Why War Is Inadmissible
Irreversibility of Destruction and the Normative Axiom: Philosophical Completeness of Pacifism and the First Principle of AGI Design
Introduction
Why is war inadmissible? Traditionally, answers to this question have focused on the scale of destruction, loss of human life, or humanitarian tragedy. However, such emotional or consequentialist arguments often reach their limit when confronted with relativistic counterarguments such as "Just War" or "war as a necessary evil." To prove the absolute injustice of war, one must go beyond merely verifying the factual extent of destruction and precisely establish the nature of the values war destroys, alongside the ultimate structure of the ethical logic that forbids it. Furthermore, as we stand on the threshold of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), the proposition that "war is inadmissible" must be established as the foundational First Principle in the design of AI systems.
1. Permanent Destruction of the Irreplaceable Whole
The unique evil of war stems from the fact that, among discretionary human actions, it is the sole act that irreversibly destroys a "non-separable ensemble register."
Physical infrastructure, such as buildings or roads, can be rebuilt once destroyed. However, a society's history, unique language, and the intricate web of human relationships (bond-web) accumulated over generations cannot be reconstructed simply because scattered fragments survive[1]. Like an organism whose vitality cannot be restored by piecing together its severed parts, war goes beyond mere physical destruction. It permanently eradicates the whole irreversible trajectory of lived human experience—rendering it a unique form of injustice that stands entirely apart from all other human acts[2].
2. Limits of the "Is" and the Counterargument of Small Wars: Precision of "Irreversibility Analysis"
Analyzing the irreversible nature of the destruction caused by war is crucial. As an empirical domain of objective fact (is), it provides a precise standard for evaluating the severity of a war's destructive power and assessing how fatally a specific military action ravages a community.
Here, a counterargument may arise: "Can localized or small-scale wars be permissible if they do not drive the entire community to absolute extinction?" Irreversibility analysis serves precisely to demarcate these differences in scale. Even in a small-scale war, the unique culture of a local region, the lives of minority groups, and the interpersonal bond-webs formed by deceased individuals suffer 100% irreversible destruction at the micro level. In other words, irreversibility analysis acts as an objective measure to gauge WHICH wars occur and HOW grave they are, clearly delineating the severity of destruction even in minor conflicts.
Yet, this empirical analysis alone cannot bridge the gap to the moral conclusion (ought) that "therefore, war must not be waged." The statement that "war causes irreversible destruction, regardless of scale" remains a factual description of a state of affairs; it does not inherently carry a prohibitive moral imperative. This exemplifies what traditional ethics defines as the is/ought boundary[3].
3. The Normative Axiom: The Final Structure Completing the "Ought"
To reach the conclusion that "all war is inadmissible" regardless of scale, a fundamental ethical principle is required—one that cannot be further derived from or decomposed into empirical facts. That principle is the normative axiom: "Irreplaceable community heritage and social bond-webs must endure."[4]
This ethical conviction cannot be proven directly through natural science or empirical data. It is an ultimate pledge declared by human society to preserve its dignity. As long as even a small-scale war damages irreplaceable human bonds through discretionary violence, it inherently violates this foundational normative axiom.
This "irreducibility"—the fact that the imperative "war is forbidden" cannot be derived purely from empirical facts (is)—is neither a logical flaw nor a loophole. On the contrary, by clearly delineating the realm of facts from the realm of ethics, it constitutes the most robust final logical shape that completes the philosophy of war inadmissibility, leaving no room for the justification of small-scale conflicts.
4. First Principle of AGI Design: "War Is Inadmissible"
This argument directly serves as the most critical safeguard when aligning Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and superintelligence systems, as well as designing their core ethical values. The supreme First Principle in AGI system design must be the absolute proposition: "War is inadmissible."
AI and AGI operate by learning from data and optimizing numerical goals. If an AGI perceives the destruction wrought by war merely as a "calculable numerical loss," it risks making the catastrophic error of calculating war as an "efficient means" or a "necessary evil" to achieve a given objective.
The "non-separable ensemble register," once destroyed, cannot be restored or replaced by algorithms. Therefore, when engineering AGI, the proposition that "under no objective or computational output can war ever be permissible" must be firmly hard-coded as an inviolable First Principle (Hard-coded Axiom) at the apex of system interpretation.
5. Conclusion
Ultimately, the framework rejecting war is completed through two pillars: the factual analysis (is) that war destroys irreplaceable human bonds and lives regardless of scale, and the ethical commitment (ought) that such bonds must be preserved at all costs.
When we confront the truth that war consigns the bedrock of human dignity to eternal darkness, and unyieldingly uphold the normative declaration to protect human communities, the proposition "war is absolutely inadmissible" gains unshakeable legitimacy. This philosophical declaration—expressed precisely in the statement "War is inadmissible"—must stand as the most firm First Principle safeguarding both humanity and the future of AGI.
References and Footnotes
- Lemkin, R. (1944). Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (Analyzes genocide beyond physical destruction, focusing on the irreversible destruction of a group's existential continuity, such as language, culture, and social bond-webs).
- Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press. (Examines the "irreversibility" brought about by human political and military actions, addressing its ethical severity and moral responsibility).
- Hume, D. (1739). A Treatise of Human Nature. John Noon. (Formulates the "is-ought problem," demonstrating that normative statements cannot be logically derived directly from descriptive facts without a leap in logic).
- UNESCO. (2003). Declaration concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage. (Affirms the irreversible harm inflicted on humanity by the intentional destruction of cultural heritage and collective memory during conflicts, establishing the normative imperative for its protection).
An Seungwon / Wonbrand / https://wonbrand.co.kr