Moral justification for the execution of criminals of war?

[Aegon]

For sure.

America: SHOCK AND AWE.  WE WILL HUNT YOU DOWN.  YOU ARE WITH US OR AGAINST US.
Also America: bombs weddings with drones, killing thousands of innocents

America has killed innocent brown people at a ratio of maybe 100:1 and still convinces its citizens that they're the good guys.

Also America: "It's not terrorism if you can't see them when you do it."

Bolding mine. I want citations for this claim. Yes, the US has done some shit, but this claim is over the top.

He's mostly correct. Obviously the U.S. covers up most civilian casualty statistics so you cannot take official numbers seriously - for example, 90% of the people killed by drone strikes authorized by the Obama administration were not the intended target. We only know this because a whistleblower leaked it (look up the Drone Papers for more information). So any "official" stats will be inaccurate.

The independent, NGO average estimate of U.S. civilian casualties is between 10,888 and 20,823. The estimate for civilian deaths (not casualties but actual deaths) via drone warfare is between 910 and 2,200. The average estimate for child deaths specifically is between 283 and 454. These are the numbers for the time period of 2004 to 2021.

U.S. foreign policy, at times, has been plain evil. No better way to put it. But since we were the victors in WWII, we've been able to create a global narrative that makes us the good guys. Doesn't help that 9/11 made us the victim... of course, we committed countless war crimes in response to that event. And forget the drone warfare, think about all of the indirect suffering we've caused through coups, deception, etc. that the CIA has been involved in. Countless fascist regimes that killed millions of their own people propped up by America because we couldn't stomach a communist country even remotely close to us.

[Angrboda]

I'm inclined to think the social contract is a myth.  People respond to force and risk.  Mythical tit-for-tats have little to do with it.

It's only a myth until the police go on strike.

I don't see how that changes anything. Law or no law, people respond contextually, not to some invisible hand in the background.

[Foxaèr]

I don't see how that changes anything.  Law or no law, people respond contextually, not to some invisible hand in the background.

Those who profess most loudly for their version of morality and how others should live accordingly are the same who behave inappropriately in their private lives. The laws don't seem to matter to many individuals to varying degrees, especially when they tend to believe not being caught means they are right in what they are doing.

[The Grand Nudger]

The social contract isnt any invisible hand. If the thing you don’t believe in is the invisible hand….well gratz?

[Angrboda]

The social contract isnt any invisible hand.  If the thing you don’t believe in is the invisible hand….well gratz?

Opinions differ. If you think it's not an invisible hand.... well gratz?

[Jehanne]

The social contract isnt any invisible hand.  If the thing you don’t believe in is the invisible hand….well gratz?

Opinions differ. If you think it's not an invisible hand.... well gratz?

Are you an anarchist?

[Macoleco]

So what is the conclusion to the original question? Can someone make a summary?

[The Grand Nudger]

Wouldn’t matter if angrboda were an anarchist. I think it’s likely that there’s just some confusion over what the social contract is, or is supposed to do. Hence the comparison to the invisible hand. Which , for example, is supposed to get rid of shitty producers, eventually.

I would certainly agree that there have been people with unrealistic expectations from it, or that insist on such and such as part of it in contradiction to fact.

Americans don’t eat dogs. It’s not official. We don’t sign anything saying we won’t. There’s no law. No god told us not to. Sets of shared taboos are a social contract, and social contract theory exists as an exploration of human behavior and organizing in the absence of official pronouncements (such as an organized religion or state) to explain why they think they have the responsibilities they think they do. Even when it’s as silly as “eating dogs bad”. Social contract theory is probably the oldest discussion of descriptive moral relativity, and stood in contrast to the idea that people only got their own moral ideas from strictly true (or false) deontological authority.

This thread is actually a good example of the social contract expressing itself. It’s implied iby our social contract that there ought be a moral justification for executing a war criminal, though there’s no legal requirement that there be one.

[Baloo]

I have been wondering what was the moral/ethical justification of the execution of criminals of war during the Nuremberg Trials and after? 

This brings up a question: what defines the line between execution and imprisionment? Lets expand this to for example, narcos, who also murder and hurt people, many innocent. Under the reasoning of Nuremberg would they be executed too?

Also, those who oppose death penalty, would they oppose the execution of criminals of war such as Nazis? Or would they argue that every life is valuable regardless of their actions? Where do we cross the line?

Just food for thought. Write your opinions.

Personally I always thought the much more interesting question about the Nuremberg Trials was the anger at Goering taking his own life hours before the hangman did it for him, I have read people saying they felt he "cheated" his execution. I think it tells us a lot about the real motivations behind the death penalty, it is not about justice or revenge but about emotional satisfaction and power.

I think it very important we understand what our motivations are, even when those motivations might not be something we like to understand about ourselves or society.

[The Grand Nudger]

I can see there being a solid moral justification for killing killers at murky points in our past that these types of punishments come down to us from. Where there was a credible expectation that a person would do x again and lacking the vast and complex incarceration infrastructure we now have, options for preventing that were extremely limited to nonexistent. Same justification on a committed battlefield. Shoot him before he shoots you or your buddies. No way around this - just through.

As hyper social cooperators there's going to be alot of overlap between what's good-for societies, what's good-for us, and what we find satisfaction in. A behavioral feedback loop. I'd put executing war criminals in the set of the bad, but within that set, closer to robbing a 7-11 than the crimes they're being executed for. If some people find genuine satisfaction in the death of their victimizers - that's probably a good thing. Not a reason to do it, but maybe the only positive that can actually come from it. We probably shouldn't undervalue satisfaction and closure from an event as traumatic and consequential as a warcrime.