sacking or seizing of settlements to be in there interests.

>Not greentexting
>Using * * to denote actions
>Bush destroys twin towers.
>Starting a war just because they love killing
>Wasting national wealth to satiate bloodlust and nothing else

There are more reasons to go to war than there are reasons not to go to war.

>religious
No, actually most cases that isn't what triggers a war between two nations. It is instead used as justification for recruiting soldiers
>His faith says he has to eat your babies.
>Educate this heathen by ramming you Holy sword of truth through his gut!

>I don't know why two midieval nations would go to war
Read a goddamn history book
Read a psychology book
Try to get two greedy people to share a bag of candy.

>White guy first world
You have education by virtue of being in the 1st world
being a white guy has nothing to do with it, you are just an ignorant ass.

What's wrong with moral relativism?

And you're such a fucking nigger

Nope. What the fuck gave you that idea?

Obviously they can loot shit as they kill but people will do things that are not totally rational. There was once a war started over a looted wooden bucket. A war that lasted twelve years.

>Why doesn't that guy from literally half the world away think the way I do?
>Well maybe because he was bought up differently and thinks that-
>Don't go all morality mumbo jumbo on me mister!

>War of the Bucket
>but was really an episode in the over 300-year-long struggle between Guelphs and Ghibellines.

Yeah the bucket was the only reason...

This is more a side effect than a reason to start it.

It undermines idealism, which is important for forward societal progress.

I think Moral Relativism is important, and certainly necessary in a lot of contexts, but when it becomes extreme pragmatism or borderline nihilism it's a problem.

Every war boils down to sone guy wanting another ones wealth and that's it.

A bucket from a well.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Bucket

Medieval Nations weren't countries. They were a collection of nobles sworn to follow one dude. So oftentimes their conflicts were conflicts of rulers.

>It undermines idealism, which is important for forward societal progress.
What?

>Can we agree that the gang rapes happening half way across the world are bad?
>It's their culture, don't be insensitive

You dont seem to realize how dumb people are user. Look up the emu war.

Except that morality is totally relative, you can raise people to believe damn near anything. You can judge the quality of a moral code on rational lines (I.e. western culture beats Islamic culture because it's less repressive, more economically and socially visible as it doesn't stifle new ideas, citizens under it are happier and healthier and Islamic culture fucks it all up to appease a god which, fedora tipping aside, almost certainly doesn't exist but ultimately peoples morality is learned.

That wasn't a war. That was a bunch of idiots being idiots who couldn't kill a bunch of birds in one of the most disastrous hunting trips ever.

>b-but if thats true then it would cause problems!
>so it's not true!

But it IS in their culture. They do not consider them bad. Who are you to judge them?

It was a military action user. It counts.

>Why do those people cut off my soldiers' dicks?
>Could it be because they've been raping and pillaging through his land?
>No, it's him that's wrong
ftfy

To be fair it was full of loot.

No, if military action counts as 'war' the U.S would have done nearly as much sneaky shit it has done in the last 50 years. 'Military action' is one of the few things the President use the military to do shit without Congressional approval.

If it was the same as war, every proposal to bomb, kill, assassinate, and generally douche things up around the world never would have happened because Congress would have cock-blocked him.

That's not moral relativism. The fact that it's in their culture might make it understandable, but that does not make it desireable for everyone else, especially the ones affected by that particular tidbit. There is a huge difference between understanding and acceptance, you dolts.

This is starting to move away from medieval and more into modern, and that's a whole 'nother can of worms. Get back on topic people.

The same reasons people go to war now, someone benefits from it and they either support people with reasons to start a war, or they convince people they have reasons to start a war.

England was once so fucking desperate to have a go at the Spaniards in Jamaica for trade reasons that they started one in retaliation for an event 3 years prior where an English captain got his ear cut off by spanish pirates.

France and England were at each other's throats for a hundred years because of a claim on the throne that was legal in one country and illegal in the other.
>It totally counts on the mother's side you guys.
>Uhm, no it really doesn't, only the father's side counts.
>Fine, war.

Also, if you're fucking clueless of something educate yourself you piece of shit, it takes 10 minutes of googling to learn war more stuff than you'll learn in 2 days of keeping this shitty thread alive with poorly backed up arguments and people drifting off the point because you HAD to use the image you did.

I accept it happening in their land. Not near my home, though - it's not in my culture.

It starts after a bunch of goddesses get into an argument about who is prettier. One thing leads to another there's a kidnapped queen and an armada on somebody's doorstep.

I think it's at least a contributing factor beyond easy justification. If only because large centralized religions have a lot of political power and probably try and push for there members to spend there time stabbing people who are no members of the same faith.

also some kings were genuinely religious, so would make decision with what there faith says being taken into consideration.

>Leslie Fish
Based

What about the war of the golden stool?

Doesn't moral relativism depend on how morality itself is defined? If morality is defined as "what does not inhibit the propagation of a healthy species" wouldn't that make things like murder and rape, to the extent that it increases the chance of mentally unhealthy children, objectively wrong?

When did you drop out of high school, user?

Yes organized religions have a lot of political sway, but it is seldom used to start a war, but rather to make starting a war sound more just(the Crusades). It doesn't make much sense for a Holy man to order people to fight and die for some guy's land that you never heard of, but if you do it to spread the Truth, or liberate Holy Land, suddenly it makes more sense, and it makes people feel less guilty about the inevitable pillaging.

>A neighboring kingdom has something you need
>They won't give it to you
>(write in)

Yup. True story: There are cannibals who eat their loved ones when they die because that's just how they do. They think our culture is barbaric for treating dead loved one's bodies like garbage and throwing it away. Moral relativism isn't being okay with cannibalism but understanding that, to them, there's nothing wrong with it.

>war of the golden stool
Which ended with exactly what the British wanted: more land.

The stool was a convenient reason to start the war, much as it was the Zulu war when they were ordered to disarm. It was pretty damn obvious no one was going to agree to that, making military intervention necessary.

>I really want to sit on that stool
>Er sorry mate, it's a holy seat containing the spirits of our ancestors, only the king can-
>FUCK YOU
And then we went to war with the Ashanti

>This tea stuff's really nice, but it's giving China too much power
>Yeah. Hey, let's get them hooked on opium!
>Hey, Britain, would you mind not selling us all these drugs, it's kind of a massive problem now..
>TAKE YOUR FUCKING MEDICINE, CATHAY
That happened twice.

There are so many things wrong with everything from your question to your conclusion that it's giving me a migraine just thinking about it.

To put it simply, no, nothing you say is particularly correct.

They don't leave en masse out of boredom though someone bombs the shit out of them making even the people who had good lifes to leave their country.

Money and control over more land is a big one, everyone always needs more resources.
Another is "taking what's yours", such as the crusades and in a way, the Hundred Year War.

You should know morals are relative, you should act in your everyday life as if they weren't?

Wealth and power in medieval society is mostly determined by how much land you control. You want more land, but all of it is already owned by someone. So when you think your army is strong enough to take your neighbor's land, you start a war.

Morality basically always boils down to "don't fuck with other people's shit". Morality is "relative" when it's applied differently based on different answers to questions like: What can be a person's shit? Which shit is the most unfuckwithable? Whose shit is the most unfuckwithable? Generally murder and rape are immoral, unless there's an excuse that says it's your shit to fuck with (aka your right).

t. someone completely uneducated

I think that determining what is good for the whole of humanity is more important that what is accepted by small groups and cultures.

All tribal groups in all species that form them are based on violence.

If a pack of raiding chimpanzees passes a group of raiders from the group they're planning to raid they let them pass. The noncombatants are the targets.

Among American Indians, the scalps of women and children brought greater favor because it meant the taker had reached the enemy's inner sanctum and hit them where they're most vulnerable.

Mutilation of dead bodies to doom them in the afterlife was also practiced.

Where resources are scarce we'll fight to have the most. Using violence to secure a high quality of life for one group at the expense of others has proven more adaptive than splitting them and guaranteeing a mediocre quality of life for everyone. In that way it is good, because it's better for the species than collectivism, even if most individuals suffer for it. At least it was, before we had nukes.

Violence is in our nature because our environments selected for violence. War created us, War is God.

Well yeah, the root of morality is generally a few basic ideas that the specifics get extrapolated from. Generally you can define it as basically being about treating people like you the way you want to be treated. You then define what people like you are and how you weigh beneficial outcomes on a scale of the individual and the society you previously defined. There's then normally an 'unless you rally want to' clause, which is where means and ends come in.

Basically it's various permutations of 'don't be a dick to people that deserve respect unless it's super important'. Everything else is quibbling over definitions of grouping.

It was started unintentionally though, And the africans claim they still won because all they still kept the stool.

Yeah basically this

Stupid. Such a story would be quickly forgotten, I can tell you!

Well, it was their goal. So, in a certain sense, they did. About as pyrrhic a victory as you could get, though.

Because it leads to conclusions like "The Nazi Party was just doing what was right for them."

I believe it's certain idealist who wants to bring them "truth, justice, American way" despite them being of different culture.

It's the opposite.
It does indeed. Me, at least.

The vast majority of people who know anything about medieval Europe are 1st world white guys, and besides literally anyone could figure this out by sitting down for 3 minutes to have a bit of a think, you're just a retard.

A positive life ethos drives you to do things and change the world you're living in. The clash between them is a crucible.

Without some perceived higher purpose to drive us we just turn into last men, sick of being alive and only interested in avoiding discomfort.

On the grand scale of things yeah, there's no actual divine law, but that doesn't mean we can't act on an ethos as if it were.

You say this, but how many ships can your face launch?

but they were user....

A thousand
they are all going the other way though

They caused about a 1000 brit casualties too... and suffered ~2000 in return, but the sanctity of the stool was not violated, which is what mattered, to them.
Also for various reasons the rule over them wasn't that tight in the end, even though they lost.

Well yeah, they were. But that doesn't make it right for anyone else because relativity.

If I'm going to armchair-philosopher this, I feel as though one of the major contributing factors in morality is whatever level of humanity an individual considers most important.

Personal self, close family unit, extended family, friends, other specific persons, one's own biological children, all human children, a particular ethnicity, the state, global humanity, etc.

Depending on what demographic who's progress you are putting first, your morality may change. In a fascist system, the level which is considered important is the state, and thus actions that may seem immoral to somebody who's interest is the global human population may seem obviously moral to them. Sure those people probably have an instinctual aversion to killing babies or something, but to get around this you've got the magical ability to de-humanize people not within your chosen demographic to subvert this instinct and flip it on it's head. Likewise, somebody who only cares for themselves and their own might be willing to press the "kill/enslave everyone else for gains" button.

Then you throw emotions into the mix and none of that barely fucking matters anyways. People have gone to war for some pretty fucking dumb reasons. Conflict doesn't need to be morally justified to happen.

Yes. Taking that stance doesn't mean you have to agree with them or even consider that their actions were justified.

Comprehension =/= justification.

It's good for you, it's good for me!

Weren't 90% of medieval wars about either pressing some family claim to some kingdom or just killing infidels? Go with one of those. Feel like you could get away with replacing "infidels" with "dwarves/elves/halflings" or whatever and add a racial thing to it.

>But aren't people generally good?

Almost exclusively to who they count as their tribe (however you define that). If you're not kin, get fucked.

The major success of civilization has been the expansion of who to consider and incorporate into a given tribe.

Land, power, resources, deciding who will succeed the next Duke/Count/Marquis/whatever, very rarely honor. Basically, if something is useful, and there's a lot of it at stake, war is an option.

Moral relativism isn't just about understanding other people's moral viewpoints. It's taking the position that all moral viewpoints are equally valid.

A lot were vassals/lord conflicts actually.

>but in having trouble figuring out why two medieval nations go to war. Can you help?

It starts at "You fucked my wife" and gets less petty from there.

I want the libertarians to leave.

Yes, ideally with the intent on being as impartial and unbiased as possible.

Again, I don't agree with it, I myself am personally biased and I form my biased morality based on what I feel is best for a global society. I feel as though you're trying to poke holes at an impractical idealism that nobody here is siding with so much as talking about.

Understanding moral relativism =/= being a moral relativist.

Protecting civilzation againt a horde? Freeing slaves? Defending against a totalitarian aggressor?

For land and glory.

>Protecting civilzation againt a horde?
>Defending against a totalitarian aggressor?

Woah, woah there. That's sounding awfully Islamophobic, comrade. Everyone knows that the Crusades were TOTALLY unprovoked and unjustified.