post by [deleted] · · ? · GW · 0 comments

This is a link post for

0 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Viliam · 2021-12-04T22:02:31.379Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I am not an expert on politics or strategy, so my first question would be whether "justified" is even a coherent concept, or is it just "what kind of excuses are people willing to accept" which probably mostly depends on who is making the excuses (whether someone from your tribe or from the opposing tribe).

Replies from: Licht
comment by Licht · 2021-12-06T14:17:44.758Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

That seems correct, that the term would be used to state whether people agree or disagree with the excuse to invade. I wonder if "justified" used here is only a form of external validation by others and their the willingness to accept the "excuse" by the decision maker. I think that the "excuse" outside of peoples acceptance or not to invade, could justify the act - economic, security, domination.  Maybe it depends on who is making the excuse, but its legitimization might not need to be validated by an external group. For the decision maker, justification to invade might very well be the "excuse" and not whether people accept the "excuse" or not. Does the "excuse" to invade only become justified when people accept it, or is it legitimate before people can accept?