War isn't always bad though. If anything it helps join unlikely friends and unites people in their common dislike and fight. Furthermore a lot of technologies are made during war times like a computer for example. I agree that it's not all sunshine and rainbows but war can and has been beneficial when it was easy to isolate and scapegoat someone

@adimnotabot
Congratulations, you managed to make the one of most ignorant comments I have encountered so far on this site. You are definitely top 10 alongside climate change deniers and Trump loving nutjobs.
One tiny thing, could you maybe erase the 'Humanist' from your profile, it's a bit misleading, you know.

@Matias
You are confusing a few things here. Harari was talking about moral dilemmas and the major moral problems. Wars are complicated, the way to peace is complicated but the moral questions are not that complicated I would argue. That there is always a war going on has nothing to do with the moral consideration at all. How many fractions are invovlved is also not relevant. You can judge each action individually. Were Assads actions morally good? What about Europe, the US, Russia? What should anyon of us do? What should politicians do? Those are all questions that can be answered. They are not too complicated for our little brains.
Historians can also be morons, you know. If you think the ends justify the means, when the means involve the killing of innocent people then from a moral perspective, you are a moron.

@Matias
You misunderstood me. I did not say that there were no moral dilemmas. My point was that if something happens all the time does not matter for our judgement of it's moral rightness or wrongness. When I say "War is morally wrong" and you counter with "But it's happening all the time" that is not a relevant thing to say. I'm not sure how you misread that as me saying that there are no moral dilemmas.

The problem in this conflict is not because we don't know what should be done morally. We are not unclear about if Assad is a good person. The parties involved are almost all doing wrong from a moral perspective. They should just stop killing each other and stop supporting the killers. The complicated question is "How do we stop the killing?" This is not a moral question but an empirical one. We know already that the killing is bad.

I also agree that there are systems where we can't predict the outcomes and that means we can't know all the consequences of some our actions. But we don't judge actions only with the outcome in mind but also with what the intention was. When the outcome is totally random the intention is the only thing that can matter morally. I don't agree with Harari because he implies that we can just give up because it is too complicated. This gives those people who control a bigger part of the systems a free pass.

@Matias
You're missing the point again. "Should NATO have established a no fly zone?" is a moral question. How do we evaluate it? We look at the consequences. I'll assume what you say is correct and they could have saved a certain number of lives that way. So the answer to this question depends on this: "Should we save lives?" This is what it boils down to. An easy moral question with an easy 'Yes' as an answer. The difficult part is figuring out if it is true that a no fly zone had these consequences. And this is an empirical question. "Does this action lead to these consequences?" is empirical, not moral. You really need to understand the difference:
"Was a no fly zone good?" -> Moral question.
"What are the consequences of a no fly zone?" -> Empirical question.