Is conquering land an immoral act, if so, why?

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

[007kingifrit]

all civilization must conquer other nations before they can have stability and be united and safe. there is no other way.

all civilizations go through the same 3 phases

barbarism: we kill until everyone agrees enough to set up institutions
stability: we killed so much we built a stable society with institutions and people can trust them
decadence: humans went so long without killing that they forgot the consequences and have become unrealistic and spoiled and no longer fear longterm consequences of their actions.

so every society goes through that barbarism phase and kills lots of people, how could you build a society without forcing people into it?

that which is inevitable is moral

[InfobotLives]

If you take something by force because you want it and others have it then yes, that is immoral. If you take it because you need it for survival and they don't then you may have a better moral justification. Empire building certainly involves the immoral taking of land. I should know, I'm British.

[007kingifrit]

no because keeping other civilizations weaker than us is a matter of survival. thus taking from them just because is always good

[InfobotLives]

@007kingifrit Nah

[andreasderjuengere]

If the land that is 'conquered' had started aggressions and being defeated is the result, then I'd see some kind of justification.
But from what I can see in history: most countries were conquered out of greed, or for 'dominance' reasons.
That's not within my own understanding of ''morality''.

[ChrisMaster69]

It’s human nature

you go back long enough, it’s invariably one people displacing another who move and displace someone else.

there is no moral high ground

[Black-Pepper]

You white supremacist

[ChrisMaster69]

@Black-Pepper have you looked at zulus and other tribes in Africa.

Inca’s, Aztecs, Mongols, Chin, Egyptians, Persians,
You name it everyone has done it.

So before you name call, try and educate yourself.

[Adam1978]

Yes because you are taking it by force from people who have worked hard for it. War is stupid there is always a more civilized way of getting what you want.

[NathanDavis]

it should be, but then the Church just says "in the name of God" and then it was all fine for them

so yeah, the concept of morals are always subjective, and more than that, convenient

[Leavesbound]

Is setting mouse traps to kill mice an immoral act? What qualifies as immoral evolves over time.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

No. Mice are a damn pest plus they pose a serious health risk.

[Leavesbound]

To you and me yes but to the mice you are committing genocide.

[disgustingweebtrash]

If your people are struggling with resources then it is inevitable. I think we will begin to see it when consumerism consumes the planet.

[JesseJayNeak]

It's a trait known in a lot of animals. Not only humans

[Anonymous]

It's immoral if you leave people around to bitch about it.

[nolabels]

No, you didn't...
Yes, you did.
Lol.

[Anonymous]

The reason why I support open borders + for Hispanics to remain the largest minority in USA.

[Still-alive]

just want to remind you that Spain conquered all that land through conquest too.

[Opinion Owner]

It doesn’t change my opinion. Hispanics to remain largest minority and to have open borders or more freedom to come in freely.

[Still-alive]

thats fine. just remember that unless you have no european blood in you, you also share in a European conquest past as well

[Opinion Owner]

Same could be said about African Americans since many were raped during slavery. They have about 20% European in them

[Still-alive]

many were raped yes... your point?

[Opinion Owner]

Same line could be used to say African Americans took part in European conquest.

[nolabels]

In what way?
It can occur by various methods.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Tell me the methods which you think are right vs wrong?

[nolabels]

@Hispanic-Cool-Guy
I'm no political scientist, or history expert, but I'll try.

Today is a different day and age than when a lot of conquests were taking place.
I imagine there were vastly different motivations and mind-sets in the ancient world, which I can't speak to.

In prehistoric times, as well as in the historical period, there have been groups of people who were starving and went looking for greener pastures. When greener pastures were found, some of these groups encountered people who were already there, who had more than they needed, but weren't willing to share. Wars ensued.
People in those kinds of situations are desperate. I don't blame them for fighting for a chance to survive.

Overall, I'd say that military conquests solely for the acquisition of wealth are immoral.

See the next reply box. I ran out of space

[nolabels]

@Hispanic-Cool-Guy

Assimilation and long-term eventual replacement of a prior society is something that has happened.
I recently heard about that occurring in the British Isles thousands of years ago.
Modern DNA testing found skeletons which showed a certain ethnic group that had existed there for a very long time, then another ethnic group moved in and seemed to coexist with the previous group, again, for a long time. Then the previous group just disappeared from the fossil record. Who knows exactly what occurred? Did the former group pick up and leave? Did they succumb to an illness that the latter group was able to survive through? The archaeologists don't know, but their guess is that it was not a violent or oppressive change.
Don't quote me on that story. It's just what I remember seeing on television.
I wouldn't call that immoral.

The 20th century seemed to have been a time when the world started to refuse to allow militarily state-initiated conquests from taking place, in general. I'm sure there are exceptions to that of which I'm not aware.

What has happened is in the past. Nothing is going to change it.

As far as the future goes, there's always going to be someone who wants what someone else has, and will use any means to get it.
Immoral.

There is so much movement around the world by everyday, modern people that quiet "conquests" are taking place at this moment.
I don't see that as being immoral.
Are those types of quiet "conquests" for the good of all mankind?
I'm not qualified to answer that question.

[KrakenAttackin]

Conquering is the way of humanity.

[Exterminatore]

It depends on the reason. In many cases, yes.

[Huldusonur]

That depends on what your morals are

[Still-alive]

pretty much yes.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Reason?

[Still-alive]

anytime someone invades or conquers its basically stealing, killing and often raping people. very immoral

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

The ancient world wouldn't agree with your perspective. Why they morally wrong and you right? Why is your mortality better than their's?

[Still-alive]

its wrong for them too.

and why am i right? well let me ask you is killing and or raping, invading EVER justified if its not self defense?

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Killing in war isn't the same as murder because someone ticked you off in traffic or whatever.

In war another solider is trying to rip your head off so killing him is the right thing to do. And rape is never justified.

[Still-alive]

so going to war in the first place because your country wants that land or resources is also justified? are you saying this too?

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

No. I meant it in the context if one group or groups of people is devoid of land and seeking a terrority to attain.

[Still-alive]

but your question is asking about 'conquering land'. who wants this land? its kingdoms and kings and emperors. you know ruling classes. They order the army to kill in their and also gods name.

is that not immoral? i think so.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

In such cases I don't think that's moral, but rather greed which is immoral.

[Still-alive]

and also includes killing and raping and pillaging and plundering. all that happy stuff that comes with conquering people. oh and don't forget disease and famine that also tend to follow too.