At surface level, war is morally wrong. In vague terms, war is a prolonged armed conflict that unnecessarily takes the lives of many people, combatants or not, and its end goal almost always seems to be on the basis of power and control. It ultimately stirs up a multitude of negative emotions about the effort and result, bringing many to a simple conclusion; war is immoral, unethical, and outright bad. However, this view of war is reductionist in that it only scopes in on the conflict and its direct effect on human life, rather than taking into account the causes of the war and the effects its aftermath has on society. While we can’t really argue that war is good, the question of intrinsicism vs. consequentialism arises, causing us to assess the morality of conflict.
To fight a moral war seems like a major contradiction, especially because war in modern times seems to be plagued with power-hungry, corrupt, and ill-mannered leaders. However, there are certain degrees for which the morality of war can be measured. For example, the second excerpt regarding Jus In Bello and Jus Post Bellum tells us to, “Consider a war of self-defense; this is considered by most, except absolute pacifists, to be the most justifiable of all wars.” This is because there is a defensible cause to wage the war in the first place, that being to protect the rights and freedoms of an oppressed group of people (at least in the majority of these cases). Other measures include the outcome of the conflict and whether it is proportional, as well as the level of discrimination used in determining targets, measures that don’t have definitive answers and are not easily quantifiable. This brings up the important point of the relationship between the cause and effect of a war, stating that even if the cause of the war is moral, it can still be determined as immoral if it is waged in an unduly manner, and vice versa. And so, while intrinsicism can be used for certain cases of war, consequentialism is much more effective in how wartime morality is judged.
In the case that the war is blatantly unjust and immoral, I do not believe the citizens of the nation in the wrong have an obligation of refusal to participate in the war effort, simply because there are so many different aspects of a war effort that can affect an individual’s assessment of right and wrong. Some examples of these factors include extreme nationalism, widespread propaganda, and/or governmental fearmongering and coercion. Because of these things, as well as certain social psychological factors in which the group affects the individual, it would be more courageous to go against the national war machine, mainly because the refusal to be a part of this national effort signals some sort of betrayal to the nation, posing more negative consequences than positive for those that choose to go against it. It should also go without mentioning that fighting for one’s country on the front lines also takes an immense amount of courage, as life is being risked. However, in this specific context, it seems that disobedience of the wartime status quo would pose a greater social risk.
To conclude, the reductionist lens of intrinsicism disregards the several factors that go into the national hardship that is war, and puts the consequentialist at the forefront of the determination for wartime morality.
Learn to Question 3: Reflections on Just War Theory
Just War Theory serves as a crucial philosophical framework for evaluating the moral implications of war. While some argue that war is intrinsically wrong, others suggest that it can be justified under certain conditions. The theory itself provides a nuanced approach, especially through its principles of jus ad bellum and jus in bello, which provides an outline of permissible reasons for going to war and the ethical conduct within war. The intrinsicism model believes that war is always morally wrong, viewing violence as an inherently negative force. In contrast, the consequentialism model allows for the justification of war if the outcomes lead to a greater good. In our current global context, where conflicts often arise from complex socio-political issues, the consequentialism model may be more realistic. I personally agree with the consequentialism model because I feel that it is hard to judge a situation without looking at all the context. I feel as though most people who agree with intrinsicism (and this is a generalization) are so horrified by the throught of war that they don;t even realize how crucial it is for soldiers and sargents to make these often cruel decisions. Although just war theory is meant to create rules for an ethical war, I don’t believe any war is truly ethical, but I also don’t think that soldiers should be held to the same moral and ethical standard as everyday civilians because they are having to deal with situations we can’t even imagine, which adds oto why I agree more with consequentialism; However, just War Theory acts as a bridge between these two perspectives by providing criteria for justifying war based on anticipated outcomes and moral imperatives. One of the key factors of Just War Theory outlines specific conditions under which a war may be considered justifiable. These include a just cause, proportionality, and reasonable chance of success. For example, humanitarian interventions may be justified when they aim to prevent atrocities or protect human rights. This aligns with the consequentialist view that, while war is an evil, it can lead to a greater good in specific scenarios. Therefore, Just War Theory offers a critical framework for evaluating whether large-scale violence can be deemed morally acceptable in the modern world, advocating for a careful assessment of both the motivations for war and the anticipated outcomes. I honestly really hate this rule, because it's almost like saying to your kid, “it's okay to beat someone up as long as you know you’ll win so they don’t come back and get you.” In no way does it seem ethical or fair, especially to the weaker nation. Additionally, when a nation wages war for unjust reasons, the moral obligation of citizens becomes more complex. Should they refuse to participate in an unjust war? This dilemma raises questions about personal moral responsibility versus national loyalty. Refusing to fight in a war deemed morally wrong may require immense courage, as it challenges societal norms and risks ostracism. Conversely, participating in such a war may be seen as a betrayal of personal ethics. As excerpt one briefly touches on, we must reconsider the moral implications of soldiers’ actions during unjust wars. Iit is wrong to assure soldiers that they are acting permissibly in an unjust war simply because they conduct themselves honorably. This highlights the notion that honorable conduct in battle does not deny the fundamental injustice of the cause. In my opinion, the whole “just war theory” sounds great IN THEORY, but how will we ever be able to truly define a just war? And once we find that definition, how will we uphold the rules? It is impossible to control people during war. In my mind just war theory is exactly that, a theory. Almost all its rules are completely subjective and easy to find loopholes, and seems to be a very unreliable way to monitor ethics during battle. However it does recognize that war can sometimes be justified, it emphasizes the importance of assessing the motivations and outcomes of such conflicts, which I do agree is important. It also provides citizens to claim responsibility during wartime, reflecting on how essential their actions are on an individual and collective scale. In the end, just war theory encourages a deeper understanding of ethics throughout warfare, and reminds us that even the darkest moments in life are filled with justice and humanity.
War can be justified in certain circumstances. For instance, during the second world war the allies attacked the axis in defense of their ally. In that same war the United States were justified in entering the war because they were attacked unprovoked. War can also be unjustified. An example of this would be the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The justification of war is often a matter of personal opinion and the attacker tends to believe their cause is justified. Examples of this in history would be the crusades, where the crusaders believe they were justified though their faith. From an outside perspective this is not a valid argument to go to war. For the question, “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”, a strong argument can be made for both sides. One can argue it takes more courage to not participate in a war waged by your country that you see as unjust, risking your life and the destruction of your country to stand up for your beliefs. On the other hand it can be argued that fighting to protect your country even if you don't believe in the war it is waging is more honorable. Both actions are by no means cowardly. If each citizen acts only according to their own moral compass when a nation is at war it would cause chaos and nothing would get done. I think soldiers can act honorably in war even if the war isn't justified. Just because the premise the war is based on isn't justified does not mean the people fighting in it can’t hold themselves to the standards of international law. The intrinsicism and consequentialism models aren’t perfect because there is a lot of gray area. There often isn’t a lot of time to thoroughly assess the situation and this can leave to decisions that lead to mistakes that can end in the deaths of innocents.
If a nation were to wage wars for unjust reasons I believe citizens should refuse to participate in the war effort. It is a person's right to make that decision, especially if the cause of the war comes into conflict with the person's cognitive dissonance. I believe it is more cowardice to not fight in the defense of your nation because it's easier to walk away from death than to put yourself in a situation where you might die. That is just a natural instinct that all humans have, so it is understandable why someone might walk away. But even if your morals don’t align with the reasons for the war, just the simple act of volunteering and participating in war I believe is more courageous than to not fight. If each citizen acts solely according to their own moral compass during a time of war, the consequences from a military standpoint could be disunity, lack of coordination, and ineffective national defense. The absence of a unified strategy could lead to chaos, as some individuals may resist or ignore orders that conflict with their personal beliefs. Moral disagreements can create internal conflict, which can further destabilize a country. While individual moral autonomy is important, in times of war it is not realistic for a country to be divided. A balance between personal ethics and collective responsibility is often necessary for national survival. I agree with McMahan’s idea that fighting honorably in an unjust war does not excuse soldiers from moral responsibility. Just war theory, particularly jus ad bellum, emphasizes that the decision to go to war must be morally justified. If a war itself is unjust, the morality of individual conduct during combat (jus in bello) cannot make up for the larger injustice. Soldiers, therefore, should not be reassured that honorable behavior in battle is enough if the war lacks a just cause. However, this does raise the question of responsibility, as soldiers often have limited control over the decision to wage war and may face harsh penalties for refusing to fight. While McMahan’s argument is ethical, it may be difficult to implement in the reality of war. Yes, soldiers can act morally and honorably during wartime, even if the greater cause they are fighting for is unjust. Jus in bello, is designed to guide soldiers in their conduct, regardless of the justice of the cause (jus ad bellum). They promote principles like distinction, proportionality, and necessity, which help ensure the distinction between military targets and civilians, minimize harm, and use force only when required. By following these principles, soldiers can maintain their moral integrity and uphold human dignity, even in the context of an unjust war. It also encourages accountability and restraint, which can mitigate the chaos and brutality of armed conflict. Soldiers who follow these rules may foster a sense of honor. However, soldiers may grapple with the knowledge that their actions contribute to an unjust cause and can conflict with their cognitive dissonance. Ultimately, while the rules of war can assist soldiers in acting morally it requires facing difficult moral questions. The actions of an individual can vary, but by maintaining honor and morality soldiers can attempt to keep their humanity.
Ethically speaking, the intrinsicism model should be the unanimous belief when it comes to war. Ideally, there should be no justification for the murdering of other human beings, innocent or soldiers, because all the valid justifications for murdering somebody shouldn’t exist. Some reasons where it could arguably be justified for taking a life would be in self defense or to avenge someone else, but if it were morally wrong to attack another person (and if this belief was followed by everyone) then there would be no need for self defense or revenge. However, this is not an ideal world so there is no way that people would all conform to non-violence, therefore a consequentialism model would be realistic for a modern world. But the problem then becomes when is the use of violence justifiable enough to go to war. According to the Just War Theory: Jus Ad Bellum, the conditions that make it justified to go to war are having a just cause, being a last resort, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used. While the Just War Theory does act as a bridge between the intrinsicism model and the consequentialism model, as it claims that war is morally wrong unless the situation meets those specific conditions, the conditions themselves are too vague or too specific. Just cause is completely subjective depending on a person’s views, for example someone might disagree with my claim earlier that self defense or revenge are justifiable causes for murder, so who can really decide what’s just and unjust? The same goes for possessing the right intention, it’s too vague and wishy-washy. But at the same time, the conditions are way too situational. There is no guarantee that a nation will have the power to ensure their chances of success in war, but they might have a perfectly just reason to go to war. Therefore the Just War Theory is technically a bridge between the intrinsicism model and the consequential model, but it is not a very good one because of its impossible conditions. In the event of an unjust war being waged, the citizens should be able to choose whether or not to join the draft so then the leader of the country can’t be the only factor in deciding if they go to war or not. However, refusing to go to war can be just as courageous as going to fight in one, especially if one is surrounded by people that are extremely in support of their country, as they are risking social exile within their community. They’re also risking getting punished for not going to war, whether that be going to jail or some other potentially worse punishment depending on what kind of society they live in. With that being said, modern technology might eliminate the need for a draft altogether because of nuclear and technological warfare, so it might not even matter if there’s not enough soldiers in the army to fight a war.
Although I believe it potentially naive to state war is always wrong, as I am certain an instance could exist in which I would break my own moral conviction, the principles of Jus in Bello and Jus ad Bellum, especially as described in “The Principles Of Jus In Bello” seem to suggest the moral repugnance of nearly all cases of war by their very existence. The idea that a prerequisite to just war is reasonable belief the war can be won, although logical at face value as it avoids leading innocent individuals to a hopeless death, points towards the reality that those powers with more resources for killing shape world politics and that killing individuals is a legitimate tool of solving political disputes. It seems a true fault in human nature must exist for institutionalized murder to determine power dynamics and the fates of innocent civilians. If one nation invades another, the fate of the invaded and their ability to wage just resistance should not be determined by their military strength or that of their allies just as the rights of the conquered should not be infringed upon or altered solely because their nation was less capable of killing. The excerpt argues that it is natural to accept soldiers killing other soldiers as part of war and training for war, yet the killing of non-soldiers goes “beyond what is reasonable”, resulting in “no longer committing legitimate acts of war but acts of murder”. This differentiation between acceptable conduct of war and murder demonstrates the immorality of the concept of war itself, as it blatantly exposes how we teach ourselves that killing humans is in certain circumstances justified in order to correct our cognitive dissonance about the allowance of war within our societies.
Such arguments largely follow the reasoning of intrinsicism that bars conduct deemed immoral in all instances no matter the circumstances and goes against any consequentialist contextual justification based on the outcomes of an action. Although my opinions lie closer to intrinsicism, I do believe consequentialism is the ethical framework that must be used when considering the apparent inability of humans to abstain from war. If, as a society, we are doomed to constant warfare in some part of the world, intrinsicist arguments about the immorality of actions in war have little bearing. The reality remains that no matter society’s beliefs and no matter the international laws that exist, war continues as do war crimes and moral atrocities. In light of our inability to follow intrinsicism in most cases, we must turn to consequentialism to determine the most moral and least harmful action to take in any given scenario, which is in itself logical as past experience is one of our only sources of precedent to predict future outcomes. Nevertheless, just war theory, however indicative of human flaws, incorporates intrinsicism into consequentialist calculus as it sets specific norms that cannot be breached in order for a war to be considered moral, a framework in light with the following of an ethical code no matter the result. While I believe this is a good thing and has likely impacted the conflicts that have been fought since its inception, these theories by no means prevent unjust wars from being waged or from beginning in the first place, suggesting that armed conflict is the fallback of humanity.
If a person should fight in a war they believe is unjust is a complicated question. On one hand, we are taught to follow our beliefs and morals, but on the other hand, not fighting in a war is leaving your nation and the people you love under greater danger. Obviously it is not conducive to the productivity of a nation if all citizens only act according to their own moral compasses when the nation is at war. However, if a majority or substantial percent of people, because they believe the war is unjust, do not go to war, then it is important for the government of the nation to re-evaluate whether the war is just and should be waged. This is especially true for a democracy, where the actions on the government are supposed to reflect the people’s interests and demands. All this to say, and whether or not one believes it is moral to be a conscientious objector, it does take bravery to do so publicly. Not only does one have to stay true to their morals, but they also have to resist the social pressure to go to war. In the article from Facing History and Ourselves titled “Between Peace and War,” a philosopher wrote, “the greatest difficulty was the purely psychological one of resisting mass suggestion, of which the force becomes terrific when the whole nation is in a state of collective excitement.” This ties back to social conformity and self identity theory; it takes someone with a strong sense of self to dissent against the group. This bravery ascribed with dissenting only remains true when one is dissenting due to morals, and not out of cowardness to fight (which is fair because going to war is terrifying), with using morals as an excuse. Philosopher Jeff McMahan said, “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.” I do not fully agree with this idea, especially considering all the circumstances that can surround war. While I think it is true that fighting in an unjust war is not morally sound, it is important to remember those who were conscripted or those who joined the army because it was the only way they felt they could provide for themselves and their family. The rules of Jus in Bello do help soldiers act morally during war. However, I feel it is even more important for commanders of units in war to follow Jus in Bello. After all, it is generally the commanders giving orders on what to do and deciding what the proportional reaction to a threat or attack is. One thing that immediately stuck out to me after reading about Jus in Bello is that if all people followed the proportionality rule, then war would hardly ever start in the first place, as the first attack wouldn’t happen. And even if the first attack did happen, it would be impossible for the fight to escalate to more types of violence if everyone responded in proportional means.
I don’t believe war is always wrong, but that isn’t to say some wars are plainly wrong and unnecessary. However, some wars are necessary and they are completely justified. Wars that are for rights and freedom specifically are the most justified type of war. Next come wars that are in self defense. Most of the time in history when people are oppressed by a stronger force they have no choice but to follow what that force says and they lose all their freedom and rights as humans. More times than not the only way for them to gain their freedom again is through war one way or another. In this cases large scale ORGANIZED violence is justified and right. However, even in this scenario it could become unjustified if it becomes simply killing all people. If the oppressed force is rebelling the primary target should obviously be those who are keeping them at their position which would be the higher ups/ government. In this case, there’s no reason to go for the citizens who had no choice but to follow the rules because that would lead to unnecessary death. In the modern world an intrinsic model of war is more realistic and better. We have reached a state of power where if we want we could end a war quickly by dropping life changing bombs. While following a consequential model this would be the best idea has it ends the war quickly; at the end of the day this is the worse possible option as not only does it kill possibly kills of people who had no part in the war but it also kills future generations because most the time those places become uninhabitable.
If a nation does wage a war for an unjust reason and masks it as a justified reason the citizens have every right and should refuse to participate in the war. In cases like this people are right in war not because they agree with it but because everyone else does and the groupthink disables their ability to distinguish right from wrong during the war effort. However, if these people refuse to participate from the beginning, not only will it help unjust wars from beginning, it also prevents unnecessary deaths from occurring. It takes a lot of courage to not fight for your nation. It also takes a lot of courage to fight for a war because now your life's on the line regardless of if you agree with our nation's idea or not. People dislike going against the flow and majority in simple debates and opinions and going against a whole nation in terms of defending it or not is even harder. Most nations feel a strong sense of nationalism and will do whatever to keep their country as high as possible, which sometimes creates unjust wars and because of their hyper nationalism they still think that it’s right and everyone who doesn’t fight is on the enemies side and ought to be killed. In this scenario it takes more courage to not fight as not only are you going against your peers and family you are now virtually alone as you cannot join the enemies side because they’re your enemy, unjust war or not.
I disagree with his idea. Most people if not all have no choice in their participation in war or not and the least they could is act honorably. If you stop reassuring this men and women that their being permissible is simply telling them they are human killing machines with no feelings. While yes the overall war is unjust and wrong,these indivisual people have no choice but to fight in this war and it makes it even worse for them if youre telling them they aren’t being human by following the guiudlines which is the elast that they could do.
If a nation were to wage war for unjust reasons, then citizens should have the right to be able to refuse to participate in the war efforts. In Excerpt 1, which discusses Jus Ad Bellum, the first principle they establish is “having just cause” to begin a war. This entails that if a war is started for unjust reasons, then citizens should have every right to respond in a negative way. And so, the citizens should be able to refuse to participate in the war effort if the reasons are unjust because the nation itself is failing to adhere to the principles that are established by Jus Ad Bellum. However, if not enough people are willing to participate in the efforts of the war, then it complicates things. Of course, citizens should continue to have the right to refuse to participate in the war efforts, but there will come a time where citizens may be forced to participate, something that they should prepare for if that ever occurs.
It is not cowardice to fight in a war that is morally wrong, if anything, it takes courage to fight in a war that you believe to be morally incorrect. If one chooses to not fight in a war to defend their country, then that is just a common occurrence that goes on even in today’s world. People may love their nation, yet they also may not be willing to fight in the war in fear of leaving their family behind at the worst time. For the people who are fighting in a war they view as morally wrong, that does not mean that they are cowardice. If one is choosing to fight in a war where the morals are incorrect, then you have more courage than timidness to fight in the war because one may be thinking that this is a disgrace to what they have grown to believe is morally right and sound. For them to forsake that in order to fight in a war they view as wrong, that takes quite a bit of guts.
The consequences that citizens could face if they only act according to their own moral compass during a war can be that they place those morals on a higher pedestal over anything else. For example, if someone’s moral compass is centered around the concept of loyalty, then they will feel loyal to the nation they live in and would be glad to participate in the war efforts, whether it be fighting enemies or assisting from the sidelines. However, say if someone’s moral compass was centered around the idea of pride. They would want to be the one that’s in control because their pride would not allow it, which can lead to internal conflicts that could impact the group they are fighting in. If citizens act on their moral compass, then their own morals could stab them in the back and lead to the downfall of not just themselves, but the military they are fighting in and the nation itself. These consequences, however, are realistic because we are all human, and humans can make mistakes. Yes, they may impact how the battle ends, but that is just how life works.
It is assumed most of the time, when people say war is not always wrong, they do not actually encourage the act of violence, but more so understand the reality and complexities of our world that result in such an outcome. In that regard, I feel the same way. In a perfect world I would say war is always wrong, but that is with the conception that people would never make such decisions that would escalate to that extent. Historically it is proven that people are capable and sometimes even driven to cause corruption, violence, and chaos. Knowing this fact, I cannot full heartedly say it is always wrong, even though it should be. The truth about some people is that they are unpredictable, thus thinking in such a black and white mindset like war is always wrong, only further deters us away from solving the root of the problem. Realistically, it is a good idea to stay prepared for the worst case scenario. I do not think war is always avoidable to an extent, but based on human tendencies, whether it be greed, paranoia, vengeance, or even self defense it does not always remain peaceful. The real question then becomes, how to go about a war, if there unfortunately is one, that does not completely eradicate humanity. Before this class, I think I would agree war is always wrong, and in my opinion although that still stands true, I do think that the reasons can sometimes be justified. The Jus Ad Bellum war theory supports the idea that with war, there at least has to be a just cause, or good enough reason to fight. Conversely, if a war was waged for unjust reasons, I do believe that it is the people’s choice to refuse such a burden. Moreover, I think the refusal to go to war must be a group effort and not a singular or miniscule act. If people acted only on their own morals there would not be any unity, and although some people may share similar views, it will also divide a nation at a time when unity is most important. The repercussions of acting only on one’s singular accord can leave devastating effects on a large scale population or nation. I do not think that is realistic or healthy for any community to bear. I think in modern times, at least in the USA, it takes much more courage to actually be part of a war than to refuse being in one. This is due to the fact that many people already join the military and because the stigma around not wanting to have subsided much more than in past instances. This obviously does not hold true to all other countries, altering my answer. I honestly do think it is a little cowardice to not fight in a war you do not even support, but obviously the details and circumstances are always an unknown factor that impacts this, and changes my view. Ultimately, war should never have begun, but knowing it will always be around, simply directs our attention to the ethical aspect of these painful events.
Learn to Question 3: Reflections on Just War Theory
A) I don’t think it can ever really be said with certainty that war is always wrong because circumstances are infinite and context unique to each and every declaration of war. As Jus Ad Bellum states, there are some very legitimate and necessary reasons for a nation to go to war. Large-scale, organized violence very easily perpetrates the worst atrocities of our history but it, ironically and as luck would have it, can also help to prevent it. It can be justified; often it is not, as we are humans and humans are capable of some of the most evil acts in the world along with some of the good, just sometimes, just sometimes, it is. It would be a lovely world where no one declared war on another, a lovely world where no one had to, but unfortunately that line of thinking, to me at least, is not in line with reality. Even if you should renounce violence and live as a practicing pacifist, your enemies are under no burden to adhere to your moral leanings. Ultimately, consequentialism as a theory is more realistic for the world that we live in. I have never been to war, I never want to, and I sincerely hope that I never have to. The main reason for this is that I don’t know if I could make the difficult calls needed in order to save the most lives. We can judge all we want from our uninvolved pedestal but sometimes the ends do justify the means, at least to this random student in Boston.
B) Honestly In this situation, there is no “should” or “shouldn’t”. The word should implies a clear or direct course of action, often one interpreted as being the “correct” one. But there is no clarity, there is no directness, there is no reasoning, not in war. There is only what you are willing to give up. It’s NEVER “this doesn’t matter”, it is always “this doesn’t matter ENOUGH” to me because we, as humans, as complex creatures of (hopefully) rational thought HAVE to make our priorities clear sometimes. A soldier may fight in a war despite being morally against it because they need the money, the benefits, they need to support their family, they want war to be over with as quickly as possible, their livelihood cannot handle the economic burden following prolonged burden. At the end of the battle, there are practically infinite reasons that someone has to go to war. There is a saying that courage is persisting despite fear. And that is why I don’t think it is fair to call either the soldier or the pacifist a coward; they have different fears: One fears giving up their morals more, the other fears the consequences of maintaining them. As Bertrand Russell put it his letter to the Guardian,”I am convinced that the chief reason, and the most valid, is precisely that sense of ‘the solidarity of mankind…’”. The preservation of humanity is the ultimate goal of a dissenter; They aim to end the war, in their own way, not to prolong it. And while this is all grand to type up in theory, in a safe classroom in Boston, the real life implications of deep and mature decisions enacted by every individual’s moral compass could create mass discontent, discord, and bedlam. And these consequences change with the war, the circumstances and the nation, among other factors. Who is to say what a neighbor can bear? Who can tell even their own strength until a trial by fire? I think nations, especially, I will note, America, tend to act contrary to what anyone expects and there is no reliable way of saying whether or not we are atlas or merely the ones who died trying.
War can only be moral if it is fair for all sides, so war is moral if its cause, conduct, and resolutions are justifiable. War is unethical if the circumstances surrounding it are unethical. Thus, the consequentialist model is more suited for the contemporary world. If war itself is not morally wrong, then the cause of the war or the conduct in warfare is often morally wrong. If violence and conflict are human nature, then so are making decisions and believing in morals and ethics. Just War Theory lays down the rules that a nation’s leaders and fighters have to follow, so they are morally obligated to follow them. Just War Theory was created to prevent unnecessary death or violence and to make war and warfare fair because of the idea that everyone should be respected even in war. If a person breaches any of the rules, they must be held accountable because they neglect the responsibility of respecting the enemy. Therefore, people have the obligation to act morally in war.
As the Just War Theory is the framework of how war should be conducted, it does not resolve that war itself is immoral. Just War Theory supports the consequentialist instead of the intrinsicist model because it shares more beliefs with the consequentialist model. For example, if two countries claim a piece of land as theirs and the other side has no right to own it, they may fail to resolve the situation through negotiation or by agreeing to the land’s history or culture. In the consequentialist model, both sides have the ethical right to wage a war against each other, provided that neither side breaches the rules of Just War Theory. In the intrinsic model, both sides will likely never reach a conclusion through diplomacy due to the intense conflicts in their beliefs. Even if they agree on morals, they may not agree on a compromise. As a result, war should instead be the final compromise to a problem, one which is just if it is the only solution to such a problem. In this way, Just War Theory follows the consequentialist model because war is only moral if the circumstances surrounding it are just.
Additionally, if a nation wages war upon an unjust or immoral cause, its citizens should be able to refuse to participate in the war. Philosopher Bertrand Russell says that people have the right to be conscientious objectors when they believe their nation fails to treat an enemy like its own citizens or believe that violence is against their morals because they feel empathy for their soldiers and the enemy. Just as how people are obligated to act morally in war, people who are opposed to war are morally obligated to not participate in war. If a soldier tortures a prisoner, they neglect to treat the prisoner fairly. If a conscientious objector decides to participate in war, they may feel that they are neglecting their morals. Just War Theory thus affects those who participate in war and those who oppose it.
I agree with how you explained how Just War Theory can be used to classify war as unethical or ethical to further limit the amount of lives taken and the violence enacted. I do feel as though it goes more than simply the respect of the people participating in the war however. The Just War Theory was developed to set a series of rules and guidelines for classifying war and establishing consequences for different acts of violence. It is used to limit the catastrophe of war and make sure that morality is questioned. This helps keep nations in check. In addition, I think that it is interesting how you propose Just War Theory as supporting the consequentialist model instead of the intrinsicism model. This is not something that I have supported in my own writing, yet I find your ideas to be well thought out. However, your evidence focuses on diplomacy and compromising, while my evidence focuses on self-defense of the principles of proportionality and discrimination. I agree however, without the application of such principles, the Just War Theory primarily supports the consequentialist model. I do agree that people should not go to war if it is based on an unjust and immoral cause. However, allowing people to act on behalf of their own morals may be problematic for a nation, especially in terms of self-defense. However, I do believe the need for conscientious objectors and those who stand up for their beliefs. It keeps the government and the nation in check. It may be necessary for people to refuse war, however it may become a problem, especially if the nation has a treaty with another to go to war and support them against an imposing force.
War creates pain among individuals as well as their collective, the process of warfare causes the loss of lives, the loss of homes, loss of infrastructure, loss of security, among other things. The most glaringly prominent aspect of war is obviously violence, many do not consider there to be wars without the presence of violence. This large-scale, organized violence is more commonly than not supported by a goal, belief, or a feeling, and mostly not just violence for the sake of violence. However, the ethics behind those motivations for violence, and the perceived validity of them, is what brings one to pose a question about the justification of wars. The truth is that thinking of war solely from an intrinsicism viewpoint is somewhat naive. Yes, the act of killing another human being is morally wrong, and the idea of two groups trading deaths for an extended period of time is upsetting, but there are some justifications for war. Revolutionary wars for example, in which an oppressed group fights back against their oppressors, and require violence as a means to liberate themselves from their pain, can hardly be considered morally wrong. Are those revolutionaries not fighting for what’s right? Yet, there is a level of perspective to be considered, where one group that considers themselves to be revolutionaries fighting for what’s right might actually be the oppressors themselves, but looking at this from an outside perspective, without any immediate bias, there exists many contextual factors that could lead to a permissible war. To desire humans to rid themselves of their interpersonal conflicts and aggression would be wishful thinking, although the scale to which they go to bat against each other is very destructive and painful. We’ve unfortunately gotten ourselves into a cycle of militarism where every nation feels a need to gain strength and meet some unspoken standard of military strength in the world, as to pre-emptively protect themselves from potential danger. Given the state of our world globally, nations can start to become justified in using these sorts of weapons because if they hadn’t those same weapons would’ve certainly been turned on them by their enemy. Just War Theory, however, balances both the intrinsicism and consequentialism models. Where Just War Theory aligns with intrinsicism is the moral limitations around war such as permissible reasons to go to war (jus ad bellum), and fair conduct in war (jus in bello) (Excerpt 1: Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum). Moral principles such as the principle of discrimination which “concerns who are legitimate targets in the war” and proportionality which “concerns how much force is morally appropriate” (Excerpt 2 Just War Theory-Jus In Bello and Jus Post Bellum). Jus ad bellum conditions utilize consequentialist beliefs and consider the intended outcome of the war, leading to the requirement of a probability of success, and for actions to be made in proportion to the expected outcome. These conditions not only provide a balance between these two philosophical ideas, but between pacifism and realism as well, similar ideologies that represent how war is too multifaceted to be labeled as “always wrong” or “always justified”. As for the implications of conscientious objectors, citizens should refuse to participate in the war effort if the war is unjust. However, given that the morality of war has proven to sometimes be subjective, there are consequences to all citizens choosing when and when not to fight based solely on their own moral compass. A smaller amount of soldiers prolongs the war, and may increase overall casualties because of the length of the war, or on the other hand, a military being overwhelmed and outnumbered can lead to the destruction of that nation, or even a genocide. This factor is why many Europeans who once protested against war now considered it their urgent duty to “help all of them, to improve their fate, to erase their inestimable suffering” (In Between Peace and War). Although there are many justifiable reasons to object to the war effort, the consequences of leaving your own nation to fend for itself should be taken into account, and one can use their moral compass to determine their actions within the war, and to limit their own individual unjust actions.
War is only morally justifiable if it is waged in self defense or in order to stop a breach of human rights by a government. The consequentialism model is more realistic for the modern world and the intrinsicism model is more theoretical and talks about an ideal world. I think that Just War Theory bridges the two philosophical ideas by providing a framework for ethical causes and behavior in war, however I believe that it is more in line with the consequentialism model because it explains the acceptable reasons for going to war, whereas in the intrinsicism model there are no acceptable reasons.. If a nation wages an unjust war the citizens must decide for themselves whether or not to participate. The choice that they have to make is whether or not they will go against their moral values in order to fight for their country or to become a conscientious objector in order to stay in line with their moral values. Sometimes a soldier must disobey orders from their country if the orders themselves violate certain Just War Theory principles, such as if they were ordered to attack civilians as well as combatants.I somewhat agree with McMahan. I think that if a soldier is fighting in an unjust war, but is only attacking other combatants and not civilians and acting within the rules of war then they have less responsibility for the actions of the nation than someone who was following the unjust orders. I do think that the soldiers who are fighting for an unjust cause do have some responsibility, but also might not have had any other choice. I believe that in an ideal world where soldiers always have the ability to not fight in a war then they would be held responsible for the actions of the nation, however I do not think that it is always a possibility. We learned about how conscientious objectors were treated in certain countries during world war one and I feel like if it is harmful to them or their family if they do not fight then it is acceptable for them to join the war. We talked in class about how some soldiers who were forced to fight became medics in order to save the lives of their fellow soldiers rather than killing enemy combatants. I think that jus in bello does assist soldiers to act morally as it is made by philosophers who discuss acts in war that might be justified.
War is only morally justifiable if it is waged in self defense or in order to stop a breach of human rights by a government. The consequentialism model is more realistic for the modern world and the intrinsicism model is more theoretical and talks about an ideal world. I think that Just War Theory bridges the two philosophical ideas by providing a framework for ethical causes and behavior in war, however I believe that it is more in line with the consequentialism model because it explains the acceptable reasons for going to war, whereas in the intrinsicism model there are no acceptable reasons.. If a nation wages an unjust war the citizens must decide for themselves whether or not to participate. The choice that they have to make is whether or not they will go against their moral values in order to fight for their country or to become a conscientious objector in order to stay in line with their moral values. Sometimes a soldier must disobey orders from their country if the orders themselves violate certain Just War Theory principles, such as if they were ordered to attack civilians as well as combatants.I somewhat agree with McMahan. I think that if a soldier is fighting in an unjust war, but is only attacking other combatants and not civilians and acting within the rules of war then they have less responsibility for the actions of the nation than someone who was following the unjust orders. I do think that the soldiers who are fighting for an unjust cause do have some responsibility, but also might not have had any other choice. I believe that in an ideal world where soldiers always have the ability to not fight in a war then they would be held responsible for the actions of the nation, however I do not think that it is always a possibility. We learned about how conscientious objectors were treated in certain countries during world war one and I feel like if it is harmful to them or their family if they do not fight then it is acceptable for them to join the war. We talked in class about how some soldiers who were forced to fight became medics in order to save the lives of their fellow soldiers rather than killing enemy combatants. I think that jus in bello does assist soldiers to act morally as it is made by philosophers who discuss acts in war that might be justified.
Hi facetoface,
First off, great response. I really enjoyed reading it! I found your opinion on the consequential model being the more realistic theory and the intrinsicism model being the more theoretical one to be very compelling. The idea that the Just War Theory actually bridges the two models together and provides a framework for ethics and behaviors in war was also really intriguing. Do you agree with one theory more than the other? I agree with the idea that consequentialism is more aligned with the Just War theory. Intrincisim states that war itself is morally wrong, while consequentialism is more flexible. Our views are pretty similar when it comes to soldiers' roles in war, but I do think that if soldiers and citizens all act on their own morals during times of warfare it can lead to chaos. Nations need to have a united front and moral disagreement and division will not benefit the nation as a whole. Having your own moral compass is important and so is the independence to make your own decision but in times of conflict the choices you might have may be limited. I agree with your point that Jus in Bello helps to guide soldiers in war and that they should be held responsible for their actions in war. But sometimes it is difficult to determine who has responsibility because some soldiers might be forced into a war they never wanted to fight. This is a very difficult topic to digest and overall you did a great job.
