When is the use of force justified?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

I know this is a global question but when is it morally permissible for an individual, a state, or a group to use force?

[rrneck]

1. As much as we would like to draw the line at our national borders...

our national interest spans the globe. We haven't garrisoned the planet for the fun of it. It's easy to say, "No blood for oil!" but let the price of oil spike just a little bit and everybody in this country feels it. We burn about twenty million barrels of oil a day in the United States, and it gets measured by the tenth of a gallon at the pump. Each and every drop of it is accounted for.

Sooner or later we will have to bite the bullet and deleverage our empire. It will be hard no matter what, and the net result will be a significant lifestyle reduction for everyone regardless of political persuasion. It doesn't matter whether you drive a Hummer or a bicycle, get ready for it, it's in the pipe. The only question is how we go about it.

[HardTimes99]

2. Can't speak for individuals or 'groups' but for nation-states, the use of force

is justified to uphold international law and to defend against imminent attack.

[FarCenter]

3. When attacked, when defending an ally under treaty obligation, and when authorized by the UN.

[whatchamacallit]

4. Hard question to answer

but one obvious rule of thumb would be that the cure isn't worse than the disease. The Syrian intervention has problems passing that test IMO.

[sibelian]

5. When a large enough proportion of those involved or observing feel it's okay.

Rationalisations can usually be established later.

[HardTimes99]

7. Your answer reminded me of a debate I had with my Dad many years ago

about whether the South had a 'right' to secede from the Union in 1861. I took the purist hard-line position at the time, being a wee lad of 13-14, that the South had an absolute 'right' to secede.

'Sure it had,' my Dad (a staunch Unionist) countered, 'provided it had enough military might to enforce that right.'

As the years have gone by, I have come to see the wisdom in my Dad's response.

[sibelian]

9. There is this idea that ideology is somehow separate from practicality.

I no longer understand that idea. Or, rather, I now no longer think I understand it, or that it is in fact understandable or makes any sense at all.

[sarisataka]

6. Some would say

at the first provocation or threat, real or imagined, to keep it from escalating

Others would say never.

It is probably somewhere in between

[zipplewrath]

8. When the hostility can be directly confronted.

Force is only justified when facing a threat. The force must be applied TO the source of the threat. It can also be applied to the mechanism of the threat, although one has to be careful in that definition. There are "unwilling" mechanisms so the application of force must be measured in that context.

Also, one must be careful about manipulating someone into threatening you so that you can respond with force. That is an illegitimate application. As is avoiding actions that could have prevented the need to use force until they are no longer possible so that one can then apply force.