learntoquestion ltq discussions

If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, citizens should not support their country despite any patrioticism or nationalism due to the cause being wrong. This also forces their country to stop fighting since they do not have sufficient support from their own civilians. Included in the rules of war, proportional fighting, the country and the people would most benefit if the war is stopped while not much has happened since the country who is being attacked would only be able to fight proportionally to the attack and would only get the lands back which were invaded from them. This would avoid a lot of unnecessary bloodshed from both sides since a country that is attacked would likely have allies and if the war is unjust, many other countries would likely join in and be sided with the opposite side. This means that even if a country fighting for an unjust cause is able to dominate, they would most likely ultimately be taken down and would have to pay reparations to several countries, face harsh sanctions, and deal with a weakened army and economy. There is a lot of difficulty in refusing to fight for the war and it can be near impossible to have the majority of citizens refuse to participate in a war, despite it even being a morally wrong war. The difficulty originates from the sense of fear people have of being punished by their government, this then leads to many people in the society to have the same views and be forced to participate in the war simply to not get in trouble. This then causes a psychological impact similar to what is said in the Mass Society Theory. People start going with the crowd and begin fearing being left out or excluded from everyone else. Furthermore, this causes a person to involuntarily begin accepting and having the same views as the rest of the crowd. All these factors make it very difficult for people to refuse to fight a war which is why there seems to be more courage needed for people to refuse fighting a war than to go and fight it. The consequences of each citizen acting only according to their own moral compass during war can include a division among the people which can be very harmful for the nation as people should be most united during a time of conflict and war. This division could also have a consequence of an unstable government which is not onlky bad internally but also externally as it can be so weak that the country could easily be defeated by other countries, despite fighting for a just or unjust cause. I believe that it is most beneficial for people to all agree as much as possible on whether the act of their government going into war is justifiable or not, and if not, to decide if it is beneficial for the people of the country to go against their government at the specific stage of war they are in, or if the consequences will be harsher to endure and decide the best outcome for the people.

I do not believe that war is always wrong since there are many factors that play into waging war. The idea that war is bad and never to participate in it, is too simple and unrealistic. I also do not believe that war is organized violence because it is humans taking the lives of other humans which goes against the beliefs in which I was raised. I think that the intrinsic model is not necessarily wrong in some situations when you have no right to wage a war, but if you are being wrongfully attacked then you have the right to defend yourself. As for the consequentialist model, I believe that the first attempt to end the war should be peaceful instead of trying to resort to violence, of course, unless violence is the other’s first move. I believe that the consequentialist side is more realistic as it looks at war in the bigger picture instead of the intrinsic model which is more black and white. I do think that the Just War Theory does provide a bridge between the two philosophies but not a strong bridge as it can still be easily manipulated.

If a nation wages war for the wrong reasons, and is not justifiable it will depend on what the citizens of that country think. For example, if the U.N. decides that a war is unjust but that country and those people truly believe that they are in the right, they might not listen to the rest of the world and act out regardless. Now if the citizens of that country do believe that the war their country is waging is wrong then they should be able to refuse to participate, but of course, this can also be seen as treason. This begs the question of why bother becoming a citizen if you are not willing to fight for it. You resemble the elite during wars that only wish to reap the benefits of being a part of a country but not willing to aid it in times of difficulty. I believe that whether you are seen as a coward or courageous person depends on your environment since if you are surrounded by patriotic and nationalistic people they will encourage the enlisting of adults to war, but if you are raised in a less nationalistic environment it will be more courageous to deny enlisting. The consequences of each citizen acting according to their own moral compass leads to the collapse of a country/nation because they are no longer unified.

In a way, I agree with McMahan’s idea that it is still morally wrong to participate in an unjust war no matter what, but it is not wrong to still hold oneself to a higher standard and act accordingly. Maybe at least then it can prevent a war from going from bad to worse and prevent more war crimes. I do think that a soldier can act morally and honorably during an unjust war because their enlistment may not have been by choice, so therefore they may not see the need to take extreme measures to ensure victory.

I don’t think war is always wrong and therefore don’t believe in the intrinsicism model. It doesn’t take into account the small nuances and reasons behind war. If all war is bad does that mean that a country shouldn’t fight against oppressive powers? By the intrinsicism model they shouldn’t, and I don’t think that’s fair to the smaller power. At the same time however, I don’t think that all wars are just. That’s where consequentialism comes in, where basically a war is just if the ends justify the means. I prefer this model because it isn’t black and white and provides more leeway for the countries participating in the war. Using my earlier example, a consequentialist wouldn’t automatically condemn a country fighting for their rights or fighting against oppressors, instead they’d consider why their fighting and take that into consideration along with how they are fighting. Just War Theory does act as a bridge between the two and I think it works well enough. It isn’t a perfect system, but it gives space for the opinions of both sides to be acknowledged. The convention of war being a last resort satisfy instrinsicists who don’t support war no matter what. At least given this they can feel better about the war seeing that it was the best course of action in the situation. Having a just cause is another factor that I think is geared towards intrinsicists because it serves as a justification for the war. Even if someone may not support war, they can understand the reasoning and see it as less wrong. The conventions of the chance of success and declaration by a valid authority exist to appeal to consequentialists, giving them the structure they seek to gauge and justify a war.

I think it would be nice to believe that people would refuse to fight in bad wars, but we all know that isn’t the case. There are so many other factors including societal pressures, ignorance, and government pressure. Most people wouldn’t be able to stand out in a group like that, even if they didn’t believe in what they were fighting for. It definitely takes more courage to choose to not fight in a war you don’t believe in than to fight for one you don’t. It’s especially hard for men because their masculinity is put into question if they don’t want to go to war. Many of the political comics we looked at in class showed that conscientious objectors were viewed as less than and looked down on by other men. This is another reason why it’s more courageous to be a conscientious objector. The people who fight against wars always face social and political consequences. Their social image is hurt and it could cost them financially like in the case of Muhummad Ali. This isn’t to say that soldiers fighting in war don’t face their own battles, they often come back traumatized and could end up hurt or disabled. Many don’t even make it home at all. Both paths bring their own consequences, but at least veterans are somewhat respected in society and don’t face the social scrutiny that objectors do. Despite everything I’ve said above, if everyone prioritized their personal beliefs, nothing would get done within a country. If a nation is in a position of peril and needs to go to war, the government can’t listen to the opinions of every citizen, they need to prioritize the nation as a whole. It’s important that very few people are allowed to be conscientious objectors because in the end, countries need soldiers for war. They can’t defend themselves if no one is there to fight, willing or not.

Although starting a war is almost always morally wrong due to its aggressive nature, there are ways in which it can be justified. For example, wars of self-defense are almost universally accepted as justified. But despite the reason for going to war, large scale and organized violence resulting in the destruction of civilian life cannot be justified due to its negligence towards the value of human life. In a perfect world, wars wouldn’t be needed and countries could trust that the other would hold up just war theory and respect the parameters of war crimes. However, since humans are bound to act in their own self-interests, this isn't realistic and unfortunately, wars do happen and just war theory is not upheld. Due to this arguments based on people's individual morality can be made for both the intrinsicism model and the consequentialism model. I think that for the most part, the intrinsicism model should be followed as closely as possible for each country to maintain its integrity. However, a major flaw of the intrinsicism model is the lack of creativity it allows for, it follows a much more black and white path where what's wrong is wrong with no exceptions. In the context of a war, this can prove to be incredibly troublesome as we don't live in a perfect world and the enemy either needs to be destroyed or will destroy us. This leads the intrinsicism model to be somewhat hypocritical, if one follows it and doesn't win the war at the expense of innocents, they are likely to be defeated using the very tactics they avoided.

This would lead most to see that a consequentialist model is more realistic than an intrinsicism model in the modern world. However, the consequentialist model has a fatal flaw of not recognizing civilians as outsiders of the war. A war is not fought between civilians of states, but rather their militaries, and to kill someone as a contingency is not only inhumane, but barbaric and illegal, and as Socrates said “without rules, we are nothing but animals.” To be inhumane and animals is the complete opposite of modern so the idea of consequentialism being realistic for the modern world is quite contradictory.

For the modern world, the intrinsicism model can be followed if the laws against war crimes become stricter and are upheld more consistently, without the superpowers of the world receiving preferential treatment as they do in many cases of war crimes. In excerpt 1: Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, this idea is elaborated on where “despite the emphasis on abiding by war’s conventions, war crimes continue.” For an international network of states to work together, everyone has to be held to an equal standard, and if and only if that is achieved, then the intrinsicism model can work in favor of everyone. So contrary to the common idea that the intrinsicism model is unrealistic in a modern society, I think the intrinsicism model is incredibly realistic and would be effective if society was truly as modern as we think it is.

Large-scale organized violence can sometimes be justified, but only under very specific conditions. For this reason, I agree more with the consequentialism model, because through the intrinsicism model, one disregards reasons for war that actually make sense and can benefit people overall. Just War Theory provides permissible reasons for war, which contains some ideas from the intrinsicism model - that war and violence is generally wrong - but mostly ideas from the consequentialism model, which states that there are cases in which war can be used for good. Some examples where war is used for good are some revolutions, where the oppressive group refuses to listen to the reasoning of the rebellion group and continues to oppress them. In this case, once peace has been tried but not successful, violence can be used as a way to bring good change to society. The problem with this is that one person’s heroic rebel group is another person’s terrorist group, so any organization could use this exception as an excuse and say that violence is necessary, when many people could strongly disagree. Other justifications for war are when it is necessary to protect the people of a country - an example is that it was okay for Ukraine to go to war against Russia because they needed to protect their country after getting invaded. A problem with this is “preemptive strikes”, where a country attacks one group first in order to prevent violence from being inflicted onto them. Any country that begins a war could claim to be using this justification. If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, it is the citizens’ responsibility to refuse to participate. If everyday citizens fail to act, it has the potential to lead to things like the Holocaust, where millions of people died due to the inactions of everyday people. The decision to not serve one’s country is a difficult decision to make for many people because of the desire to act upon the belief that their country is superior. I believe that it is not only cowardice, but morally wrong and unethical to fight in a war that one believes is unjust. If one believes it is unjust, they know that the pain and suffering that they are inflicting on others is completely unnecessary, and they are choosing to inflict this pain for possibly selfish reasons, such as desire for glory in war. On the other hand, it is very difficult to not partake in nationalist actions, especially when one is surrounded by extreme nationalism in their everyday lives. This extreme nationalism can cause changes in a country's politics, shown by the quote in the Facing History article: “ “I recognize no parties; only Germany.” This quote shows the extreme beliefs of many Germans in the early-mid 1900s. It definitely takes courage to not fight in defense of one’s nation, and it is very important to take actions such as these because it is always a good thing to stay true to oneself and not partake in the actions of the majority of people if one doesn’t believe it is right. However, if a citizen only acts according to their own moral compass when a nation is at war, it can be difficult for that country to win because soldiers would likely be disobeying orders. If soldiers act according to their own moral compasses at all times, it could put the country at risk for committing war crimes because the soldiers would likely disobey commands and possibly commit actions that go against international law.

War is not wrong. War becomes an necessity countries use in order to balance out the world from further conflict. I saw an connection to Christianity, where in the same way the Bible depicts Satan to be a necessary evil, that although he is bad and causes mankind to commit every kind of crime and sin, God allows it because it’s to balance out the good. It allows this freedom of choice, even if the choice (in this case being war) may not necessarily be a friendly option. For God also had authorized his followers to start wars with “enemy nations”, those who were seen as overall bad people because they were not following God’s laws and commandments. I believe that if there was never war – while countries are stealing, accusing, and ridiculing each other, then there would never be peace. To me, there has to be some form of solution in order to result in an end of a feud for both sides. Therefore, the consequentialist point of view is more realistic, because they are taking account of the wrongs that will be righted once the war is over. The intrinsicist’s point of view is the ideal, however, it’s too optimistic for a world that is known to be filled with violence and spiteful people. Just War Theory becomes an bridge between the two philosophical ideas because it considers both ideals: “The just war theory may also consider the thoughts of various philosophers and lawyers [...] and examine both of their philosophical visions of war’s ethical limits (or absence of)” (Excerpt 1) It’s a blend of all ideas, however, the Just War Theory is blurry because of how vague some of the terms can be, causing a lot of debate on who is ‘innocent’ versus ‘guilty’ and who is ‘fighting’. It’s impossible to draw the line between them when we are so complex, and there are too many exceptions and factors that makes it difficult to distinguish between each other.

If a nation wages war for reasons that seem to be unfair, citizens should have the right to refuse in joining the war effort. Of course, the government would likely hold them accountable if this was the case, as we can see in past wars where soldiers did not want to fight and they had been punished for it. I believe that it could considerably take more courage to opt out of war then participate, because of the idea of Mass Society Theory, where people will turn against you for being one to rebel against the government and social norm. However, I also believe that fighting in the war also takes a lot of courage because of the fact that you are risking your own life. You become an immediate target to the enemy, that “those who voluntarily enter the boxing ring renounce their right not to be hit”. (Excerpt 2)

If each citizen acts accordingly to their own morale, everything would erupt and turn into shambles, causing mass hysteria. In the same way where the Social conformity theory shares that if the world did not conform and abide by the rules of life and society, then everything would be in flames, since conformity is the reason why most people behave themselves. Another consequence of everyone behaving on their own moral compass is that many people would most likely become jailed, or outcasted through the government, or higher authorities. This is because of the idea that higher authorities are more likely to take over, and that those who look up to them will follow their rules, even if it may have been against their moral compass in the first place. The excerpt states a similar idea, how those who may have been initially opposed to the war would suddenly feel that it is important to participate the war only a few days after because of a leader on television or in a rally telling them to. There is an shift of perspective from the belief of intrinsicism to belief of consequentialism, because when they realize that there is legitimacy to a war, their morals shift to more rationality and the idea of preventing further loss of citizens.

Citizens refusing to participate in war that is waged for unjust reasons should not face brutal persecution or sentencing. I do not think they should refuse to participate in a war that only they can fight to defend their country. However, refusing to participate can come from an individual's perspective of political power and where their identity and morality meet. Consequentialists will consider the facts, the outcome of collective action, and who will or will not face the aftermath of war. Intrinsicists have a more black and white outlook on warfare. Actions are either good or bad, and without ignoring all the bad qualities of intently "good" plays in battle, their ideas are inflexible.

It takes more courage not to fight in defense of your nation because standing outside of the group, standing apart from your country, and almost relinquishing your identification with it. Mass Society Theory tells us that people will choose to follow through in actions or represent themselves contradictingly in the face of others in order to protect themselves in fear of persecution. Not fighting can translate to religious beliefs and theologies like Jehovah's Witness, protected communities like Quakers, and inability to fight, meaning physical disability and responsibility to family.

Fighting in a war that you believe is morally wrong may not be so cowardice as it is a defense for yourself and your country. Who else will fight this war? Does refusing to participate in war mean your country will crumble? Fighting in a war you believe is morally wrong is equally as brave as it is to refuse to participate in war. It's difficult to separate the acts of soldiers in war from their orders by their higher ups. According to The Principles of Jus In Bello, "... the acts of bravery that attract our attention involve soldiers standing up to do the 'right thing' against either the prevailing momentum of the platoon or the orders from higher up; the realist rejects such acts as infrequent or unnecessary performances that do not alter the main characteristic of war and its innate brutality…", which means that the realist rejects this as adequate rejection of warfare.

If each citizen acts only according to his own moral compass, the divide in the country worsens and weakens the nation. Rule and order organize a nation in order to keep it standing. The consequences of a split people cause internal conflicts, sub-groups, no order for peace, and virtually little to no opportunity to lead the country into war, or away from war.

I believe that organized violence is sometimes justifiable. Humans in general, are individualistic, while we thrive when we are together, and in groups, as animals we are solely looking to survive. Moreover, because we have complex brains, and ways of thinking, emotions like regret, anger, loneliness, fear, etc, become prominent in our actions. As much as I wish it were true, I do not think that all problems, on the global scale, can or should have been solved, with conversation or written agreements. The intrinsicism model, which states that war is morally wrong, is the outlook I think most people want to have. We want to agree that war is wrong, and that there should never be murder or violence. But the consequentialism model, which states that war is not morally wrong if the outcome is just, is and has been the more realistic one. To look at and analyze war through today’s eyes, means that we can not ignore the world’s history. If we ignore the world’s history, then it is easy to say that war is not justifiable, that it is always wrong, and that there should never ever be violence. But none of us, at least in America, could have gotten to this very converstion without there having been war. Whether it be the revolutionary war, the civil war, or wars outside the country, we are all products of violent crimes. In this outlook, I think that the Just War Theory can act as a bridge between intrinsicism and consequentialism. Permissible reasons for war, like having just cause, being a last resort, or being declared by a proper authority, are all ways to shape war into a box. They allow for a clear way to look at and anaylize war. While the different principles are helpful, it is important to note that they can not always apply. Excerpt 1: Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum (Encyclopedia of Philosophy), explains this by saying: “But when enemies differ greatly because of different religious beliefs, race, or language, as such they see each other as ‘less than human’, war conventions are rarely applied”. In this way, I do think that each war is vastly different from the last, and while Just War Theory principles aid in the catogorizations of violence, they can not always be counted on.

Furthermore, I think the questions often arised from this discussion: “If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, should citizens refuse to participate in the war effort?” and “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?” are not easily answered. Each person may have thier own expiernce or values that differ their opinions about such a controversial topic. As we found earlier, we live in an obedient society. We are taught to obey, or at least listen to, those who hold authority above us. Whether it be a parent, teacher, boss, president, or judicial law, we know when we need to do what we are told too. If every citizen acted according to their own morals, would there even be grounding morals? That very concept opens up discussion of what makes morals, morals? I think that if people did whatever they felt was right, there would be no unity, no cohesion, and things would not get done. At times, there needs to be a right and wrong way to do things, and a freeflowing society, in my opinion, is weak. I do, however, believe that there should not be societal consequences for doing what we are told. Even when instucted to serve in a war, you don’t morally believe is right, I think soldiers can still act honorable. All this to say, Just War Theory does not seem to me as a clearer way to look at war, but an even more complex analysis, that opens more opinions.

While it may not always be ideal, large-scale organized violence can be necessary sometimes. In situations where one country attacks another country first, a response is required. If a country responds to the attack of another country in an attempt to stop them from attacking again, their cause is just because their goal is to protect their people and ensure the smallest number of deaths possible within their country. This can sometimes lead to war, because every time a country is attacked, they will feel a need to retaliate, which could end with a never-ending cycle until someone surrenders or someone wins. However, it is not morally wrong for a country to enter war if their purpose is to protect their people.

I believe the consequentialist model for war is more realistic for the modern world. While the intrinsicism model is a way of thinking that most people would like to believe they align with, I believe that it involves too many hypothetical situations that not everyone would be able to consider in the heat of battle. As it states in "Excerpt 1: Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum (Encyclopedia of Philosophy)", the intrinsicism method is too restrictive to the point where it allows for no flexibility in war. Also, I think it can cause more harm than good. The hospital example that we discussed in class is a prime example of this. To someone who believes in the intrinsicism model, bombing a hospital that contained the enemy’s weapons would be wrong no matter what. However, to someone who believes that the consequentialist model, bombing the hospital would be worth it if it would destroy the enemy’s weapons and therefore prevent more deaths in the long run. The intrinsicism model, on the other hand, can lead to more deaths than are necessary. While certain aspects of war are not ideal and can be hard to deal with, it is important to look at the bigger picture.

While most people probably do not necessarily like the idea of war, it is a reality of the modern world. Therefore, I believe the consequentialist method is the most ethical way to approach war. If war is a necessary part of life, the best way to handle it is by ensuring that the smallest number of deaths possible result.

However, it is true that each person is entitled to their own opinion. If someone is morally opposed to war, they should not be required to fight in the war. Additionally, citizens should feel free to protest against war if they feel that their country is entering for unjust reasons, because a country being at war affects all of its citizens.

This presents issues within itself, though. If each person acted based on their own moral compass in a war, no one would ever be able to come to a mutual decision on what to do. It is not realistic for a nation to have to endure the consequences of such disagreements because there would never be successful wars. There is no way for every single citizen in a country to agree on their morals, because each person brings a different lived experience and perspective to a situation.

I don’t necessarily believe that the concept of war is wrong, as long as it is initiated for the right reasons. Some examples of war I see as justifiable causes are self-defense and revolutions. For these two circumstances, according to the Just War Theory, this reasoning would be legitimized. They would both be just causes, possessing the right intention and likely their last resort. I don’t completely agree with the Intricisism or the Conceptualism model, but I can see how Conceptualism would make more sense in older times. Nowadays, I believe it is a lot more difficult to get away with waging war, as we have many more resources, therefore, in my opinion, the Intricism model would apply to the modern day.

If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, citizens should refuse to partake in it. If they choose to become a part of the war, without trying other resources to end it first, they essentially are on a mission to kill the other side’s troops to win their battles. According to the Just War Theory, this isn’t right. Unless they are acting in self-defense to decide whether or not to join, I don’t think attributing to the violence makes sense. I think it is much more courageous to refuse to fight in a war one thinks is morally wrong as opposed to fighting out of cowardice. Realistically, unless, of course, there are harsh consequences, like death, that come with refusal, only weak-minded people would blindly follow others into war, rather than standing for their own beliefs. However, knowing these harsh consequences come with resisting joining the war and refusing regardless shows just how brave and strong that person is. While, of course, there are cons that come with doing so, there are benefits to resisting, like lack of dissonance. Those who fight in wars they don’t believe in definitely struggle with their integrity and try to decrease their dissonance by convincing themselves their brutality is justified. For example, Encyclopedia’s “Just War Theory” states “when enemies differ greatly because of different religious beliefs, race, or language, and as such they see each other as ‘less than human’, war conventions are rarely applied”. These new thoughts that are produced as means to reduce dissonance are directly linked to situations where there is more ruthlessness applied because of the enemy being seen as “less than”. To give an off-topic instance of this occurring, African captives were considered cargo and merely profitable items, rather than human beings. This dehumanizing title justified slave traders to treat them the way they did. The consequences, though, that come with citizens acting only according to their moral compass when a nation is at war is complete and utter chaos. Unity is forgotten and every citizen develops this general mindset of individualism. Simultaneously, despite having differing opinions, a nation is always unified by its nationality, and will always share something in common with each other because of that. If the nation cannot reach a consensus, I think it is realistic to say it will erupt with chaos, as war can arise from disagreements.

In my opinion, war is always wrong unless it is waged in self-defense. Not only the costs of war but also destruction of people’s homes, loss of life, and long-term harm caused by war make it a horrible course of action unless it is the only way to protect a country from direct aggression. While Just War Theory offers a rubric to determine when war might be justifiable, I believe it should be interpreted through a strict lens. I do not think any cause for war beyond self-defense, whether for political, economic, or ideological reasons, can be morally justified. Wars fought for conquest or intervention, even when they claim to be for a "greater good," often lead to unnecessary suffering, and I think it’s dangerous to rely on consequentialist thinking in such matters. It opens the door to using violence as a tool to achieve certain outcomes, which changes the moral justification away from the real and necessary protection of life. For me, the principle of jus ad bellum should be rooted solely in defense against aggression. I think that if every nation strictly adhered to self-defense as the only valid cause for war, we would avoid most of the unnecessary conflicts that have plagued history. The quote in Excerpt 1 says “Self-defense against physical aggression, therefore, is putatively the only sufficient reason for just cause,” and that aligns with my belief that wars initiated for purposes other than defense is abuse and manipulation, causing more harm than good. Even when wars are claimed to be humanitarian or to bring about peace, I believe the ends do not justify the means, as violence turns into more violence the majority of the time, leaving long lasting effects on societies. Self-defense, on the other hand, is a basic right and, in my opinion, the only reason a nation or individual can resort to war. I think it’s also a question of integrity if we begin to justify wars that go beyond defense, we risk normalizing violence as a means to achieve goals, which makes it easier to toward justify imperialism and exploitation. Moreover, I resonate with Jeff McMahan’s argument that soldiers should not be reassured that they are acting permissibly when fighting in an unjust war, even if they conduct themselves honorably on the battlefield. Soldiers and citizens alike have a moral responsibility to question the justice of the wars they participate in. I believe that if the cause is not one of self-defense, then participating in the violence still makes one complicit in an unjust cause even given Jus in Bello. In the end, my view on war is grounded in the belief that peace and non-violence should always be the primary goal, and war should only be considered when all other options have failed, and survival is at stake. I see the Just War Theory as a useful guide, but one that should be interpreted in a way that maintains the dignity of human life and resorts to violence in the most extreme cases, which should only be in a case of self defense