learntoquestion ltq discussions

Questions to Consider:

Please craft a well written response that incorporates what we have discussed as a class and your own views on Just War Theory. You should also refer directly to the readings linked below as well, including at least one quote for reference to at least one of the readings in your response. You can choose to focus on one of the question sets, or to incorporate several of them into your response.

1. Is war always wrong or can the use of large-scale, organized violence sometimes be justified? Is the intrinsicism model (war is morally wrong) or the consequentialism model (war is not morally wrong if the outcome is just) more realistic for the modern world? Does Just War Theory, particularly the permissible reasons for war (jus ad bellum), act as a bridge between the two philosophical ideas? How?

2. If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, should citizens refuse to participate in the war effort? Does it take more courage not to fight in defense of your nation or is it cowardice to fight in a war you believe is morally wrong? What are the consequences though if each citizen acts only according to his own moral compass when a nation is at war? Are those consequences realistic for a nation to endure?

3. The philosopher Jeff McMahan has argued that “we must stop reassuring soldiers that they act permissibly when they fight in an unjust war, provided that they conduct themselves honorably on the battlefield.” Do you agree or disagree with McMahan’s idea? Can soldiers act morally and honorably during wartime, even if the greater cause they are fighting for is unjust? Do the rules of war (jus in bello) assist soldiers to act morally? How?

Word Count Requirement: 500-750 words

Readings to Reference:

Please refer to the ideas, either using a quote or paraphrasing, from at least one of the readings in your response.

Excerpt 1: Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum (Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Excerpt 2: Just War Theory-Jus In Bello and Jus Post Bellum (Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

In Between War and Peace (Facing History and Ourselves)

Rubrics to Review:

LTQ Rubric

We all hope that we would be against war, regardless of the situation. However, modern society leans more towards war, and having a cause for fighting. Often throughout history, war has been unnecesary, therefore wrong, however with the change of society, war has become less frequent and more well thought out due to jus ad bellum. War is to restore peace, rather than just revenge. As seen in Jus Ad Bellum, war has criteria it needs to meet in order for it to be considered just. Some of this involves the idea that war should be a last resort, sometimes there is no other way to stop a common evil or protect a country without it; “justice of war…:having just cause, being a last resort, being declared by a proper authority. Possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used. (Jus ad bellum. 5)”. As well that measures should only be taken to the extent needed, which prevents excessive killing. These guides apply into Jus in Bello, where rules are applied to how you treat civilians and POWs. The idea that civilians shouldn’t be targeted, which limits casualties in war. This is not a one way mirror though, for this idea is broad and has holes in it. What if the civilians were old soldiers, what if they aid their soldiers, what if the soldiers hide with the civilians. All of these questions have answers that are dictated by individual morals. Which is also why no one can ever come to an agreement. Throughout Jus ad belllum, the writer constantly reminds the reader that this is a guide, “jus ad bellum are useful guidelines …” and “a useful starting point for ethical examination and they remain a guide…”. This is an important distrinction because while everyone hopes people would follow these rules, but many people don’t. You can make the argument that these aren’t real rules, which in truth they aren’t, but they can be used to keep people in check during war and analyze if the war was necessary and help politicans take the next steps after war. The hard part about this is that rules are only as good as they are enforced. Meaning that if people don’t push people to abide by them, they are less likely to follow. Moving on, civilians should be allowed to refuse war, if they feel it is unjust. Following, that if it so happens so many people do not wish to participate, that a country is left with a small army, that maybe leaders should reutrn to why they are going to war, and if it is necessary since so many people deem it not. It takes courage to fight and to stand against your country. Courage to fight because you are coming to terms with the fact you could die, you give up your life for others, for your country. While courage to stand against it because you are defying a greater power, and often the majority, which can seem like everyone dislikes you and is against you. Soldiers can act morally and immorally during war, even if it is unjust. Soldiers fight for so many reasons, it’s not all just simple. They could be forced, they could feel align with the cause, they could be pressured, and so many more things. Regardless of what side of war they are fighting on, it is possible to act morally. The soldiers are doing what they are ordered. Jus in bello helps soldiers know what acts are moral and which aren't, and keeps them in line. It also gives not only soldiers but leaders as well a rule book, and enforces responsibility onto them. As said in jus in bello, “the principle of responsibility re-asserts the burden of abiding by rules…on those acting in war to remind them that one day they will…take up civilian status…free of any guilt from war crimes.” This is an important and necessary thing in war, because the feeling of responsibility forces people to act better, knowing they could be punished for their actions. This is also why figures who don’t feel harsh responsibility often do whatever they want, and harm whoever they want because they know they won’t/can’t be punished (this was seen with the rise of Hitler, European countries believed if they left him alone he wouldn’t become anything bad, and Hitler used this as an incentive that he had the power to do whatever he wanted).

In a perfect world where everyone got along, war would not exist. Even now, I believe there are much better solutions to fighting and that we as people have the capacity to work problems out. When choosing to fight wars, especially now in an age where large machines and technology are largely accessible, the violence just becomes larger. I believe war is not the right way to go, and that it is morally unacceptable. Despite this, I still believe in certain instances the only thing that can be done is to fight back, specifically in the case when a smaller group is being oppressed by a larger group. The loss of life and the total dehumanization of war is brutal, and if a war is going to be waged just because a nation has become greedy, the citizens should refuse to participate. The excerpt from “The Principles of Jus In Bello” questions why wars happen in the first place saying, “[w]hat if a war and all its suffering could be avoided by highly selective killing?” This nuanced question brings up a good point, however in the assassination of world leaders the idea of revenge comes up, and this is often a spark for wars in the first place.

Choosing not to participate in a war is not cowardice, but is also not a simple one-way street. In my view, war is not morally right, and yet it occurs. With an understanding of how our society works, unfortunately war will happen and continue to happen. I believe that during a war, there are not necessarily morals, but more so ethics. With every person there is a different opinion, meaning that what one person thinks is right is entirely different from what their neighbor believes. In spite of this it’s important to recognize that as mentioned in the Geneva Convention, civilians should not be harmed. There is no reason to go after them, and ultimately they should not be brought into the equation, except on the opinion if the war should be fought or not.

War is not always wrong. In matters of self-defense, what is a country, people or culture to do except counterattack? On the other hand, there is no just cause to invade another country for any reason with the intent to steal from it, conquer it, or occupy it. One side of the war is always unjust. So in that sense, no war is ever totally justified, but many are necessary out of self-preservation. This is where jus ad bellum begins to contradict itself. It claims that the only just reason to go to war is out of self defense, but war may never be fought for ulterior motives. If war is declared to push back invaders and protect a country’s land, people, and resources, it is inherently fought for self-gain, making it again unjust by the definitions of jus ad bellum. This is why the intrinsicist model doesn’t really apply in the real world—moral ethics are full of contradictions and based purely in theory. On top of this, many aspects of ethics are cultural or religious, and not all people can agree on what is right or wrong. For example, Just War Theory itself is founded on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, but not all religions share the same principles as Christianity. A consequentialist model is better, since sometimes, as Just War Theory itself shows, it is necessary to break the rules of jus ad bellum and jus in bello. According to the rules of Just War Theory, self-defense is both just and unjust. So how do we move past this stalemate? We must sometimes break these rules.

The answer to whether civilians should participate in these unjust wars is not so simple. It certainly takes more courage to refuse to fight in war than to fight. Nevertheless, this is not always possible. The draft forces people to fight, and sometimes, the risk of deserting is too great. There is a balance, though, between self-interest and morals. When does it become too selfish to fight instead of keeping your moral stance? Similarly, when does it become too selfish to not fight? Is one’s own life truly more important than the lives of those they will kill in war? But if they face the consequences of desertion, who else is impacted? What about their families and kids that depend on them at home to survive? Are they a cultural leader? Are they a doctor or a farmer or a teacher, someone essential that their society cannot afford to lose? Nothing exists in a vacuum, and the results of even one death or imprisonment on either side can have drastic ripples.

If everyone acted by their own moral compass and refused to fight, though, there can be no assurance that the other side will do the same. It becomes a complicated web of right and wrong. By upholding just morals, we sacrifice justice itself. Should a culture stay peaceful and not resist in the face of oppression for the sake of just moral and ethical behavior? That doesn’t seem just at all. It is impossible for a nation, culture, or people to survive the consequences of morally justified inaction in the face of injustice.

I think it’s hard to say whether or not war is morally wrong because a lot of key factors play a part in every scenario. Everything is very subjective, so something that may be viewed as wrong, always has another side. In other words, no one is waging war for no reason, so to them it is most likely justified and right. While the intrinsicism and consequentialism models are both very narrow-minded perceptions of war, I think consequentialism is more realistic for the modern world. War has been present in our world for a very long time, and it isn’t something that the government is going to put an end to, even if it is morally wrong. The Just War Theory does a good job at finding an in between of these two ideas, because it’s important to look at the reasons someone is engaging in war, but also to look at the outcomes and the actions of those participating. If a nation were to wage war for unjust reasons, I think citizens should at least make an effort to not participate, especially if they personally believe that it is morally wrong. On the other hand, we don’t know what they are putting at risk by not participating, so I don’t think it would be fair to call them cowardice either. Citizens could be imprisoned, threatened, killed, forced to work, or separated from their families and personal lives. There are so many consequences that they could be facing for a war that they never asked to be a part of. If enough people refuse to participate, they could also be putting their own nation at risk, which still affects their lives or even well-being. I don’t believe these punishments or consequences are fair, but it is the reality of what happens all the time and is, unfortunately, realistic.

If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, the citizens of the country should refuse to participate in the war effort, there are times where refusing to support can lead to further consequences but if all the citizens were to stand against the war their government would be forced into a bad predicament. I think it is cowardice to fight in a war that you believe is morally wrong, because this just shows that your own moral compass is easily swayed by others. Instead of standing up for what you believe to be right, you force yourself to agree with the majority that are wrong and want to deal great harm to others for an unjust reason. Consequences that have happened to these citizens that chose to stand up is being arrested or whatever else they can do.

I disagree with McMahan’s idea, because even if the cause is unjust they are not the reason for the war taking place they are just the ones that are fighting in it. They are involved in the war so yes they do have some responsibility, but at the end of the day they still laid their life on the line to fight for their country and many of them die. The ones that don’t die go on to deal with mental illnesses that they got from the war. I think too much of the blame goes on to the soldiers in wars, saying that they shouldn’t have fought in some war because it was immoral but don’t focus on the politicians and the upper class who funded and wanted the war.

In my opinion, war is in most cases almost never justified. Even the people within societies that commit horrendous acts do not deserve to experience the tragedy of war. I believe that while I agree that the intrinsicism model is the one that we as a society hope to achieve, the model of consequentialism is one that is far more realistic than that of intrinsicism. Just War Theory acknowledges the complexities of foreign relations and therefore acts as a bridge between these two models. This framework encourages the idea that while war should always be a last resort, it is not entirely morally wrong when undertaken with justifiable conditions. When considering the individual role of soldiers in a war, Jeff McMahan questions the reassurance that we give soldiers in war. I agree with McMahan on this end, while soldiers may act with honor and follow established rules, there is an underlying justification of their actions that is equally as important. I also believe that basically all nations wage war for an underlying unjust reason. They might say that they are waging war in order to stop an authoritarian and restrictive force, but their ulterior motive is to gain economic and political power over their enemies, while also giving themselves an advantage. I believe that if a citizen acts only according to his own moral compass when a nation is at war it would cause disaster. This is because there would either be no support for a war or a lot of support, given that everyone's moral compass is different. In the “Between Peace and War” by Facing History, there is a quote from a conscious objector named Bertrand Russel: “In another letter, he wrote, “The greatest difficulty was the purely psychological one of resisting mass suggestion, of which the force becomes terrific when the whole nation is in a state of collective excitement.” Almost everywhere, conscientious objectors were imprisoned for refusing to fight. Russell was no exception.” I believe that the idea of a conscientious objector is an interesting one, the idea that an entire civilization of people would be a conscientious objector is rather unrealistic at best. These objectors would most likely cause the nation to be defenseless, an unmotivated population to fight a war is what causes the nation to lose. The sad truth is that there will always be a sense of nationalism for a nation, which can then further fuel a war.

The question of whether war is always wrong or can sometimes be justified is a tough one, especially today. I see two main ideas in this debate: intrinsicism, which says war is always morally wrong, and consequentialism, which says war can be okay if it leads to good outcomes. I think Just War Theory, especially its rules about jus ad bellum, helps connect these two views.

When I look at the history of World War I, it’s clear how people's opinions changed. At first, many Europeans, including members of the German Social Democratic Party, protested against the war.. Their view came from intrinsicism, believing that war should be avoided at all costs. But once the war began, many people switched sides. National pride and fear of being attacked turned anti-war protests into support for their countries. This shows how strong feelings for one’s nation can push people to ignore their earlier beliefs. Everyone always thinks that their side is right, so when trying to justify war, it only causes more rifts and the dehumanization of the enemy. When thinking about why people choose to fight, I see a consequentialist viewpoint. Many who opposed the war felt they had to join the army to protect their country. For example, Ernst Toller, despite being a socialist, decided to fight for Germany because he felt a deep connection to his nation. This makes me think that sometimes people prioritize protecting their homeland over their personal beliefs against war. On the flip side, I admire those who stood firm as conscientious objectors. People like Bertrand Russell argued strongly against war, believing that violence doesn’t solve problems. He felt that true unity among all people, even those we see as enemies, could lead to peace without fighting. I agree with him; it seems that war often causes more suffering than it solves. This perspective challenges the idea that any war can truly be justified. Just War Theory is important because it gives us guidelines on when it might be okay to go to war. It asks us to think carefully about reasons for fighting, like whether there is a just cause and if war is a last resort. I think this is a valuable way to approach the topic, it encourages us to consider the serious consequences of war and not rush into conflict. Ultimately, I think the debate about the morality of war is complicated and involves both intrinsicist and consequentialist ideas. Just War Theory acts as a bridge between them. The changes in attitudes during World War I show how complicated motivations can lead nations into conflict, often against earlier beliefs. While some people firmly oppose war for moral reasons, others find it necessary when they feel their communities are at risk. Balancing these views is crucial as we think about the morality of war in today’s world.

2. If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, should citizens refuse to participate in the war effort? Does it take more courage not to fight in defense of your nation or is it cowardice to fight in a war you believe is morally wrong? What are the consequences though if each citizen acts only according to his own moral compass when a nation is at war?Are those consequences realistic for a nation to endure?

When a nation wages war for unjust reasons, ethics and morals dictate how citizens react. Ethics are the external views of our society and they can vary depending on our environment. Morals are one's own beliefs, values and personal principles that can change but rarely do. Whether war is waged for unjust reasons or just reasons, citizens will either react by following their own morals or by following the ethics of the people around them. When a Nation's reasoning for war is unjust though, the moral response should be to stick to one's own beliefs and stand ground rather than doing what is most commonly done which is being a follower to the others in a society. Citizens should refuse to participate in the war effort especially if they know it's unjust. But in circumstances like this, it can be easier to participate in this effort rather than standing out alone. Through blending in with the other citizens, one keeps themselves safer from facing any kind of aggression that they would face when refusing to participate. When one does participate, the question of how they will participate is asked. Will they protest on our behalf? Will one fight on our behalf? Through participation in any way, one is being courageous. Standing with your own morals whether it is what everyone else is believing or if you are alone in those beliefs, it takes courage to speak up and say what you believe. It takes no courage to not fight in a war in defense of your nation. If you do not want to put yourself in those uncertain, dangerous, and brutal situations then you shouldn't have to. Some citizens choose to dedicate their life in serving for our country and protecting our country out of choice and that takes courage. Courage is also unnecessary when fighting in a war that one is aware of being unjust. In most societies when war is waged, governments and leaders force citizens to follow the movement and obey the ways of the war. In a situation like this, it is not cowardice to fight in a knowingly unjust war due to the chance of there being major and severe consequences if you do not fight in it. When war is waged if each citizen acts on their own morals, this could lead to complete chaos and danger. With no one believing in one thing everyone is out for themselves and defending themselves. Whereas when everyone is fighting for one thing it unites a nation, even if that thing may be deemed unjust. So if everyone is fighting for their own cause and their own beliefs there is no unity, just division. From division comes various levels of hatred and drastic actions from this hatred. This outcome of division is not a realistic way of living for a nation. It, in fact, makes it more challenging to live and even act morally. People will begin to try and force their own morals onto others in an attempt to create a form of unity. Citizens will then act against each other's opinions and beliefs, thinking that theirs is the only right one. All in all when a nation wages war for unjust reasons there are numerous impacts and effects that this can have on that specific nation as well as the nation that war is being waged on.

To preface, we, as United States citizens, are extremely lucky and should be grateful for the lack of war on our soil in the last two centuries, as most of the effects of war are horrific, and many governments inflate their senses of selves, so they enter a war they are destined to lose. This idea of actual chance of victory was heavily discussed in some excerpts of Just War Theory or jus ad bellum.Just war theory, theorized after world war II, aims to answer the question of when or if ever war can be morally just. They are in two different perspectives: one of intrinsicism (all war is inherently wrong, regardless of context) or consequentialism (war isn’t morally wrong, given the correct cause and context). For me, I believe that we all should be somewhere in the middle, and that a middle ground would work much better in the modern world. At the moment, I think we are almost purely consequential in our decisions to engage in war. However, many countries have leaders with heavily biased minds, and they want to appear very strong in the global scene as a priority as to what that means for their civilians. On the basis of civilians in wars, I believe that civilians ought to have a choice whether to participate in wars. What many world leaders overlook is their own peoples thoughts and opinions. If a war is not morally just in the minds of masses, then that should be a nonstarter in the initiating of war. For example, the drafts in the United States saw many 18-25 year old men go into battle, mostly against their will. If more people resist the draft than willfully go in, that means that civilians disapprove of the draft and war in general. However, these governments will still go to war without fully knowing whether.

As for the third question, Jeff McMahan raises important questions about the morality of soldiers in unjust wars. On one hand, soldiers can act honorably and follow the rules of war, known as jus in bello, even if their cause is not just. These rules are meant to protect civilians and ensure fair treatment of combatants, promoting dignity in warfare. However, simply following these rules doesn’t guarantee that a soldier is acting morally overall. An honorable soldier in an unjust war may still be contributing to harm and suffering, even if they conduct themselves ethically on the battlefield. The distinction between jus ad bellum (justice of the war) and jus in bello emphasizes this: one can fight honorably but still be part of an unjust cause. It’s crucial to recognize that while soldiers can maintain personal honor, the greater moral implications of their actions are complex. Soldiers must reflect on their roles and the legitimacy of the war they are fighting. Ultimately, while jus in bello helps guide behavior in combat, it does not absolve soldiers from the moral weight of their participation in an unjust conflict. Balancing these perspectives can help us understand the deeper ethical challenges of warfare.