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

War is not always wrong, but “war should always be a last resort” (Excerpt 1 Just War Theory). The main caveat on whether war is wrong is based mainly on the objective of the war. Say a country wants another for their resources and has every other possible way to secure the land other than war; in this case war as a last resort would in no way be justified. In the case of a genocide, there is a far more just reason to step in and try to stop further harm, as in the case of a genocide, aggression towards victims is typically based in arbitrary facts. Whether or not large scale violence is can be justified is heavily dependent on its organization. Are civilians being attacked? Is there unnecessary amounts of damage? While not mentioned in Just War Theory, whether or not soldiers are willingly fighting also plays into the morality of a war. War can be just in a legal sense without being just in the eyes of the perpetrators. From the perpetrator point of view, war may always be wrong; it’s rather unlikely that every single person deployed enthusiastically supports the cause. War will always be wrong from some point of view; there’s simply no way to justify war from every perspective. A middle ground between the intrinsicism and consequentialism models for war is most relevant in the modern world. Intrinsicism seems to be a gateway to prolonged wars while consequentialism a gateway to inhumane actions. As with most things, you can’t only consider a single perspective, things need to be analyzed from multiple perspectives. From the intrinsic perspective, World War II was wrong, even though it led to the end of a genocide. While the amount of mass destruction associated with the war was inherently wrong, the outcome cannot be considered wrong because of the path it took to get there. Sometimes the path and the outcome can’t be lumped together and need to be looked at separately. From the consequentialist perspective, US occupation of Iraq would be considered just because it overthrew Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship while entirely ignoring the fact that an entire nation and millions of lives were destroyed in the process and in the aftermath of the occupation. Additionally, the consequentialist perspective entirely ignores the Jus in Bello principle that “in waging war it is considered unfair and unjust to attack indiscriminately since non-combatants or innocents are deemed to sand outside the field of war proper” (Excerpt 2 Just War Theory Jus in Bello and Post Bello). Somehow, there needs to be a middle ground.

Citizens and more importantly soldiers belief in a cause if a huge reason a war may or may not be just. As mentioned above, if soldiers don’t believe in the cause, then while the war may be justified from a legal perspective, it cannot be justified from their perspective. Not believing in a cause doesn't necessarily mean that one shouldn’t (or won’t) fight though. Patriotism could be a huge motivator, many likely just want to preserve their nation. If civilians who didn’t agree with a cause didn’t fight, the number of soldiers decreases, and likely along with it the probability of victory. In the event of surrender, would civilians who elected not to fight get to be aggravated that they no longer have a country to fight for? It takes far more courage to do nothing than to fight in a war you don’t believe in. In fighting for a cause you believe to be unjust, you are compromising your own principles, maybe even justifying this cognitive dissonance with the logic ‘I’m already a bad person, might as well do bad things’. Furthermore, in fighting, someone may just be following the group. In electing not to fight, especially in the case of conscription, one singles themselves out from the group and possibly places themself in a position to become an outcast. If every citizen acted according to their true beliefs, there would still be war, but far more of these wars would be driven by conscripted soldiers rather than soldiers fighting of their own free will. In a diverse nation with highly varied opinions, such as the United States or UK, conscription still may not be necessary as there would likely still be a number of people willing to fight based on their beliefs and free will alone.

McMahan’s idea 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” highlights the difference between honor and justice. While “the specifics of what is honorable differ with time and place” (Excerpt 1 Just War Theory), the premise of justice is unwavering. Honorable actions cannot overrule unjust cause. Despite this, it is possible to act honorably for the sake of an unjust cause. While not every soldier is well versed on international war law and Jus in bello, their guise would guide soldiers to make honorable actions. Civilians “immunity from war can be reasoned from the fact that their existence and activity is not part of the essence of war” (Excerpt 2 Just war theory, Jus in bello, jus post bellum). This idea may motivate the preservation of life and guide soldiers away from consequentialist thinking. However, there is no principle to guide soldiers away from causing unnecessary harm to other soldiers.

War is not always wrong, as the formation of organized violence can be justified in self-defense. If a state is attacking and posing a threat to your own state, you must defend it for the sake of your state’s survival and proliferation. It may be necessary to use methods that may end the lives of the attackers, however, as a soldier you have given up your protection. You transition from a protected citizen, where you aren’t classified as a target, therefore your death cannot be justified, to a combatant, who participates in the threat and possible destruction of another state. In accordance with The Principles of Jus in Bello, when you are considered a combatant or a soldier in war, you are putting your life and the lives of those you face at risk, therefore you renounce your immunity and innocence from the war. This distinction is important in terms of the principle of discrimination. This covers who are legitimate targets in war to prevent indiscriminate attacks against innocents who may be deemed as not being a part of the war. If a soldier is drafted into an unjust war, they are still capable of upholding honorable war methods. This would include following the principle of discrimination as stated previously, making sure only legitimate targets are being focused on. Nevertheless, the notion of an unjust war, or legitimate targets, entirely depends on the views of the nations at war. Many can twist these principles to make their reason to war just. Throughout history, many war acts were based on religion and other subjective topics which are different between cultures. The principles of war make it so that these subjectivities are conquered, and the world can hold the same/similar morals on how war is fought. However this has not provided a solution. Technically, with the right reasoning and manipulation of such principles, any war can be justified. With the principle of proportionality, however, you can gauge certain war acts as being justifiable or not. From The Principles of Jus In Bello, the principle of proportionality covers the amount of force is morally necessary. When classifying self-defense in war, you can determine whether the defense is excessive or not, based on the magnitude of the initial attack. Although the attack itself may have been from an unjust cause, the actions taken against it can be justified, insinuating that although the cause of war can be unjust, the way war is fought can be moral. One requires a combination of both the intrinsic and consequentialist model to classify war realistically. The intrinsicism model is necessary after determining the set proportionality of war acts. If, at the start of the war, the border is challenged, it would not be proportionate for the opposite nation to bomb the threatening nation’s hospitals. That would be immoral in accordance with the principles. However, if the attacking nation had begun with the bombing of the hospitals, an attack in retaliation that reflects the initial attack would still be immoral. The consequentialist model deems that war acts are only permissible if the outcome is just. If bombing the attacking nation’s hospitals in response to them bombing hospitals first brings an end to the war, that action would be justified. This, however, may become problematic as leaders may have different views of what is a proportionate attack or not. However, one cannot choose the intrinsicism model over the consequentialist model or vice versa. Both are needed to assess war acts.

War is always wrong. However, it may be justifiable. War being justified is not saying that it is a good thing to do, or that it is morally correct. These beliefs seem to fall between an intrinsic and consequential model because war is not right, but it may be considered justifiable. Neither intrinsicism nor consequentialism is realistic for a modern world, but properties of each may be applied to create a seemingly “just war theory”.Just War Theory bridges intrinsicism and consequentialism because it takes ideas from both and applies them to reality. The idea that actions of war are not okay is present in Just War Theory because society has come up with war crimes. It is not realistic to say that war will never occur though, and it is not more just or morally correct to push against war in certain situations. As described in In Between War and Peace, many opposed war, but also supported it when it was introduced as more than a theory: “...as a socialist, he was against war; and yet he enlisted in the army as soon as he crossed the border into Germany”. War, theoretically, never proves to be the same as war in reality. This idea also pushes away consequentialism because although war may occur, and acting in a certain way may provide a morally positive outcome, the acts committed do not become morally correct.

If a nation wages war for something that is immoral or unjust, then people should be able to refuse participation and protest it. This also supports the idea that if a nation is acting unjustly, then a group of people, which could be described as a rebel group, should be able to declare war against the corrupt government. However, this goes against Just War Theory because this definition is moral in theory, but when it may be applied is an entirely different question. How to gauge whether a feeling raised by a group is enough precedent for war, is still being argued, and Just War Theory skims just over it. If groups were constantly overthrowing governments, it would be considered wrong, but if no one ever stood up for themself, that would also be considered wrong. Just War Theory doesn’t give an answer to what is “right” in these situations, which makes them harder to navigate, particularly in the ever-changing world that is affected by media. Is it really right or wrong to engage a group of people with common thoughts with the goal to create positive change, while understanding that the process may cause damage? This question brings up the idea of conspiracies, and their legal definitions. Cornell’s law website states that a “conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act,” which can be used to describe any rebel group that has led a revolution to found a new country. For example, the United States wouldn’t exist if no one had gone against the English Parliament and resisted oppressive rule. Now, this would be considered going against the idea of Just War Theory, even though it could be argued to be better for both parties involved.

In almost anyone’s mind, they would think of war as an inherently bad thing, which should be avoided at any cost, and although it is seen as a bad thing, when in accordance with the correct regulations and moral laws, it is not always wrong. If two countries agree to have exhausted all other forms of diplomacy or de-escalation, war may be necessary in order to reconcile them. On top of this, violence and aggression are inherent parts of human nature, therefore making war almost impossible to avoid in the grand scheme of the worldwide diplomatic system, when there is always one person or a group of people holding power over another. Although it would be in many countries’ best interests to follow the model of consequentialism, there are always points at which a country cannot go past unless exhausting other methods first. For example, a country would almost certainly be inclined to use a nuclear weapon if it meant the immediate end of a conflict, and therefore the saving of many of their own soldiers’ lives, even if the conflict was not deserving of such an attack. This sort of scenario is one of many which Just War Theory accounts for, creating a link between consequentialist and intrinsicist views by allowing an attack to be made, but limiting it to one proportionate to the goal of the conflict in the first place.

War is morally wrong when it is one-sided, however, it is inevitable for war to happen sometimes, which is why it is important to establish reasons for what makes the cause just as well as moral actions that can be taken during wartime. Organized violence could be justified as a means of self-defense against a threat, but otherwise organized violence unprovoked is definitely wrong. As stated in “Just War Theory” from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “War should always be a last resort,” which brings back the point that sometimes war is inevitable due to options of keeping peace being exhausted. Also, in terms of the modern world, the consequentialism model is more realistic because, as stated before, war is inevitable and is reoccurring throughout history. Therefore, it would be best to think of how the actions of war will impact a nation or society rather than think that war is bad no matter what because that is a naive way to look at today’s world. The saying used today, “impact versus intent,” could also apply to the causes, actions during, and actions after a war because even if one has good intentions, they could certainly go about it in an unnecessarily violent way that could leave the victim devastated. Jus ad bellum doesn’t act as a bridge between the two models because in intrisicism, people believe that war is bad no matter the cause. Rather, jus ad bellum acts simply as a boundary, albeit a little nuanced in some principles, that determines whether one should be held responsible for whatever actions are taken during a war. By nuanced, one of the principles is “having just cause” which could be interpreted in an infinite amount of ways due to different nations and societies having different expectations, traditions, and/or values.

Citizens have the option to choose whether or not they want to participate in the war effort, including all interpretations of “participating.” For example, one doesn’t have to fight in the war itself, however, can still participate in the war by providing medical care on the front or housing soldiers. Even if passively participating in the war effort, citizens can decide if they want to participate in war or not, especially if war is waged for unjust reasons, because the decision of the government/leader to wage war doesn’t always align with the morals of the citizen and their internal decision of whether or not they agree with the reasons for war. Being willing to fight in a war is brave, however, because of the idea that people have differing beliefs and morals, it also wouldn’t be cowardice to not fight in a war that someone believes is morally wrong, especially if that person has a different definition of cowardice and bravery compared to another person. The consequences of fighting a war where each citizen acted on their own moral compass would be much more serious, depending on the extent to which people act on their morals. For example, a “good-case” scenario’s outcome where every citizen acted on their own moral compass would be that people would just socially group themselves to wherever their morals aligned and that the groups wouldn’t act on their morals. However, a “bad-case” scenario’s outcome, or even worst case scenario, would be that the nation would be not unified at all and everyone is doing their own thing. This could even result in internal conflicts, such as riots, in addition to whatever conflict the nation is at war for. Therefore, although it may seem unfair or difficult for some, during times of war, it is best if people were to not act on their own moral compasses.

War is full of unnecessary deaths, large scale destruction, and irreversible damage to entire nations and therefore can never be justified. I believe that the ends do not justify the means, all wars end in death and no matter what cause someone is fighting for they should not be killed mercilessly. But this way of thinking is not realistic. People value land, religion, and money over human lives and therefore war will never be eradicated. Most wars, no matter what the leaders say the cause is, can be boiled down to religion, land, or nationalism and none of these causes can even out the negative consequences of war however people as a whole are misguided and do not value the correct things. Humanity will always have wars because people are selfish and always want more than they have. I believe that it is possible for wars to have just causes, like overthrowing an oppressive government or self defense but because there will never be a war without death or destruction wars cannot be just because killing and wrecking places where people live is an inherently unjust thing and the justness of the cause cannot outweigh that. Although I have this opinion, I am still a realist. Without wars dictators will have no limits to what horrible acts they do, leaders can treat their subjects in any way they desire, and oppressed people will continue to be oppressed. Wars are necessary for our society to function because of the way that humans are, they do not know where to draw the line if there are no consequences, but although war is necessary, it is never just.

Participation in a war effort is a very complex subject, like all of Just War Theory. Is there more bravery in risking your life or risking exclusion from the group? Based on what we have learned from social psychology the latter may feel like the former. Humans make a correlation between being a part of a group with safety and life and if they do anything to oppose this group, even if it follows their own moral code, they are terrified because from hunter-gather times being excluded from a group will certainly mean your death. I believe that both going to war and following your moral compass are admirable, brave acts. As the Just War Theory, Jus in Bello article states, “On entering the army, the civilian loses the right not to be targeted”. It is a highly debated topic of who is allowed to be targeted in war and some believe that any participation in the war effort, even as a medic or someone “involved in supplies or administration” means a sense of anticipation of death and therefore have the right to be targeted. I believe that both cowardice and bravery can steer people into the war or away from it and doing one or the other is not an inherently brave or cowardly act. It depends on your motivation of why you choose one option or the other that determines your cowardice or bravery.

I do not think that war is always wrong, however actions during and after a war can change the justifications. Following the model of the just war theory, killing is wrong, but who is being killed can shift views. If a nation is attacked first with no warning, they have a right to defend themselves on the basis that they are defending their citizens. I think an even more specific form of having the right to go to war on the idea of protecting citizens is if soldiers who are the aggressors enlisted with their free will. Even if they thought they were fighting for a just cause, they still attacked another country without substantial time spent finding a peaceful solution. For example, young soldiers who joined the Nazi’s because of a twisted form of hyper-nationalism that led them to execute Jewish people.

Certain aspects of war can be broken down into two categories, the intrinsicism model, that certain actions in war are either 100% bad or 100% good, and the consequentialism model, that there are justifications for bad actions if the outcome is beneficial. In modern times I think the consequentialism model is the most repetitive excuse for countries to enact violence another. Many countries tend to follow the model of “act first, think later” because they feel the need to catch another country off guard, in order to boost their means of a just war. That means, entering a war knowing that winning is guaranteed. When following consequentialist thinking, the scale of violence used is usually disproportionate and may make a war unjust. As stated in Excerpt 2, “the principle of proportionality concerns how much force is morally appropriate.” Using a modern example, Russia is substantially bigger than Ukraine, to the point where Ukraine fights back against Russian forces with a vast majority of foreign aid. This inequality in power may give Russia the idea that their war is just, but for the Ukrainians their war is just for another reason, defense.

Any nation that wages an unjust war has a vast majority of citizens that do not fight. Whether pacifists or eligible to enlist, those people have a choice to make, support their country, even if they do not believe in their cause, or face discrimination. I think that citizens should have the ability to refuse to participate in an unjust war, because their country isn't what defines them. While nationalism and togetherness are promoted in war countries, it is the individuals who participate who give their lives and resources for the cause. To make citizens participate in something against their belief is the government becoming too involved in the lives of citizens. However, if each citizen acts on their own accord, sub groups may form that will cause even more violence in that country, only this time internally. Widespread chaos, and fights on domestic soil lead to the destruction of not just the country, but the people who may not even have taken the lives of others.

War can only be moral if it is fair for all sides, so war is moral if its cause, conduct, and resolutions are justifiable. War is unethical if the circumstances surrounding it are unethical. Thus, the consequentialist model is more suited for the contemporary world. If war itself is not morally wrong, then the cause of the war or the conduct in warfare is often morally wrong. If violence and conflict are human nature, then so are making decisions and believing in morals and ethics. Just War Theory lays down the rules that a nation’s leaders and fighters have to follow, so they are morally obligated to follow them. Just War Theory was created to prevent unnecessary death or violence and to make war and warfare fair because of the idea that everyone should be respected even in war. If a person breaches any of the rules, they must be held accountable because they neglect the responsibility of respecting the enemy. Therefore, people have the obligation to act morally in war.

As the Just War Theory is the framework of how war should be conducted, it does not resolve that war itself is immoral. Just War Theory supports the consequentialist instead of the intrinsicist model because it shares more beliefs with the consequentialist model. For example, if two countries claim a piece of land as theirs and the other side has no right to own it, they may fail to resolve the situation through negotiation or by agreeing to the land’s history or culture. In the consequentialist model, both sides have the ethical right to wage a war against each other, provided that neither side breaches the rules of Just War Theory. In the intrinsic model, both sides will likely never reach a conclusion through diplomacy due to the intense conflicts in their beliefs. Even if they agree on morals, they may not agree on a compromise. As a result, war should instead be the final compromise to a problem, one which is just if it is the only solution to such a problem. In this way, Just War Theory follows the consequentialist model because war is only moral if the circumstances surrounding it are just.

Additionally, if a nation wages war upon an unjust or immoral cause, its citizens should be able to refuse to participate in the war. Philosopher Bertrand Russell says that people have the right to be conscientious objectors when they believe their nation fails to treat an enemy like its own citizens or believe that violence is against their morals because they feel empathy for their soldiers and the enemy. Just as how people are obligated to act morally in war, people who are opposed to war are morally obligated to not participate in war. If a soldier tortures a prisoner, they neglect to treat the prisoner fairly. If a conscientious objector decides to participate in war, they may feel that they are neglecting their morals. Just War Theory thus affects those who participate in war and those who oppose it.

The question of whether citizens should refuse to participate in a war they believe is unjust is based on ideas such as one's ethical beliefs, loyalty to their country, and individual responsibility. This problem makes us think about what it means to be courageous in the context of war and whether it is more courageous to go against an unjust idea/conflict or cowardly to fight in a war one believes is wrong.

Generally, wars can be seen as unjust for many reasons, such as not having a legit cause for defense, the violation of human rights, or being motivated by greed/power. When a nation enters a war like this, citizens may find it hard to pick a side. Should they stray away from their ways and disobey their government, or fight for something that they themselves do not believe in.

Refusing to fight in a war one sees as unjust can take a lot of courage. It often means facing criticism, legal consequences, or even violence. For example, in the Vietnam War, Many people who resisted being drafted faced imprisonment and social exclusion. Their choice to refuse military service was based on the belief that some wars are fundamentally wrong. In this way, it’s fair to argue that it takes more bravery to go against what the government says than to follow orders without question.

On the other hand, some people might argue that fighting in a war one believes is morally wrong makes them a coward. This viewpoint suggests that those who blindly follow orders lose their own beliefs. By not questioning the severity of their actions, they risk having the responsibility of these actions being put on them. Soldiers have a duty to think deeply about the conflicts they are involved in, and failing to do so can lead to immense damage and tragedy.

The outcomes of these actions can vary depending on the political views and unity of a nation. In a democracy, a refusal to fight may lead to discussions about the war’s justification, potentially causing it to end. In contrast, in more authoritarian regimes, disagreement could result in harsh punishments, escalating the conflict and leading to suffering for many. One example of this is The Christmas Truce of 1914. Many nations were in heated altercations throughout World War 1. When Christmas approached, many of the armies, such as the British, German, and French created a ceasefire along the western front. Soldiers exchanged gifts, ideas, and even sang Christmas carols. This adds to the idea that many people are fighting for their government, and not their beliefs. These soldiers have a lot in common, and war puts a pin in those relationships and focuses on what the higher people believe.

In the excerpt about Just War Theory, it talks about what circumstances play into the decision for starting the war. It states that in order to start a war, the two sides must agree on what extremes the war will go to. There are some instances where the two sides differ and cannot decide on a limit. This causes both sides to be able to escalate a war against a group that they already do not like or see as “not human”. This creates a problem that can lead to many people getting hurt for reasons that could have been avoided.

In conclusion, while it’s crucial for people to think about their moral responsibilities during war, the problem is in balancing personal beliefs with duties to one’s country and society. It raises important questions about justice, loyalty, and courage. While personal belief is important, the possible trouble that comes with people disagreeing must be taken into account, as it could lead to both good changes and destructive outcomes.

I think war can be justified. I think there are two sides of whether war can be seen as a right and it ranges from internal and external beliefs. Internally, war is justified if most citizens are ready to die for the cause. It must be and educated decision and for the betterment of their country and the world around them. Externally war can be justified if they abide by the rules of war: using a necessary amount of force, it is a last resort, they have good intentions, and there is a just cause.

I think the consequentialism model is more accurate for the modern world because it's more realistic. People are killed every single day and killing even though it's bad has been normalized in many countries through the use of tv shows and local news. Also there is a decrease in the belief in religion which usually states that killings are morally incorrect. Therefore with the normalization and lack of moral boundary, a more consequentialist model would be in line with human morals today.

I think citizens should refuse to participate in the war effort because killing someone is not a joke or in any way permissible. There must be a good reason for an individual to kill another, so if citizens do not support their nation's war effort then they shouldn’t have to fight. However, if the war is starting to kill and harm too many people from your nation then you will have to fight back. At that point, it is either killed or be killed, and you must kill for means of survival.

I do think it takes a lot of courage to not fight in defense of your nation in a war in which you believe is morally wrong. There is a lot of societal pressure these days to conform to the war efforts of your country and its human nature to do that. I do believe it's cowardice to fight in a war you don’t believe in, but I do understand why a person might do that. As I said previously, there is a lot of societal pressure from friends and family, but it could also be the law in your country that you must fight in the war. This is similar to the American draft system. It may also be the only way for a person to get the money to provide for their family. Either way, every circumstance is different, so we shouldn’t become prone to fundamental attribution error and assume that a person is cowardice since they fought in a war they don’t believe in.

I think one of the consequences of people acting on their own accord is the third principle “the principle of responsibility, which demands an examination of where responsibility lies in war” (Excerpt 3). I think responsibility lies not only in if you choose to fight but if you don’t choose to fight. These consequences range from guilt to war crimes. There must be an abundance of thought that comes from even thinking about wars as an option. There will be consequences for people within and outside of the war, so it is advised to proceed with caution.

While I believe that war cannot be justified, in most cases, it is difficult to avoid or step away from due to history’s tendency of violent reliance, and the overexertion of global powers. Despite war ending tragically throughout history, in reference to the modern world, I believe that the consequentialist model is more realistic; it can definitely be argued that war is dangerous and leads to mass destruction but the consequentialist model offers insight of the possible victories and positive outcomes that emerge from violence. One of the most relevant examples is the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II; the conflict was certainly brutal and horrific but it eventually led to the liberation of millions of Jews. The principles of jus ad bellum help to form a bridge or “middle-ground” between the intrinsicism and consequentialist models by aligning with the moral reasoning incorporated into intrinsicism and the outcomes described by consequentialism. However, it is difficult to state whether or not war is truly justifiable because just wars could be fought using unjust means and unjust wars could be fought through just means; the line between just and unjust is very blurry and definitions can be altered in order to fit the victor’s benefit.

When nations wage wars for unjust reasons, the question of whether or not weighs on the citizens, who are forced between choosing what is right for their morals or what is right for their nation. Volunteering to put your life on the line for your nation is one the most courageous things a person can do, but it can be argued that going against your nation for waging an unjust war is also extremely courageous. In the article “Between Peace and War,” Philosopher Bertran Russel states that: “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.” This quote, in reference to Russel’s position as a conscientious objector, who went against war as a whole, exemplifies the levels of courage that somebody must acquire in order to stand against their nation. Emphasized by the Obedience Theory, and the concepts behind “mob mentality,” it is incredibly difficult to stand against the majority out of fear of rejection, othering, or physical harm. These conscientious objectors, and others who stand against or refuse the war effort exemplify rare acts of defiance that ultimately puts their life in danger. While they are not volunteering outright to give up their lives, they still must face the consequences of their defiance, including exclusion, humiliation, banishment, execution, and imprisonment. However, the position of these conscientious objectors and the consequences they face brings up the dangers of allowing each and every individual to follow their own moral compass during wartime.While I do not believe that measures as extreme as a draft are necessary, I believe in the important of having a stable leadership figure(s) that takes control of panic-inducing situations in order to ensure the safety of the nation as a whole; if citizens were to act on their own moral compass, many would act irrationally as fear discards all rational thought.

The question of whether or not war is justifiable is much deeper than a simple yes or no; it is important to study the different models that observe wartime behaviors, and our past historical mistakes in order to determine the most rational solution to global issues.