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

Violence and competitiveness, whether we would like to admit it or not, is natural and instilled within every animal. As animals, humans will always be violent, with us only in recent times being able to train ourselves to become more docile. However, for those who govern entire nations, material incentives may give way to the seeking of war, in order for exploitation. The rules of Jus Ad Bellum gives us a clear framework for what makes a just or unjust war, however it neglects what the citizens of said country are to do when their country wages an unjust war. The United States unfortunately has many examples of this dilemma, with wars being fought for petty reasons such as “combating communism” or oil. In these scenarios, soldiers have been forced to participate in wars which are wrong in nature, but does that make the soldiers morally incorrect as well? While one can argue that the notion of “just following orders” is akin to the excuses many of the Nazis used, I still find that these soldiers should not be blamed. For example, during the United States war with Vietnam, millions of young men were drafted into an unjust war, and forced to fight for something they may have not believed in. While the war was unjust however, public opinion viewed those who ran from the draft as cowards or lazy, and were often ridiculed. Those who successfully avoided the draft, had to deal with regret, persecution, and rejection. While their contemporaries decided to fight and likely die, I believe they were far braver, knowing that the entire country may call them a coward, they still decided to abstain, knowing their own value. However, the climate at the time forced many men who were not brave enough to stand up for themselves, to fight and die. While soldiers are the ones who run the war machine, being the dissenter in a country where everyone else would call you a coward is incredibly difficult, and they should not be blamed for joining it. While some may argue that a nation cannot thrive with citizens who do not conform to their demands, I believe that this is entirely untrue. Yes, conformity can lead to unification being much easier, and keep the nation efficient, however this is not ideal or realistic. The average citizen is not a pawn for the government, and should be allowed their own personal freedoms and belief systems, including whether or not they choose to be a conscious objector, and not assist the war effort. Greater success may come from more people, but sacrificing one's individual freedom for the smallest increase in success, neglects their value as a human being. While the intrinsic model may seem naive, it is the ideal world for almost everyone, as profit is simply greater when everyone works together. Choosing war and accusing others of cowardice is not only inefficient for everyone, but reduces the value of people. In a nation where everyone acted according to their morals, less people would join the army, however their freedom would not be taken, which I deem as more important. This does come with the problem of if a large enough population objects, failure is more likely, and threatens the country itself. Still, I believe that if this were ever to be the case, then the war was not popular with the civilians anyway, and most likely not a just war, which deserves to be lost. As Jus Ad Bellum states, war should only be reserved as a final move, and a country should be entirely prepared for this situation if they were to go to war. Overall, I believe that the individual freedom of the human is more important than the wishes of a nation's victory, which allows for conscious objectors.

Just War Theory should always be followed but a war can be just without being in line with all the requirements and you can have an unjust war while following all of the requirements. If a nation wages war and its citizens disagree with their reasons for going to war then they are well within their natural rights to refuse to participate. If they did not participate, their reasons for refusal are no longer in line with their beliefs- the war has already started, peace is not an option and someone intent to take the most peaceful approach would help their country to end it quicker. Conscientious objectors are for the most part intrinsicism, not looking at the bigger picture. I think that someone can act morally in an unjust war because at the end of the day their actions are still controlled by them. Fighting for something you don't believe in and not fighting because you don’t believe are different kinds of courage. Fighting in a war takes so much courage, a soldier is literally signing up for something that could lead to death or serious injury. It takes physical courage. Not fighting because you don't believe in the cause takes social courage. A conscientious objector is going to have to stand their ground against most of their country all while disrespecting the soldiers who are giving their lives so that they can sit at home whining about the war they aren't doing anything to end. In Germany those opposed to war stopped their demonstrations once the war started because ending it quickly is in line with their beliefs rather than opting out. “Down with war! Long live world peace and the brotherhood of the working class!” Over the next few days, there were more rallies for peace. Then the news came that Germany had declared war. Almost instantly, the demonstrations came to a halt, and party leaders issued the following statement:..” (Between War and Peace) Just because someone believes a solution to a problem should not be used doesn't mean that the solution doesn't solve it. End of the day once a war starts the most peaceful approach is ending it quicker. A soldier should be able to abide by their own moral compass. In a war that someone doesn't want to fight they absolutely should maintain the right to refuse a service. But it would slow the war down, the humane thing is to end the war with minimal damage which may mean an action that compromises the soldiers morals. It's a choice that the soldier has to make between present effect and future effect and what they value more. A combination of the intrinsicism model and the consequentialism model is the most realistic, leaning more towards the consequentialist. Very few people look at things in black and white, because it's just not a realistic thought process. Every decision has depth and reason, a seemingly unjust war to the people may have reasons for conflict that they don't know about. If you personally know a veteran or someone enlisted, your view on what is morally considered right and wrong and if outcome matters will change. People don't just put down their weapons mid war because someone protests it. How someone behaves in a war is based on how well they understand what they are fighting for, peace or resolution.

In studying the justifications and rules of war, I have been unable to decide if war can be just at times. In my opinion, I am against war and believe it is justified in only very rare circumstances such as a war of self-defense and a war to prevent atrocities such as genocide. It is because of these potential reasons that despite being an intrinsicist in nature, I believe a consequentialist view is better in policy for our modern world. I do however believe that the rules of jus ad bellum are too broad to follow and be a bridge between consequentialism and intrinsicism. The various justifications given by jus ad bellum are mainly up to interpretation of the countries that are in war, which allows them to justify any war they may fight. Russians believe their invasion of Ukraine is justified in order to protect the Russian Ukrainian minority in the country, claiming that Ukraine is a Nazi state. Americans believed their invasions of Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries were for the good cause to fight terrorism and defeat dictatorships, and believed that peace had been exhausted as well leaving invasion the only option. Formal declarations of war almost rarely happen nowadays, with Putin referring to his invasion of Ukraine as a “special military operation” and Ukraine referring to Russia as a “terrorist state”, with neither countries having officially declared war, but most argue that Ukraine’s cause is still just. Success is also subjective, various countries can believe they could be successful, with the United States believing that success could be possible with Afghanistan, as well as Argentina with the United Kingdom over the Falklands and Hamas with Israel. Proportionality is subjective, as seen with Israel and Hamas, the Israelis believe their war is proportional despite international condemnation of the severity of the destruction in Gaza.

If a nation wages an unjust war, I think that citizens should resist participation in the war effort, however due to the justifications of war mentioned in the above paragraph, such a case is both rare and very challenging to do so. I believe it is a courageous opinion to resist going to war in most cases, as if people refuse to go to war, they either become a social outcast at best case and at worst case be imprisoned and harm may come to them and their families. That being said, if almost no people were to agree to fight in war, there may be disastrous consequences. Powerful countries would be able to take smaller countries easily with no resistance. However, such a case is rare due to social identity theory, where most people feel an intense connection to their homeland, a group they are in, so they will likely in most of the case be willing to fight for said homeland.

While I think it is rare for a war to be just, I think it is easier for a soldier to be just on the battlefield. To disagree with McMahan, often those fighting in a war were drafted and forced or coerced into fighting. Even if there is no draft, many were likely forced into the military due to economic reasons or cultural reasons forcing them into it. It is thus unjust in my opinion to tell soldiers who are forced into fighting for their lives that they are the ones doing harm as it ignores the fact that most soldiers would not like to fight in the wars they are fighting. In war, it depends on a soldier’s actions on whether they are just – such as if they are only killing combatants and not civilians. If there are a set of rules like jus in bello, I feel that soldiers are more likely to follow them, given that the military tends to be a place of strict authority, so soldiers are often unlikely to not follow orders. There needs to be rules about who can and cannot be attacked. It is best said by the Encyclopedia of Philosophy “punching another individual is not morally supportable in a civilized community, but those who voluntarily enter the boxing ring renounce their right to not be hit” (Jus in bello and Jus post bellum) - there needs to be rules so that innocent people to not fall victim to warfare.

War as a concept, a battle and death between the populaces of two nations for the sake of ensuring their nations victory and goals, is inherently morally incorrect. However at face value, or in the view of the intrinsicism model, war is bad, when thrusted into reality, the commencement of war is more justifiable. No country wants a war due to the great expenses in money, lives, and time; however, sometimes a country is forced in such a position in which, for the sake of the better for its people, it needs to wage war. This follows the idea of the consequentialism model, that war is not morally wrong if the outcome is just. With several revolutions and uprisings, with the Haitians for example, no person deserves to be oppressed and so many people support what the Haitians did in order to secure their liberty and rights. However what the Haitians did, had resulted in much conflict, similar to what a war would cause. So surely if the Haitians actions were justified, then so could the actions of wars? In a perfect world, conflict between people would not exist, however a perfect world is but an illusion. People are divided, the fact that the world and its continents are divided into countries and borders are set to prove this. As a population, humanity is not truly unified although no matter how much it tries to be. It contains individual leaders and groups which govern within their own inner circle, while tolerating everyone outside of it. Not everyone will agree, and so disagreements and eventually conflicts will arise. Humans are fundamentally selfish creatures, they seek self-preservation and leaders of countries seek the self-preservation of their own government because it keeps them in power and safe. Conflicts will arise and humans are stubborn and so making compromises are not always possible, with some groups being just too fundamentally different in thinking. War is morally wrong, but yet it is necessary for some disputes to be decided and for the better of the world. These two ideologies, intrinsicism and consequentialism, can not simply be seen as one side vs. another side of the argument, they are 2 components of one and Just War Theory is an excellent way to see how these two ideologies bridge. Just War theory acknowledges that war is bad, intrinsicism, yet knows that war sometimes must happen for the greater good, consequentialism, and it outlines what scenarios in which war is justifiable. However once again, as amazing as Just War Theory is, it only has power if everyone abides by it. Although many countries do support the ideas and will follow it, the world is not unified, not everyone will follow these golden rules and so unjust wars will happen in order to better an individual or the country as a whole, disregarding the well being of others. In an unjust war, many civilians choose to abstain, however is this the right decision? A nation is meant to be a unification of a group, and so in theory it should be the overall cohesion of ideas of the populace. If individuals feel as though their country is fighting in a war that is unjust, and does not align with their beliefs, their nation has failed in representing them properly. Nonetheless, it is foolish to simply abstain from war. One's nation is practically everything, it is where they and their family lives, where they have a job, and where all their worldly possessions reside. Losing the war means potentially losing those things and that is simply too much of a risk just to follow one's moral compass. As seen in the article, In Between War and Peace (Facing History and Ourselves), “As world leaders were choosing sides, a few individuals and groups in almost every nation had been trying desperately to stop the momentum toward war…Then the news came that Germany had declared war. Almost instantly, the demonstrations came to a halt” Priorities are essential, and although it does take a lot of courage to put these things on the line in order to abide by a moral compass, as illustrated by the article, standing by one's morals is never more valuable than everything else one holds dear.

I strongly disagree with McMahan’s view that soldiers should be held responsible for their actions in war. Each soldier has a different reason for being there, and very few, if any, want to kill another human. Many end up in the military because of circumstances they can not control like being drafted. Others enlist when they are young, hoping to protect their country, only to find themselves overwhelmed by the realities of combat.

If soldiers don't agree with what is going on, some may contend that they should just quit the military, but this is not an easy choice to make. Serving in the military is frequently the only way for many people to support their families, particularly during difficult economic times. The income that comes with serving in the military is essential because it offers a reliable source of income that many people depend on to pay for necessities like housing, food, and childcare.

The advantages of serving in the military can truly transform lives. Having access to healthcare coverage guarantees that military members and their families may receive medical attention, which is a big benefit. Furthermore, by assisting soldiers and their dependents in pursuing higher education, educational benefits can improve their quality of life and open doors to future employment prospects.

The pressure from superiors also makes things more complicated. When a commanding officer gives an order, even if it feels wrong, soldiers often feel they have to obey. There is a strong urge to follow orders to keep the unit together and avoid getting in trouble. This creates a tough situation where personal morals clash with the duty to follow commands. The need to fit in can play a large factor as well. Standing up to a large amount of people for something you believe in can be extremely scary, especially if it is going against what the majority thinks is right.

Soldiers go through extreme stress during battle, which might cloud their judgment. When presented with life-threatening choices, they may set aside their moral convictions in order to concentrate on surviving and finishing their goal. Their natural tendency to follow instructions takes precedence over their moral convictions during these stressful times, causing individuals to act in ways they might not have otherwise. Soldiers may find it challenging to uphold their moral principles in this demanding setting when the needs of the circumstance often take precedence above personal morality.

Holding soldiers solely responsible for their actions ignores the complex reasons behind their choices. It overlooks the pressures they face and the environment they are in. Instead of blaming individual soldiers, we need to look at the bigger picture, including military culture, societal expectations, and how warfare affects human behavior. By understanding these factors, we can have a more balanced view of accountability that takes into account all the challenges soldiers encounter in war.

While war is sometimes justifiable, war is always objectively morally wrong no matter the cause. The consequences of war are ensured; no matter the “winners” or “losers” lives are always sure to be lost and that in itself is morally unacceptable to modern ethics. To justify war with a cause, there must be certain standards to hold the declaring party to. Just ad bellum is a tool used to analyze the validity of a state’s decision to wage war. In this day and age, despite how far global society has progressed, the innumerous inequalities and oppressive across the world make conflict inevitable in search for resolution. Society leans towards a more consequentialist model in which many believe that their cause is a justifiable reason for war however those in privileged areas of the world in which the threat of war and political tensions are less, citizens may lean more towards a modern intrinsic model because they have the comfortability to discuss war as a far possibility.

Citizens affiliated with warring states should always be given the right to choose whether or not they serve in the army. In the case of World War I, thousands of men on both the Allies and Central sides rushed excitedly to enlist in the army, however once they were in the war they could not escape it and all the horrible bloodshed that followed. It may be harder to say no when others around you are so eager to join a cause which makes it extremely difficult to speak out and decide to not fight if one disagrees with the reason for war. Whether a soldier is “given” a choice or drafted by the government, saying no to serving your country is hard because it’s often ingrained in your beliefs to show nationalistic pride even if you have personal qualms with your country’s systemic treatment of certain groups or policies. Take for example the United States today, many people criticize the government and the systemic inequalities that have shaped the country, but when a large event – not necessarily bad – happens a wave of patriotic pride ripples through the country. This can be observed at the 2024 Paris Olympics in which many people cheered for their favorite athletes representing the U.S. while they still did not agree with the political state of the U.S. The same can be seen for nationalism in wars, to feel unsure of their countries values but pride in the united power of their country in which one is persuaded to join. However, a dissenter to participation in war could also act negatively for the outcome of the war. While the importance of speaking out against morally corrupt behavior is one thing, dissenters in a war may lead to negative outcomes for soldiers or innocents who are left unprotected by a weakened and unstable military.

The idea that Jeff McMahan proposes that soldiers in war should be held accountable for their actions and for their decision to fight for an “unjust” cause. While soldiers should be held accountable for their individual actions, their decision to fight for an unjust cause may not be completely their own. Considering circumstances such as a draft and a society overrun with propagandic news, soldiers may not even understand what they are fighting for. However, the standard that all soldiers should be held to is the moral behavior during war which includes many rules from Jus in Bellum that try to prevent immoral acts from occurring during war. The rules of Jus In Bello, while unable to completely enforce them, certainly help prevent war crimes from happening. Modern ethics and societal norms help to shape these principles and encourage participation in Jus In Bellum rules. This includes the pressure to conform to the status quo that a society imposes, and targets human nature and desire to fit into a group that has beliefs that they do not necessarily agree with rather than become a social outcast for dissenting to rules. This can have a positive effect on enforcing the rules of jus in bellum on soldiers.

While war can occasionally be justified, the wars we see in our world almost never are. People are not perfect—almost everyone prioritizes themselves, puts themselves first; the nature of humans is such that you want things for yourself and, if you are given enough power, can wage war to get them. Does that make you inherently evil? I don’t think acting in your own self-interest makes you a fundamentally bad person, but it depends a lot on the extent of the actions and the reasons for causing them. Decisions should always be made with the context of the situation—moral models alone cannot be the sole basis for making choices, especially ones as important as those made in war. They can, however, be a useful guide on which to base one's decisions. In our world, the consequentialism model is more realistic than intrinsicism. It is easier to commit an act of war first and justify it later than to never result to war in the first place. Diplomacy can be difficult and, a lot of times, war seems to those in power like an easier alternative—one that skips the hassle of compromise and often leads to a quicker end where one country gets a say and the other has their decision made for them. Using consequentialism gives countries a shortcut intrinsicism does not allow for, but, like the first excerpt we read explains, it is “an open-ended model, highly vulnerable to pressing military or political needs to adhere to any code of conduct in war” (Jus Ad Bellum) Even if a war is “just,” soldiers can still act unjustly using consequentialism, and vice versa, and the model leaves too much up to interpretation. Just War Theory bridges the gap between the too-strict intrinsicism & not-strict-enough consequentialism, laying out a framework for which actions, specifically, are justifiable in war and which ones are not. It, like the two moral models, is not perfect and should similarly not be used as the sole basis for decision making, but can act as a useful guide for both leaders and soldiers in a time of war.

War is, ultimately, decided and controlled by those in power. After all, it is not the soldiers themselves who decide who and when to fight. Soldiers are responsible—and should act as such—for their individual actions, but not for the war itself. Citizens can, however, speak out against the war if they feel it is wrong; they can protest and refuse to fight. It takes courage not to fight in defense of one’s nation & to stand against what everyone else is doing, but it is also not necessarily cowardly to fight in a war you believe is morally wrong. Sometimes, people do not have the power or privilege to avoid war. Sometimes, people are forced to fight. Sometimes, there are consequences for not fighting. If you, per se, believe war is morally wrong, acting according to your own moral compass and refusing to fight means that you may put yourself at risk of punishment, but ignoring your morals and going to war anyway puts you at an equal, if not greater, risk. As Jus In Bello says, soldiers are viable targets, but civilians are not. Thus, joining the army makes you a target that enemies are likely to attack (although armies do sometimes attack civilians, it is less common than attacking soldiers and comes with its own consequences). It is hard, but nonetheless vital, that citizens act according to their own moral compass when a nation is at war. People are more than a cog in the machine of war; their voices deserve to be heard and their thoughts & lives to be respected. As we have seen from history, we know what happens when people are coerced into doing and believing everything for the good of the state. Love of one’s country turns sour, opposition is suppressed, the state militarizes, the government becomes authoritarian, nationalism grows exponentially, and the leaders turn to fascism. Dissent is a positive feedback loop. The more people vocally oppose a war, the more likely it is that others will join in. This prevents fascism from taking root and ensures that the state is held accountable for its actions. No one is perfect, not even world leaders, and it is important to remember that and treat them as such. In the end, everyone is responsible for their actions, whether or not they are done in a time of war and whether or not they are just.

The use of large-scale organized violence can occasionally be justified, but it rarely is. Looking at history, most wars are started when one nation/group wants to extend control over another, which is never a justified reason to war. On the other hand, victims trying to fight back against imperial aggressors is usually justified. Therefore, although I find myself subscribing to the intrinsicism model more, the consequentialism model is understandable. I think that killing people is morally wrong, doing it can be justified. We all do things that are wrong, sometimes that’s okay. I think that many countries have surpassed any justification for solving conflict with violence, and I can’t really see a future in which that would happen in the first place. Lots of international organizations like the UN or the European Union will stop conflicts from turning into total wars like World War I. Also, wars which use the consequentialism model as a defense usually involve a struggle for power. Because we have, for the most part, passed the era of settler colonialism and the empire as an idea, I don’t see how the consequentialism model will continue in the future, specifically for large and strong countries like the US, Canada, UK, etc. However, we still see patterns and ramifications of imperialism playing out in areas in the middle east and Africa. Conflict in places like Israel/Palestine or Russia/Ukraine can still be understood in a context of imperialism in history, but understanding the causes for these conflicts is different than excusing the violence with the consequentialism model. Public opinion seems to be shifting more and more towards the idea that violence is always wrong, so in conclusion, I think the consequentialism model still has a place in our world but intrinsicism is realistic for our future.

I agree with McMahan’s idea. If the war in of itself is unjust, the conduct with which you behave in war is not super important- you are committing a moral wrong either way. However, that doesn’t mean that Jus in Bello is useless as an idea; we still need to know what is too evil to allow in war. The principles of Jus in Bello include discrimination and proportionality. These are very important ideas to go into a war with, and they do inform soldiers as to how they should behave. I don’t think the ideas are completely helpful, though, because they raise a lot of questions with their answers. The text even admits this, asking, “On entering the army, the civilian loses the right to not be targeted, yet does it follow that all who bear uniform are legitimate targets, or are some more so than others - those who are presently fighting compared to those who are involved in supplies or administration, for instance?... what is the status of guerrilla fighters who use civilian camouflage in order to press their attacks or to hide?” and many other questions. I also question how the rules of discrimination apply to soldiers who are drafted involuntarily. Many countries still force citizens to join the military, like Korea. Of course, one could argue that there is always a choice, and you could go to jail instead of joining. The Jus in Bello principles are helpful but it’s really difficult to come up with any kind of code that applies to all situations.

For me, the more I try to find answers to these questions in myself, the more I arrive at the conclusion that the intrinsicism model is better than the consequentialism model. I believe that war is always wrong, on the principle that murder is wrong. I don’t think people deserve to die just because they are soldiers in a war. Many soldiers who are in war haven’t agreed to die for the cause, so how can it be justified? How do you draw a line between soldiers and civilians when deciding who it’s okay to kill? Even if soldiers are willing to die to support whatever cause they are fighting for, what about the impact of soldiers’ death on their families and friends? If we as a nation agree to move away from the death penalty, how can we logically also support war? It doesn’t really make sense. Overall, I think that Jus in Bello is helpful to a degree but also leaves us with a lot of questions.

War will always be wrong, as it is often motivated by reasons other than justice, such as religion, money, or nationalism. If war was truly a last resort, there historically would only be a handful of wars. This is especially prevalent in the modern-day, where many countries hold high military prowess and have access to weapons of mass destruction. All other peace-making efforts should be used before a war is ever considered, and there should be a global effort to prioritize peace-making corporations.

Additionally, the interconnectedness of the globe plays an important factor in geo-politcal relations, as countries engaging in conflict can inflict serious harm upon each other by canceling trade deals. The impacts of a halt in imports and exports between countries can affect the citizens of the countries involved, and the citizens of allied countries. This was seen in 2021 and 2022, when the United States imposed sanctions on Russia as a result of their invasion of Ukraine, a diplomatic ally of the U.S.. Following this, gas prices increased dramatically in the United States, however this was a more peaceful and favorable option than violence against Russia. In the age of capitalism and the global economy, economic sanctions with the intention of regaining trust and diplomatic relations should be the alternative to going to war.

The intrinsicism model is more ideal, however that is very rarely considered by global powers and civilians alike. The consequentialism model is what has historically been used, and serves a more commonly accepted purpose. The vast majority of the population is interested in justice before peace. A few components of “jus ad bellum” act as a bridge between the two philosophical ideas, however some of them are insufficient in achieving global diplomacy and peace. Jus Ad Bellum employs the use of the consequentialism model, with an emphasis on justice and fairness. For example, in the case of a land invasion, a “counter-attack must not invoke a disproportionate response” (Encyclopedia of Philosophy). This allows for the country being invaded to not harm the invading country beyond what was done to them. However, this does not account for civilian lives lost on both sides, which should not be equal but as small as possible.

If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, ordinary citizens should refuse to participate in the war effort, unless they are drafted, which can not easily be fought. Every citizen of a free country has the option to resist in some way, whether it is through press, protest, or even simply partaking in boycotts. In the case of a military draft, citizens have fewer options to refuse participation. This was seen especially in the Vietnam War, in which young American men were placed into the military through a lottery system, depending on their birthday. One of the few ways to avoid being drafted was to enroll in college, something widely unavailable to working-class citizens. Additionally, some compliance with war efforts are legally required of citizens, through the form of taxes that fund military operations.

War can sometimes, but rarely, be justified, such as to free an oppressed people from a harsh leader. However, humans, especially leaders of empires and nations, have tended to be war-hungry because they feel like if they win, it’ll give them power, prove that they’re not to be messed with, and immortalize them and their country. This was why the Romans waged war as much as they did, and why Wilhelm II supported World War I. Also, there are many times in history where war could’ve been avoided if a leader wasn’t selfish, and could’ve been solved with a treaty. Despite this, there are times when war is the best course of action. The intrinsicism model is the most hopeful for what humans can achieve, but the consequentialism model is definitely the most realistic. There will always be countries whose values don’t align, and this can sometimes lead to war if the countries have the resources and support. The difference between these two ways of thinking is bridged by Just War Theory and the just reasons for war because they acknowledge that war isn’t a morally good thing, but they realize that sometimes it has to happen, so they provide rules to abide by so war is the least physically and emotionally destructive as possible. In Excerpt 1 of “Just War Theory”, the author argues that even though there are many instances where the rules of Just War Theory aren’t followed, leading to things like guerilla warfare, if both sides agree to follow the rules, it lessens the possibility of a never-ending or unnecessarily long war. If a nation wages war for unjust reasons and citizens, who are most likely intrinsicists, refuse to fight in it, it would hinder the war effort and possibly even stop the war. This would be a good idea in theory because it would prevent lives from being lost and maybe even stop the country from going to war at all, except that in reality, people who refuse to fight in wars will be sent to prison, where they might have to do worse things, or the country might start drafting prisoners. It takes more courage not to fight in a war you believe is morally wrong because one would need to defend their stance against others who think that they’re cowardly. It’s not cowardice to fight in a war one believes is morally wrong because it’s possible to think that a war is wrong but feel pride in fighting, or at least doing something, for your country. In addition, it would be chaos if each citizen fought according to their own moral compass because peoples’ experiences are different, and so their moral compasses are different as well. If someone whose moral compass allows them to be harsher to other people, the war could continue longer than necessary with both sides going back and forth and trying to get the last attack in. There would also be more trauma to all soldiers fighting in the war who might have seen atrocities in the name of protecting the national ego.

I believe that war is justified if the cause is just, but what makes something just should be extremely strict. For example, in the past, some wars were definitely justified because people were fighting for their freedom, like the Haitian Revolution. That was justified because they were fighting for human rights and to not be enslaved, which is living like you are less than human, giving you a reason to fight a war, because there is no other way. I do not think war should ever be justified unless the outcome benefits the majority of the population, and the benefit is something that all humans deserve, like rights. After looking at whether people fit this criteria, then they should use the just war tradition, since these are also complicated to see if they are valid reasons to go into war.

For the present day, I think that the world should use a intrinsicism method for any type of wars. There are still definitely many people in the world now that are oppressed or being exploited in poor situations, but not enough to start a war to solve it. Every conflict currently could be solved without war, even if it is really complicated, and even if war is absolutely necessary, there is no way that innocent people should be killed. It is definitely possible to evacuate or get outside help to keep innocent people safe before fighting, and make conditions to not fight in the middle of innocent lives. Also, the reasons for war do contradict intrinsicism and consequentialist ideas because many of the conditions are very opinionated, so if a leader uses a just cause and says killing innocent lives is just, then it breaks intrinsicism ideas.

And for any war, I believe any citizen should have the option to opt out of any war, especially if they do not think the reason their country is going to war is just. Usually, wars are declared because different leaders are at conflict, and sometimes these conflicts do not affect the average person greatly. For example, in WWI, the German Social Democracy party “held a huge public meeting that ended with cries of Down with war!” There are many cases when people attempted to stop wars and refuse to participate because they thought it was unjust and morally wrong. These wars are waged by leaders and expected to be fought by regular citizens. If these citizens do not want to fight, they should have the option not to. Also because some people's morals and religion reject war completely. Deciding not to fight in a war is more courageous to me than fighting in a war you know is wrong because saying no to fighting, you are rejecting group think and acting on your own thoughts. It is very difficult to openly reject what the majority is thinking, so deciding to not fight in your country’s war is very courageous because of what others may think of you for your decision. Leaders of countries also manipulate citizens to fight in wars, saying it is very courageous, also like Germany in WWI when they released a public statement, discussing how it is completely necessary to do it.

Also fighting in a war you know is wrong is so much worse because you are actually killing people, just because your country’s leader said so. If your country is fighting for unjust reasons, there is no reason to actually fight for it, and even though your leader said so, it does not take away the fact that you took part in killing other lives. There are however consequences to everyone acting on their own moral compass because there will be less people to fight these wars. I honestly think that is a good consequence because if so many people believe that a war is wrong and there are not enough soldiers, then the war should not have been waged in the first place, and it also leads to less casualties in these fights.