this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2026
682 points (99.6% liked)

World News

54500 readers
3174 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 73ms@sopuli.xyz 9 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

One aspect of this is not that anyone is interested in some "war declaration ritual" but that it is an illegal war that lacks justification under international law.

That said, legally speaking it is true that the laws of armed conflict still apply once hostilities have began and the legality of the war itself is a separate question from whether the attack is. Under those laws an enemy warship is a legitimate target whether it has ammunition or not.

Obviously laws are not morals and you could still take issue on moral grounds with an action that is legal though.

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world -4 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

That said, legally speaking it is true that the laws of armed conflict still apply once hostilities have began and the legality of the war itself is a separate question from whether the attack is. Under those laws an enemy warship is a legitimate target whether it has ammunition or not.

Exactly.

Obviously laws are not morals and you could still take issue on moral grounds with an action that is legal though.

I think you mean ethical? On moral grounds, you can take issue with anything, including a woman not wearing a Hijab or speaking in public. Since morals are subjective. It is just unethical to impose such morals on others.

And yes, laws are generally often misaligned with what is ethical, though I am not convinced they are in this particular case.

it is an illegal war that lacks justification under international law.

I guess, technically yes? Although that is true for pretty much any war, even arguably just ones. Regardless, that is not relevant to the topic as you pointed out.

[–] 73ms@sopuli.xyz 2 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

I think you mean ethical? On moral grounds, you can take issue with anything, including a woman not wearing a Hijab or speaking in public. Since morals are subjective. It is just unethical to impose such morals on others.

No I meant moral here. The context is that law codifies an ethical standard and I'm not necessarily arguing the standard should be different, just that someone may personally have a different one (which would be their personal ethical standard). Ethics in general is not universal either of course, there are legal systems and thus codes of ethics that take issue with not wearing a Hijab.

I guess, technically yes? Although that is true for pretty much any war, even arguably just ones. Regardless, that is not relevant to the topic as you pointed out.

No, the former (illegality) follows from the latter (lacking legal justification). There is no jus ad bellum under international law here.

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world -4 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

No I meant moral here.

Ok. But, I care about internet strangers morals about as much as I care what their favourite icecream is. It has no relevance to anything.

Ethics in general is not universal either of course, there are legal systems and thus codes of ethics that take issue with not wearing a Hijab.

I don't think ethics have anything to do with law. Ethics is an attempt to create something like objective morals by evaluating how much objective good or harm an action causes. Of course, it is far from universal since it depends how you evaluate seriousness of a harm and good. E.g. is it better to kill one person and save 3. But you would have a hard time creating an ethics system where wearing a Hijab was unethical, since it pretty much does not affect anyone else.

[–] 73ms@sopuli.xyz 5 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I don’t think ethics have anything to do with law. Ethics is an attempt to create something like objective morals by evaluating how much objective good or harm an action causes. Of course, it is far from universal since it depends how you evaluate seriousness of a harm and good. E.g. is it better to kill one person and save 3. But you would have a hard time creating an ethics system where wearing a Hijab was unethical, since it pretty much does not affect anyone else.

It is true that law and ethics are distinct (I did not argue otherwise), but they do overlap. Laws often reflect ethical principles even if they’re not identical. Ethics isn’t just about calculating harm and benefit; different theories (like deontology or virtue ethics) focus on duties or character rather than consequences. So while wearing a hijab probably wouldn’t be considered harmful in most ethical systems, that’s more a reflection of the framework than an absolute rule.