All you talked about belongs to ethics and it always existed. That war you talk about is being battled for centuries and is a battle of discovery of the ethical side of socialization in the human being. The root of the evil comes from the relationship between the creditor and the debtor in which the creditor have power to punish the debtor in the way he wants. That may be applied in any hierarchical and parental perspective in which the superior/parent may abuse from their inferior/relative. I recommend you to read Nietzsche to get more informed about this field. It's an old issue (come from before the XIX century) and it needs constant attention in order to improve.
It is impossible to untraumatize the people. Once one is traumatized, it is for life. What really is required is psychological treatment of the people, which is what I suppose you mean.
I don't think that I agree with the intuition part. That part usually does not have any scientific/ philosophical basis, so I don't know up to what point it can be considered in play.
If you think that lack of ethics doesn't result in wars, then look at Iran, Syria, Palestine, Ukraine and Russia. There, surely there are everything that you said.
I like talking to you about intellectual things. I hope you do too.
Ethics can be claimed on any side of a war and arguments for each sided claims ethics or entitlement to land and resources. Both sides state they are treated unfairly or unethically. Thus, the war in those countries continues and is never resolved.
The wars that exist in those countries are from generations being taught to carry the trauma of their parents. They teach the children to carry that trauma, to fight for their cause and to feel entitled to the land or resources that are under dispute and sadly to hate the other side for the trauma their relatives have experienced. The cycle continues. That is abuse, dysfunction and the repeated traumatisation of our fellow humans. That is not ethics. That is trauma and entitlement being passed to generations.
Ethics are about a rule of conduct. How to behave as determined by a society that they live in. A boxing match can be performed ethically with rules of expected behaviour - it’s still a fist fight at the end of the day, ethics applied or not.
Each society in the wars you mention have their own cultures, bias and behaviours they consider ‘appropriate’. None of which place any responsibility on themselves to behave ethically to the other side.
If there was better appreciation of the inter generational trauma suffered by both sides in the countries mentioned, then they would have a better understanding of each others suffering and seek a trauma informed way of engaging with each other to mediate conflict, rather than causing more harm for the next generation,
Wars are never pretty or just. They never will be. Wars should not exist in this day and age at all.
Sadly, Diplomacy fails time and time again, ethical and moral debates fail. But each side appreciating the trauma of the other may stop it being passed to the next generation so that they may sit at the table of reconciliation and find a way forward peacefully.
If we all believed we could not be untraumatised, we would not seek healing through therapy. We can become self aware, we can become aware of others, we can sit peacefully with our triggers (sometimes and more and more when we find our flow) and we can fight negative self talk. We have to believe in ourselves though - perhaps the biggest barrier to overcoming is beliefs.
It’s not the trauma that matters, it’s the wound it left behind that needs healing. No, we can’t un/experience what we have, we can’t un-see what we have, but we are all here trying to heal that wound.
No one’s tried my approach. Because humans are behaviourally, are creatures of habit and are likely to repeat the same mistakes and apply the same solutions to them - we repeat the cycle remotely consciously. British diplomacy failed in these countries, American diplomacy failed as well. And suffering continues.
I have read nitzchie and his misunderstanding of faith and desire to abolish the idea of God. God represented a very large burden for him and he places much burden on god.
I have faith.
I have read Marcus Arielius, Sellers, Aristotle, everything Stoicsm, Kent. I’ve read modern philosophy - Simon de buviour, Nussbaum, Nagel to name a few.
Philosophy will not stop wars, although it seems to try to understand it which is a good place to start as any.
What is it about ethics that you feel would resolve the wars you mention?