In one answer to a question posted on your forum on 30 July 2009 on the issue of

In one answer to a question posted on your forum on 30 July 2009 on the issue of

War

In one answer to a question posted on your forum on 30 July 2009 on the issue of human collaterals of wars (http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2794), one 'philosopher' panelist remarked that it's not always practical to take the moral grounds when faced with a war situation like in Palestine, Afghanistan or Iraq and that in reality a choice has to be made of the better of unpleasant alternatives. In my opinion, it is precisely this kind of rhetoric that gives license to killing innocent people and waging indiscriminate wars. How would the author react if one of his fellow mates or beloved ones was caught as an innocent hostage and had to be killed as collateral? The UN role in establishing peace is important, difficult and at times hypocritical but the role of civil society and agents such as 'philosophers' to continue to teach freedom and critical reasoning based on experienced truth, one that is lived by the agents themselves, cannot be overshadowed by notions of skepticism. Wars are unfortunately part of the human condition but they have become more indiscriminate and erroneously justified. I refer the panelist to the work of my organization (UNESCO) in the field of philosophy and human rights.

Read another response by Thomas Pogge
Read another response about War