learntoquestion ltq discussions

In the article “Between Peace and War” the writers highlight how nationalism bound people differentiated by ethnicity, class and political party. In an excerpt from the German Social Democratic Party after the declaration of war on Russia in 1914, they declare, “Now we must face the inexorable fact of war. The horror of hostile invasion threatens us…to erase their [the endaraged or injured by war] inestimable suffering–we consider this our urgent duty,”(page 1). Thus the people, who were against war, turned into supporters of what was in their opinion, a just war. However, many of these people would end up dying and killing in what was relatively pointless conflict.

The first excerpt from Encyclopedia of Philosophy deals with Jus ad Bellum, the rules outlying what allows a war to be permissible. The generally agreed upon principles are that war: is a last resort, has a just cause, is declared by an authority, has a reasonable chance of succeeding, is only carried with good intent, and that parties use means proportional to what would be gained. States convinced the populace that they were following these yet to be enshrined principles. As said in class, most nations in WWI believed that the war would be quick, decisive and not excessively damaging.This is just one example of how soldiers are reassured of their conduct.

The second excerpt begs the question of what it means to be a target and what counts as a proportional target. It thus introduces “consequentialists” – those who believe that if an immoral action has a long lasting benefit it can be justified– and “intrinsicist”– who believe that an immoral action is simply wrong. Militaries often employ consequentialist policies such as destroying roads, power networks, the internet, or buildings housing arms despite civilian death because of the fact that the action would shorten long term suffering. In some cases soldiers might be forced into such actions but I believe that people try or should try to avoid such actions unless it is necessary.

As with anything, war and ethics in war are extremely complicated to evaluate. Although it is almost always in the best interests of the world to fight and prevent war, there may be a few special cases and exceptions in which war may be justified and even necessary. Although I would like to agree with the intrinsicism model, because in a perfect world war is always wrong, the real world forces us to challenge that notion. Therefore, I consider myself more of a consequentialist, and certainly believe it is the most realistic for our current world.

An example that comes to mind is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The Ukrainians were being threatened with death, as well as the loss of their homeland, culture, and natural resources. As a matter of self defense, they were almost required to fight back against the Russians, since they had no other alternative. The model of intrinsicism would suggest that the Ukrainians must not fight back because war is wrong, and they would see their country destroyed. However, the Ukrainians made a brave and unified decision, because they decided to protect their country even though they knew it would be a great risk not only to them but their families as well. As we know, war also has many moral and ethical conflicts entangled within it– after all, humans kill other humans in war. Many everyday Ukrainians had to grapple with the tough decision to fight even though they knew that killing someone may be something they had to do.

Considering this example and the fact that more is almost always morally wrong, I believe the just war theory constitutes a fair and just bridge between the consequentialist model and the intrinsicism model. After all, war should only be waged in very special circumstances. There was no reason for Russia to wage war on Ukraine other than greed and their self-conceived ideological superiority. Thus, following the just war theory, they would not wage war, since it did not fit all six categories that declare a war “just”.

The just war theory states that proportionality is necessary in war. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy states, “Proportionality for Jus in Bello involves tempering the extent and violence of warfare to minimize destruction and casualties”. To me, this point is extremely important since in war, moderation and proportionality are interesting and were only briefly mentioned in the Jus In Bello excerpts. For example, no matter how just the cause, it is never reasonable to bomb an entire city with the intent of killing every single civilian there; it would be more appropriate to bomb, say, an arms factory used for creating nuclear weapons which were destroying your towns. In order to de-escalate conflicts, and not re-escalate them, proportionality is the most important factor.

Jumping to conscientious objectors–to me, conscientious objectors are some of the most brave people. Although it seems like the easy way out, the societal shaming and punishment brought about from being a conscientious objector are (often) typically worse than the dangers and risks faced going out to war. Being a conscientious objector doesn’t arise from a fear of going to war– the word “conscientious” proves that it is a conscious and thorough decision to not fight, and that they have thought out the consequences of war. I have even more respect for those who refuse to fight for an unjust cause–for example, Russians not willing to do Putin’s bidding. I believe those people are doing the right thing, whereas I believe that people who choose not to fight for a just cause may be doing the right thing for them, but not objectively the right thing.

In the modern day large scale organized violence has allowed humans to become detached from the destructive acts that they commit on society. In the past war was much more personal, often requiring physical contact with the opponent in order to kill the enemy. However industrial society has taken warfare to another lever with mechanization causing distance between the two warring parties. While many people would like to believe that they always embody the better angels of our nature and intrinsicism values, most of the time, as a result of modern society and large scale warfare, we are required to embrace our consequentialist selves too. The Just War Theory and jus ad bellum aim to combine these two models of thinking. For example, one criteria for a “just war” is good intentions. In the excerpt from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Just War Theory, it is explained that good intentions can result as a desire to maintain peace for both parties involved, reflecting intrinsicism, however “such a war may justly be deemed too expensive or too difficult to wage; i.e., it is not ultimately in their self-interest to fight the just war,” reflecting the utilitarian nature of consequentialist values that also shape the just war theory.

While it is important to consider the will of the people in making greatly impactful decisions such as initiating, provoking, or joining a war it is also important to recognize that if all citizens decide to abide by their personal moral compass the effects of war would be amplified. If a large number of citizens do not support the war effort of their country, this could not only lead to civil unrest within the state but also a prolonged war as leaders would not have the support emotionally or physically from their own people. I believe that it is courageous to not fight in defense of your nation because you still have the opportunity to be patriotic as your morals do not necessarily have to align with the actions of the leader of a state. It is also courageous in the sense that you are rejecting conformity and going against what is most likely the majority that supports the war with the risk of losing your livelihood and your future. On that topic it is not however cowardice for someone to fight in a war that they believe is morally wrong because they are often faced with the difficult consequences, as mentioned above, of going against leadership.

I do believe that despite the fact that a soldier might participate in a war that they believe is morally wrong or unjustifiably by the standards of the Just War Theory they can still conduct themselves honorably on the battlefield. This can be done by following rules of war as outlined in jus in bello and in other places, namely the Geneva conventions. Jus in bello and the Geneva conventions assist soldiers to act morally by creating explicit guidelines for war which make the line that distinguishes morality of war a bit less blurry. By setting specific rules such as the protection of civilians or prohibition of attacks on organizations such as the red cross soldiers can have some reassurance that they are not acting in a way that is completely unjustifiable by any standard. Keeping this in mind it is also important to note that these rules do not completely prevent war crimes from happening but they do decrease their amount.

When a nation wages war for any reason, its citizens are ultimately faced with the decision to either participate or not participate in war efforts. From campaigning for funds or fighting on the ground in a military unit, one’s reasoning to not participate might range from something as simple as not wanting to risk your life for a cause you’re not a hundred percent passionate about or completely behind or to a more complex and personal decision where one must decide if they can live with their participation in their country’s unjust war efforts when those efforts greatly contradict every religious or moral belief that they hold to be true.

Regardless of one’s reasoning, it takes courage to stand firm in what you believe in and to not succumb to societal and political pressures that tell you to just fight for a cause because it’s one your nation or government supports. Therefore, I believe it's more cowardice to fight for something you don’t believe in in the name of patriotism or nationalism alone and much more courageous to make the active choice to not fight a war when you believe that the reasons and outcomes of said war are unjust.

However, obviously other people have different perspectives and opinions on the courageousness of this stance, like one anonymous British man who criticized conscientious objectors as “an extreme individualist with little sense of the solidarity of mankind.” And while I understand where he is coming from, I personally believe that solidarity in mankind and community with others is sometimes strengthened by an opposition to war. Whether a war is classified as just or unjust, at the end of the day, war ultimately serves as a factor that divides people into “us” versus “them.” This division makes it easier for us to overlook the connection and solidarity that we all have with one another as human beings first and foremost and not just members of an ethnic group or nation. Furthermore, one’s solidarity of mankind can easily accompany one’s opposition to fight in a war because in doing so, you recognize the humanity in every person a part of a war effort, not just the people who are considered to be on your “side.”

While already a courageous act, it takes even more bravery to refuse to participate in a war effort or fight in a war when they’re laws and restrictions in place that prohibit you from doing just that. For example, in many countries serving in some type of draft is an expectation of all males of a certain age and ability with some countries even requiring mandatory military service for all able citizens of their nation, refusal to enter the draft or serve a military sentence in these countries come with a number of consequences that can range from fines to prison.

There is no denying that war as a whole is a complex and convoluted topic, with the justification of war being even more so. Thus, over the years, both the intrinsicist model and the consequalist model have come to light, falling on completely opposite ends of the spectrum. While intrinisicts believe that war and the acts that come with it are altogether morally wrong regardless of the outcome, consequentialists believe that war can be justified if it will prove to be beneficial. Though both are equally valid perspectives on the justification of war, they are both “either vague or restrictive when it comes to war,” as described by the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. For intrinsicists, does a nation not have a right to defend itself? Must it accept defeat even if war could absolutely help them? For consequentialists, who decides what is a morally just or unjust reason to go to war? What if the moral views of two opposing countries greatly contrast one another? How are “good outcomes” measured? I think that in our society, consequentialism is a much more realistic outlook, as war is simply too nuanced to reduce it to “right vs. wrong.” Even though many would want to agree with the intrinsicism model, it is rather too optimistic, as many people wouldn’t act according to their moral compass in times of war. Even if they did, war may still be inevitable as every person has a unique set of moral beliefs that shape how they would justify certain actions. What I may view as reprehensible could be perfectly just in someone else’s eyes. Additionally, while I do believe that humans are not naturally violent, I also think that we are certainly inherently drawn to violence. War, particularly for the protection of one’s people, is a reoccurring event all throughout history. While many people truly want to fight and serve for their country, many conform to societal pressures and participate despite their own values. I find it more courageous to not fight in defense for your nation due to your moral values, as it is difficult to not conform to the norm. Those who are “outliers” among a group of people are often ostracized and deemed less patriotic. In the images shown during class, it’s clear that conscientious objectors were painted as lazy and unmanly as they chose not to engage in war, even sometimes thrown in jail because of this choice. Their adamant rejection of the status quo isn’t an easy thing - it’s far easier to conform than willingly choose to be the “other”. On the other hand, I don’t think that it’s exactly cowardice to fight in a war that is morally wrong or unjust because of the desire to confirm. Humans inherently want to feel as if they are a part of a group - we naturally form “us vs. them” distinctions. For this reason, it’s easy to share a sense of common hatred with others against an enemy and use war as the way to do that. Engagement in wars seems to be largely tied to social psychology theories and human behavior, which only adds to the complexity of this topic. It’s hard to provide a definitive answer on what is exactly just or unjust since our perspectives vary so greatly from person to person and there are a wide array of factors that may contribute.

The question “is war morally wrong” is one with a simple answer, but at the same time impossibly complex implications in real life. If you were to ask the question “are acts of war morally wrong?” or “is violence morally wrong?” people would likely say yes, that cruelty and violence against other people, especially those who have been thrown into a conflict that they never wanted, is always wrong. However, in the real world, whether from our deeply human draw to violence, or the more recent human obsession with nationalism and a mass group identity, war seems unavoidable. There has never in human history been a time of absolute peace between people. As social beings, we are hard-wired to seek out and depend on groups of people, effectively making other groups appear as threats to our chosen herd. One massive shift that we have experienced throughout history, however, is the exponential growth of human populations, and with it the increase in intellectual discovery and weapons of mass destruction that were once unheard of. Sure, fighting a neighboring hunter-gatherer society over resources or land may seem justified, but dropping bombs on mass groups of civilians who were just unlucky enough to be placed in the wrong place at the wrong time? If killing one person is widely considered wrong, how can scaling up the casualties by thousands suddenly make the act morally just? And yet, regardless of morality, there is still no simple answer for whether any war can be considered justified. War is dynamic, and each conflict so impossibly unique, that even asking about the morality of “war” feels ignorant. Morality itself can also be constantly shaped and contradicted, as is pointed out in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, in which, when discussing the values of ‘Just War Theory’, the author writes “...the lack of a strict ethical framework means that the principles themselves are open to broad interpretations” (Excerpt 1). Is it even possible to set global guidelines for ethics if the rules themselves are written by people just as humanly complex and biased as anyone else? In this sense, even if war is waged for a good reason, it is ultimately the result of the shortcomings of leadership or flaws in systems that have been set by those in power. Humans have never not been making mistakes. So, the real question of the morality of war ends up being about blame. Whose responsibility is it to deal with the mistakes of our world leaders? Say you find a rare war with all the principles of Just War Theory; “Having a just cause, being a last resort, being declared by the proper authority, possessing the right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used” (Excerpt 1), it still resulted from the unhappiness of some group of people. Thus, war in itself is ultimately unjust, but can in theory be fought for a just reason.

I believe that if someone’s country does anything that doesn’t align with their personal morals and beliefs, they’re not obligated to support it. Just as one of the videos we watched said, these mass atrocities and killings cannot happen without popular support. It’s also my understanding that in Jus Ad Bellum, not having a just reason to go to war overturns any other qualifications a country might have, such as hugh probability of winning, etc.

With that being said, I believe that it takes an extreme amount of courage to stand against your own nation and choose not to fight. In majority of cases I’ve seen or learned about, the vast majority of citizens willingly go to war behind their country, but it’s easier to run into war surrounded by other people than it is to stand seemingly alone against everyone around you. This ties into what we learned in Unit 1, regarding theories such as mob mentality, or the obedience theory. It’s apart of human nature to want to be in the “in” group, therefore overcoming that desire and being comfortable with standing alone in the “out” group takes more than anything it takes the be apart of that “in” group.

The passage, Jus In Bello, leaves a lot of responsibility for any actions of war committed on the soldiers themselves. It almost seems like it’s up to the soldiers to differentiate who’s a valid target and who’s not, but that isn’t the way it should be. When going into war, countries should have outlined battle plans instead of just throwing a soldier into war to decide who to kill and who to spare. While it might seem obvious to not kill civilians, when you’re thrown into a war without detailed or strict instructions, that may be harder to do. Ultimately, while soldiers are essentially human weapons of war, a lot of the times they’re following certain orders or guidelines from authority, which can be valid to a certain extent.

Despite having to follow orders, soldiers still hold some responsibility for their actions in war, especially when those actions go against their own morals. It’s hard to disobey such a powerful authority such as one’s own government, but as we saw in the Milgram experiments, it’s possible to go against orders if those orders are not something that’s agreed upon. Truthfully, it’s more courageous to not engage in unjust violence during war than it is to blindly follow someone’s orders and commit violent acts that the soldier themself doesn’t even agree with.

Overall, the ability to stand behind one’s own moral compass and beliefs is more admirable then blindly accepting orders or blindly following them. As seen in the reading we’ve completed, many countries go to war for unjust reasons, creating unnecessary and extreme violence. Besides courage, it takes a person with a strong sense of self to stray away from mob mentality, and extreme displays of nationalism during times of war. Just War Theory tends to avoid that entire situation, making war more of a last resort, and nullifying it to avoid extreme cases such as genocides, etc.

The question of whether citizens should refuse to participate in the war if their nation wages war for unjust reasons is extremely complex. I don't believe that there is one right answer to this question, as every situation is different. While on one hand, the decision to participate is personal and reflects individual values, it also has lasting effects on the moral implications of a community as a whole. One argument can be made that it takes more courage to fight in defense of your nation than to stand up for what you believe, but I lean more towards the argument that it takes more courage to refuse to fight for a war that you believe is morally wrong. The consequence of fighting for an unjust war is shame and possibly death, and if death is the case then you do not have to endure the feelings of shame. If one chooses to not fight, they might face judgment, threats, and shame from fellow citizens as well as physical threats from their own government. By fighting in an unjust war, one is able to avoid judgment from others and is able to feel like they are part of a group.

While this position has truth to it, it can also be dangerous if each citizen acts only according to his own moral compass when a nation is at war. During times of war, nations rely on a coordinated and unified effort which is not possible if everyone is acting according to their own moral compass. If soldiers, citizens, and workers began to opt out of war, a country’s ability to defend itself could be weakened significantly. This lack of cohesion could leave the nation extremely vulnerable because of their inability to come together and defend themselves. On the other hand, if citizens are blindly following their leaders or popular movements, a different type of danger could come about. Without multiple perspectives and outlooks on such heavy topics like war, a nation could become susceptible to the whims of a singular powerful leader. When citizens do not critically engage with the moral implications of war, an environment can be created where ethical considerations are overlooked.

The result of this could be groupthink, where the desire for harmony results in irrational decision making. Groupthink is often associated with various forms of validation. In this example, a soldier could validate their action by blaming it on their commander, or say they must follow orders, when in reality there were alternative options. This also relates to the just war theory, which explores the ethics behind starting and engaging in war. This theory emphasizes principles like just cause and proportionality. By creating a structured approach to understanding the ethics of war, the just war theory can explain much of the validation techniques used by both soldiers and their leaders.

One on one hand, one’s loyalty to their country can drive them to participate in a war even if they disagree with the causes of war. And on the other hand, one’s morals can create resistance to participate in the war that they think is morally wrong. The Principles of Jus ad Bello in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy discusses that war is only justified if it meets a set of moral conditions. When a government decides to wage an unjust war, it is up to the citizens then if they want to fight or not, which poses them with a moral dilemma: to participate in a war that they think is unjust or refuse to fight because of ethics.

Jus ad Bellum, as discussed in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, offers the criteria for when a war is justified: a war must have a just cause, right intentions, and only be waged when other means are exhausted. This framework can justify resistance to a war if it’s initiated for reasons such as economic and political gain, and in that case, citizens can feel morally just to not participate. It takes more courage to refuse to fight in an unjust war because it defies both state authority and societal expectations. There are many instances where one, who decided to stand for their beliefs and not participate in a war they thought to be unjust, faced punishment or death. " Between War and Peace highlights the moral complexity of such decisions because people don’t want to feel like they failed their country but also don’t want to fight for an unjust cause. As discussed, one’s refusal to fight in a war can be viewed as abandonment of national duty, especially if the lives of others are at stake. This can be viewed as selfish or cowardly because they are avoiding their responsibilities as a defender of their nation.

If every citizen were to act according to their moral values on participating in war, national unity and military effectiveness would be undermined because a nation relies on the cooperation of their citizens in wartime. If too many people decide not to participate in war because it is unjust, then the nation becomes vulnerable to destruction and defeat. However, forcing people to serve in wars that they think are unjust can result in serious internal divisions and distrust in the government. A divided society can lead to social and political instability in the long run. Just War Theory suggests that wars should only be fought when they meet the strict moral standards. If a war fails to meet the criteria, then the citizens may be justified in their refusal to fight. Nevertheless, the theory also accounts for the necessity of collectivism and that a nation can not function if every citizen decides their participation in war for themselves.

While refusing to fight in an unjust war can be seen as an act of moral courage, it causes significant consequences for citizens and the nation. Even though a conscientious refusal may be a valid response, it raises the question about the ability of the nation to defend itself and maintain unity.