learntoquestion ltq discussions

War itself is something that stems heavily from human’s innate desire for violence rather than civil discussions. Why? I believe it's also easier for people to jump right into violence after they are wronged. For many people, there's a phrase I found personally interesting connecting it to a lot of wars that have happened throughout the past years and the people who wage them is, “If a man can’t speak with his mouth, he will use his fists to talk”. This intrinsic wrongness of war is often overshadowed by the narratives that seek to justify it, framing conflict as a necessary evil or a means to an end. These narratives can be powerful, swaying public opinion and garnering support for military action. However, they often obscure the human cost of war—lives lost, families shattered, and communities destroyed. Each conflict brings with it a cycle of suffering that can linger for generations, leaving deep psychological scars on those involved, whether combatants or civilians. Moreover, the ease with which societies slip into war raises questions about the very foundations of human nature. Is this propensity for violence an inherent part of our makeup, or is it shaped by cultural, political, and historical contexts? While some argue that aggression is a biological instinct, others contend that it is a learned behavior, cultivated through societal norms and structures that prioritize strength and dominance over dialogue and diplomacy. War itself is always inherently wrong, it's something that is never necessary to evolve into. Where no matter how needed or inherently justified it is, it is always an evil, never a good. It’s however difficult to decide on whether either intrinsicism or consequentialism are more “right” in their own way as both of them do end up fitting and also contradicting views of war depending on one's place during the war. One can easily side with an intrinsicism model if they were to say at a position of a bystander or watcher of the war. Having that privilege to believe that wars are never morally right and thus should never adhere to it. However on the other side of the spectrum of consequentialism, from this viewpoint, war can be justified if it leads to a greater good—such as the protection of human rights, the prevention of genocide, or the establishment of peace after conflict. One who could follow this mindset could be soldiers or commanders in charge of the people sent on the battlefield who need to decide at a split second on what the best course of action is at a very limited interval of time. However I do not believe that the Just War Theory of jus ad bellum can act as a bridge between these two ideas because intrinsicism is such a rigid mindset that one cannot really breach upon the barrier of their belief that war itself, no matter the cause or reason can be right. Where the lack of information or identification of the enemy does not qualify as a reason to kill indiscriminately. (The Principles of Jus in Bello). Where in a world where what is qualified as just and not just can easily be swayed. There is never a right definition of what constitutes as just or not. One action can be seen as a just cause by one and unjust by another.

If there is one fact of human life, it is that our history is steeped in blood. From our very beginnings, humans have waged wars and engaged in conflicts for different motives. Violence is natural because nature itself is violent. However, our tendency for conflict has since been scaled up from a tribal level to a global level, heightening the consequences. Spears and swords turned to rifles which turned into poison gas and nuclear bombs. So, as civilizations evolved, rules of war developed in hopes of minimizing the damage and preserving human life.

Nevertheless, with rules of morality come contradictions, and acceptable behavior before, during, and after war has long been a topic of discussion. The fact is that war itself is traumatizing and horrible, so finding morality among murder is a difficult task.

Jus Ad Bellum principles dictate that just cause is needed for a nation to declare war, but definitions of “just cause” are vague and often up to the interpretation of whatever the reigning global power is at that moment. For example, in the Encyclopedia of Just War Theory, self defense is an acceptable reason to initiate conflict, but when countries warp the definition of “self defense,” sometimes striking preemptively with the argument of preventing future conflict, everything becomes objective. Additionally, power means privilege, so world powers such as the United States or Britain are able to get away with their bloody histories of slavery, colonization, and imperialism.

When such a thing happens that a government goes to war for an unjust cause, it is likewise morally expected that the people rebel from this idea through protests or refusal to fight. While this is a pretty picture to paint, it is rarely realistically achieved. The goal of a nation is to accumulate and keep power over its territories, so when its security is threatened by an enemy, internal conflicts are deemed unacceptable. Social psychology emphasizes the importance of “us” vs. “them” mentality in human functions. As Eric Hoffer notes, having a “devil” or an enemy to rally against is essential for a mass movement. During wartime, governments need their subjects to focus on defeating one thing (ideally the enemy nation). When the public is motivated to fight against that object, they will participate and contribute to the war effort, which makes a big difference in that country’s odds in the conflict.

As such, it would be incredibly hard for people to simply rebel against their government, especially considering that if the government has decided to forego rules intending to preserve human life and fight an unjust war, their motives for power and domination would probably outweigh the wishes of their people. Any dissenters would face social and possible governmental pressure to support the war effort, and could face ostracization and legal consequences for their inaction. The idea of “patriotism” is a concept created by nations to intensify feelings of allegiance with the country and drive individuals to act on behalf of the country. Rebels are often labeled as “unpatriotic” and looked down upon by society.

For example, the Vietnam war was infamous for its destruction and the unnecessary involvement of countries like the U.S. Regardless of whether civilians wanted to fight or not, a draft was issued, conscripting all able-bodied men from around the country to fight. Unless you were contributing to the war in some other way (or just rich), you had to go and fight. Many men attempted to escape America to avoid Vietnam, and those who were caught were imprisoned or pleaded insanity and locked in mental institutions. It was only when the movement to stop the war became almost nation-wide that the government was forced to call back the troops, and that was after decades of fighting.

At the end of the day, war is about power, and the sacrifices a country will make for power. War is the cost that a nation deems acceptable for their goals and ambitions. War is about competition, as our biology entails. For countries facing war, morality is a secondary requirement to the need for survival: to exert dominance and create security within their nation. Nevertheless, we must still fight for our moral values even in the face of seemingly insurmountable challenges if we ever hope to make progress.

Just War Theory gives us a framework to understand warfare's moral impacts on soldiers and the justification of war itself: The theory of intrinsic in violence and conflict states that war is fundamentally wrong. On the other hand, the consequentialism model permits war if the outcomes are just. I believe that the Just War Theory is restrictive of humans and forces us to take two philosophical positions. In the real world, international conflict goes much deeper than the intrinsic idea of being morally wrong at all times or in the consequentialism model of being a just reaction to conflict. War can be a cause of many factors, which are also detrimental where war is wrong or just.

For example, the use of large-scale as a way of organized violence should not be justified as there is a means to solve conflict diplomatically. However, war as a revolution can be justified as it is a reaction to actions started by another nation. Specifically, the American reaction to the English occupation of the United States prior to the Declaration of Independence is justified because it is a reaction to the violence imposed by another nation.

According to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Just War Theory, jus ad bellum outlines criteria such as, just cause, legitimate authority, right intention, probability of success, and proportionality of violence. The criteria outline how war should not be waged and allow for the justification of war. I also believe it is important that jus ad bellum acknowledges that while war is inherently destructive, there are circumstances such as self-defense or the protection of human rights, where the use of force may be warranted.

Jus ad bellum, aligns more closely with the perspective of consequentialists. The theory recognizes that the outcomes of war can sometimes lead to greater moral goods, such as the liberation of oppressed peoples or the freedom of land. However, the theory also belives in unchecked militarism, by asserting that the theory applies when there is “legitimate authority”.

Citizen participation in unjust wars is unwarranted if nation initiates war for unjust reasons. I believe that it is the responsibility of the citizens to asses the conflict at hand and decide whether to support it. Most citizens excluding nations under authoritarian control, have the right to identify with their government’s choices. To refuse participation in a morally unjust war it can be seen as an act of high moral value while continuing to comply with a war may be viewed as contributing a role in wrongdoing.

As philosopher Jeff McMahan writes, “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 believe McMahan’s challenge what honor and morality mean in the context of warfare. In war, justice can be skewed, as soldiers often are doing as their told. McMahan suggests that people need to be held accountable in warfare to prevent wrongdoing. I connected the lack of justice in war to Abu Ghraib prison, an Army detention center for captured Iraqis from 2003 to 2006 during the Iraq War. At the prison members of the United States Army and CIA committed a series of human rights violations including weekly tortures, murders, and vile living conditions. After the mistreatment at the prison was realsed to media sources, the United States condemned the acts of violence and sought to punish a few high-ranking officials at the prison. However, nearly 20 after the United States war in Iraq, justice for many of the detainees tortured in Abu Ghraib was never given.

I agree with McMahan's assertion that soldiers fighting in unjust wars cannot simply rely on the notion that they are acting honorably if their cause is flawed. While the jus in bellum provides guidelines for ethical behavior on the battlefield—such as proportionality and distinction between combatants and non-combatants—it does not justify the moral implications of the war itself. Soldiers may act honorably according to these rules, but their actions are still embedded in the context of a potentially unjust cause.

The use of large-scale, organized violence can sometimes be justified. There are many reasons why a nation or group may go to war and some of them are reasonable. For example if a group is oppressed and is fighting for their freedom then that fight is very much justified. However there are still conventions people must follow in order for a war to be justified. As outlined by the Just War Theory, specifically jus ad bellum, there are several reasons why it is ok for a nation to go to war. The first is if someone else initiates an unjust act of “aggression” a nation has the right to defend itself. The second is having a just reason to go to war. The third is if war is a last resort and there are no other pathways one can pursue. The next is having the right intent, which means not doing it for selfish reasons. And the last is having a reasonable chance of success. These principles combine both the intrinsicist and consequentialist models for war. They explain why going to war may be just, the consequentialist model, while also providing constraints for reasons to go to war that make sure it really is just, the intrinsicist model.

However, the Just War Theory is flawed in that it allows too much leeway in both justification for war and actions in it. The principles are just vague enough that someone could manipulate them to their own specifications, making it hard to determine if a war and the actions people take in war really are just. For example, in Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum (Encyclopedia of Philosophy), when explaining how a nation or group has the right to self-defense if another commits an act of aggression towards them, it states, “Just cause resulting from an act of aggression can ostensibly be a response to a physical injury, … an insult, … a trade embargo, … or even to a neighbor’s prosperity.” This all really means that determining if something constitutes an act of aggression is up to the leader. It’s a judgment call that one or maybe a group of people has to make. And unfortunately this applies to a lot of the ideas outlined in this theory.

To that end, if someone doesn’t believe a war is justified, whether for religious, moral, or personal reasons, then I believe they have the right not to fight in the war. This doesn’t necessarily mean they shouldn’t carry out other tasks, like manufacturing weapons or being a doctor, especially if it is war in general they don’t agree with and not a specific war, but it means they don’t have to fight. There is a difference between not agreeing with war and ignoring your country and its efforts. At the same time, we still need people to fight, otherwise there is no way to win or successfully fight for a just cause (if war is the only option you have for doing that). Also, people can’t necessarily follow their own moral principles in war. Everyone has a different opinion on what is right and wrong and unfortunately there are enough people out there who would go to the extreme to win a war. If people followed their own moral compasses in war it wouldn’t really work because there would be some people who would refuse to do what’s necessary and there would be others who would take it too far. This is the whole point of the Just War Theory, but as I said before there is a lot about it that is up to individual interpretation, so there are times where people end up doing what the principles are trying to avoid.

War, as a whole, is all just very complicated and there are so many factors that go into declaring war, conducting war, and dealing with its aftermath. This doesn’t mean that war has to be avoided completely, but it also means that we need to be careful how we act in war.

War is unavoidable due to the fact that there will always be conflict, there will always be opposing sides, and it has been revealed that humans in fact do enjoy violence. Of course war should be avoided at all costs but that also begs the question, when is it most appropriate to wage war. The problem with this is the complexities of the entire topic of war, as a result of the intrinsicism model and consequentialism model and other different aspects of war, and it also connects to jus ad bellum because of the criteria needed to be met in order to actually wage war. However, jus ad bellum doesn’t always ensure that the war that is being waged is for just reasons because there could always be those hidden ulterior motives. I believe that if a nation wages war for unjust reasons, citizens should morally refuse to participate in the war effort. It isn’t always easy to obey authority, and especially go against one’s nation due to ideas seen similar to Milgram’s obedience experiment, as well as group-think, conformity, etc. It takes lots of courage to be able to go against one's own nation because of that patriotic feeling, and not be shunned by society for not going along with the nation, but patriotism is really subjective and its criteria and meanings depend on the person. In the “Between Peace and War Reading”, it highlights and emphasizes how much nationalism can also fuel and encourage a war. In the statement published by the party leaders in Germany, it is said that “Today it is not for us to decide for or against war; rather we must decide which means are necessary for the defense of our country. Now we must think of the millions of our fellow countrymen who are drawn into this disaster through no fault of their own. It is they who will suffer the most from the horrors of war.…And this army of women and children will soon be joined by tens of thousands of wounded and crippled soldiers. To help all of them, to improve their fate, to erase their inestimable suffering—we consider this our urgent duty.” Through this almost manipulative statement, it urges citizens to want to be a part of the war effort because if not, they would be harming and doing wrong as they would be making the choice to allow their fellow citizens to suffer at the cost of their neglect. In doing so, this forced compliance then turns to tactics and things like cognitive dissonance because one could think that by participating in the war effort, they are saving and aiding their “fellow countrymen” despite their harm in participating in the large-scale, organized violence. For soldiers, they can also really resonate with the consequentialism model of how by killing or doing this one terrible thing, it’ll end the chain reaction of any bad things that will follow. I think this also ties into cognitive dissonance because for many people acting in the war, they are making excuses or reasons that make them feel better about themselves despite the fact that they still are doing bad things like killing.

When a nation wages war for unjust reasons, I believe that the citizens should not participate in the fighting or even support the country; however, this is harder said than done. For example, even if the war is unjust, many countries will twist how it started to make it seem like the fighting is just. They do this in many ways like saying the fighting is in self-defense. This causes many civilians to support an unjust war because they have been manipulated by the people tasked with protecting them into believing that it is just. Nevertheless, I think it takes significantly more courage to choose not to fight in an unjust war than to fight in it because in these scenarios most of the time you are going to be seen as the villain or someone trying to destroy your nation since you are not supporting your nation. Furthermore, when you choose not to fight and follow your morals, you are most likely going to be one of the only people who decide not to fight or support the war effort since in times of war nationalism takes over the populous, and they all band together to help win, even if the war is unjust. Additionally, if each citizen were to act upon their moral compass, I think it would be almost impossible to war because deep down every human and selfish. This selfishness and inward thinking would cause people to never willingly go to war on their own accord without some level of influence from an outside party, the government, or other citizens because they wouldn’t want to risk their lives. This idea of selfishness is summed up in a quote from Between War and Peace which says “Only a few men refused to fight. They declared themselves conscientious objectors—people who refuse to serve in or aid the military for religious or moral reasons. A British man who called himself “Artifex” expressed his views of their stand in a letter that appeared in the Manchester Guardian: I think that to be a real conscientious objector a man must be, consciously or unconsciously, an extreme individualist with little sense of the solidarity of mankind and of our membership one of another.” This shows that many at the time believed that those who decided not to fight in World War I were extreme individualists who didn’t believe in joining a group. This distinction was made to anger the people because, instead of highlighting the real reason why people do not want to fight in war, Governments twisted it into saying they were selfish. Despite these challenges, I don’t think this is a realistic problem that nations face because during times of war, even if it’s unjust nations, pump out propaganda and the citizens band together to protect themselves in their country from destruction. In the end, I believe it takes courage to both risk your life fighting on the battlefield to protect your nation and to go against the grain deciding not to fight in unjust wars.

No it is not always morally wrong to engage in war because there are numerous justifiable circumstances that require organized violence on the indivdual and national level. It is unrealistic to state that war is unjust, morally wrong, or completely unecessary. That is not to say that war is necessarily a good thing but rather a necessary one. The belief that every conflict can be resolved peacfully and without physical conflict would only work under the ideal conditions that everyone thought and benefited from that way. This idea also assumes that with every conflict there is a possible and reasonable compromise which is not always the case. Even in situations where a resolution is found it is often not the entirety of the original requests. Unfulfilled requests and unsatisfied ambition only results in more dissent and domestic unrest. There are many valid reasons for war even if they don't seem just on the surface level. For example a nation going to war for the sake of economic benefit and gain may immediately seem unjust and evil. But consider the circumstance that the nation is extremely poor and is unable to provide basic human necessities such as adequate food, education, and health services. It would be cruel and priveledged to say economic gain is not a valid reason for war. Even if a war is fundamentally unjust it is the obligation of the citizens to take note of its malice, but it is not their obligation to oppose or refuse participation. Participation in the military can be very rewarding for military personal and their families in terms of benefits provided by the government. 39% of americans are unable to afford an unexpected expense of $400 dollars. This would mean that many Americans would not be able to afford their own funerals. The military covers many expenses like health care and funeral services. A person's participation in the military and/or a war for their country can be as simple as relieving economic burdens on their family members. This is one of various possible reasons that you are unable to deny a person or give judgement towards. That being said it is not cowardice to refuse to fight in a war that is not morally just. It is not just to ask your average citizen to particpate in war, it is not a decision for anyone but the indivdual to make. To take another humans life is not something that you can make an unwilling person do. Opposition to war maintains diversity of thought in a nation's decision- making. If every citizen was an extreme nationalist and gung-ho for war then that nations citizens would be extremely easy to take advantage of. Opposers of war keeps the public with an open mind preventing us from going into unjust and unecessary wars. Yes, even in war where it is chaotic and savage in nature and even when that war is unjust, there is a way for soldiers to act morally. This can only be done when every soldier from each nation is a willing participant of the war. Allowing another to die for a nation or cause that they believed in is an honorable death. Allowing for burials and the prevention of unecessary mutilated corpses and dehumanization is how you maintain morality.

Even if a nation wages war for unjust reasons a citizen should be able to act in accordance with their own moral conscience. Whether a citizen choses to aid in the war efforts, or chooses not to participate, they should be able to do so without feeling any outside pressure. Especially in the wars of the early to mid-twentieth century such as WWI and WWII, there was a lot of shame in choosing to opt out of the war effort and conscientious objectors were ridiculed, being depicted as selfish, lazy, and effeminate. Many of these objectors had very reasonable reasons for not wanting to involve themselves in war whether it be that their religion believes in pacifism, or that they have a strong moral opposition to contributing to violence. The sentiment of being anti-conscientious objector, while still present today, has died down after WWII as people started to more so examine the morality of warfare. However, a lot of people today find themselves on the opposite side of the coin, being anti-military and believe that contributing to the military, especially as a soldier to be morally wrong. While this does make a lot of sense on paper, this type of black and white thinking can greatly hinder someone's understanding of warfare as a whole. There are a lot of situations in which a person is forced into becoming a soldier. Especially in the twentieth century it was very common for nations to hold drafts in the face of a potential threat. These people especially who were unwillingly chosen by a draft should not be morally looked down upon for participating in the war as there are really no other options for them. This also applies to those who live in countries with mandatory military service such as South Korea, Switzerland, and Finland. Furthermore this same logic can be applied to those who participate in military service for needed benefits. For example a lot of high schoolers apply to ROTC as a way of paying for college and getting a higher education. The principles of Jus in Bello state that “a nation fighting an unjust cause may still fight justly, or a nation fighting a just cause may be said to fight unjustly.” Citizens, even if they would agree that warfare as a whole is unjust, have a lot of reason to partake in warfare whether they were forced to or if they chose to, however no matter what reason that they chose to partake, they have to attempt to apply the rules of Jus in Bello. While, ideally, every citizen should be able to make their own, unhampered, decision on whether or not they chose to partake in warfare, in a lot of cases that's just not possible and in these cases all that these citizens can do is to try and act justly on the field of battle.

I personally feel like war is never justified unless in defense against an aggressor. If we look at the origins of most wars, they almost always have something to do with either territory, resources, or discrimination, which I personally feel is not a good enough reason to take life away from others. Often times its with excessive force as well, all things that violate the 'just causes of war'. Like I mentioned earlier, I think the only justified case of war is when a power is fighting for their, territory, resources or rights. One of the biggest examples that came up in class is the case of the Haitian revolution. The Haitian people during this time were being enslaved and decided that they wanted to use force in order to correct this. In my eyes the Haitian people truly didn't have to much of a choice. They're freedoms were being stripped from them, they're rightful belongings as well. Ideally a diplomatic approach would be best but if we're just being honest, that's not always going to happen. With this in mind, it's almost like we have to accept that some wars are going to HAVE to happen, considering the circumstances which circles me back to the Haitian Revolution. The reason the Haitian Revolution is justified is because of the larger context of violence. We've seen all throughout history the lengths human beings can go to inflict violence, the evidence of this being the countless genocides that have happened throughout history and that are still happening today. Violence in large conflicts is almost inevitable so in order to defend yourself you have to meet violence with violence in order to protect your state and your people. The question of is war is justified or not is one that we are forced to answer yes to in my opinion. With such violent threats around you, when your backs against the wall, what are you meant to do? Are we to demonize self defense? Admittedly it's not right but we have to be realistic. War is not just, war should not happen, war is not justified, ideally. In such a violent world we can't deal with idealism. War unfortunately is sometimes necessary because they're are so many cases of aggressors in our global history. Time and time again we see countries do crazy things to other countries that sometimes feel completely senseless but we also see what happens when those countries don't fight back, or simply don't have the means to. Would said country be wrong if they tried to get a foreign and unwanted power out of their territory. In theory no, its their space. I feel it only gets complicated when violence gets involved but the blame should always be on the aggressor, NOT the one who is forced to make a decision.

War can be justifiable within reason, but is a reflection and result of poor leadership. If a country goes to war with another country because it did not initiate it or it is coming to the defense of another country, the war is justifiable. However, if a country goes to war with another country unprovoked, it is unjustifiable because it is for personal gain. Both the intrinsicist and consequentialist perspectives are restrictive and have a black and white thought process that is unrealistic for the intricacies of modern war. War can not be strictly good or bad because different people will have different perspectives based on the different benefits of the war and its individual impact. The Just War Theory tries to bridge the gaps between the two thought processes by highlighting the reasons that constitute a justifiable or reasonable war, however, I don’t believe it fully manages to do so. If a nation goes to fight an unjust war with another country, against the will of the majority of its inhabitants, people should rebel and reform the government. If the seemingly unjust war is supported by the masses, it would be safer for the individual to stay quiet, but this would make them complicit in the actions of their government, bringing up questions about the individual and group responsibility. The social pressure to conform encourages people to support causes they don’t believe in. Extreme nationalism can especially make it hard for people to express their opinions and refuse to fight because it paints any citizen that sympathizes with the enemy as another enemy. So, saying people should refuse to fight isn’t taking into account the full picture. However in a country where it is possible to refuse fighting, it takes a lot of courage to do so. I think it takes more courage to refuse the call to war for an unjust cause because it has a personal effect on how those who one loves views them, and then they have to live with that perception for life. When it comes to responsibility in warfare, it is important to recognize that soldiers should not be absolved of responsibility for their actions in war, forcing them to act with morality and honor, not taking advantage of their circumstances for personal gain. Soldiers should be allowed to defend themselves and fight combatants but it calls into perspective the line between a civilian and a combatant. The Principle of Jus In Bello argues that, “The distinction is, however, not closed by the nature of modern economies, since a combatant still remains a very different entity from a non-combatant, if not for the simple reason that the former is presently armed (and hence has renounced rights or is prepared to die, or is a threat), whilst the civilian is not. On the other hand, it can be argued that being a civilian does not necessarily mean that one is not a threat and hence not a legitimate target.” (2) The author draws the line between a civilian and a combatant, arguing that one must be armed to be considered a combatant, but those who are unarmed still do pose a level of threat. This could be a dangerous line of thinking as it could be reasoned that anyone is a threat to a soldier and thereby justify any extreme actions against civilians.

Originally posted by human_rights on October 22, 2024 07:47

War can be justifiable within reason, but is a reflection and result of poor leadership. If a country goes to war with another country because it did not initiate it or it is coming to the defense of another country, the war is justifiable. However, if a country goes to war with another country unprovoked, it is unjustifiable because it is for personal gain. Both the intrinsicist and consequentialist perspectives are restrictive and have a black and white thought process that is unrealistic for the intricacies of modern war. War can not be strictly good or bad because different people will have different perspectives based on the different benefits of the war and its individual impact. The Just War Theory tries to bridge the gaps between the two thought processes by highlighting the reasons that constitute a justifiable or reasonable war, however, I don’t believe it fully manages to do so. If a nation goes to fight an unjust war with another country, against the will of the majority of its inhabitants, people should rebel and reform the government. If the seemingly unjust war is supported by the masses, it would be safer for the individual to stay quiet, but this would make them complicit in the actions of their government, bringing up questions about the individual and group responsibility. The social pressure to conform encourages people to support causes they don’t believe in. Extreme nationalism can especially make it hard for people to express their opinions and refuse to fight because it paints any citizen that sympathizes with the enemy as another enemy. So, saying people should refuse to fight isn’t taking into account the full picture. However in a country where it is possible to refuse fighting, it takes a lot of courage to do so. I think it takes more courage to refuse the call to war for an unjust cause because it has a personal effect on how those who one loves views them, and then they have to live with that perception for life. When it comes to responsibility in warfare, it is important to recognize that soldiers should not be absolved of responsibility for their actions in war, forcing them to act with morality and honor, not taking advantage of their circumstances for personal gain. Soldiers should be allowed to defend themselves and fight combatants but it calls into perspective the line between a civilian and a combatant. The Principle of Jus In Bello argues that, “The distinction is, however, not closed by the nature of modern economies, since a combatant still remains a very different entity from a non-combatant, if not for the simple reason that the former is presently armed (and hence has renounced rights or is prepared to die, or is a threat), whilst the civilian is not. On the other hand, it can be argued that being a civilian does not necessarily mean that one is not a threat and hence not a legitimate target.” (2) The author draws the line between a civilian and a combatant, arguing that one must be armed to be considered a combatant, but those who are unarmed still do pose a level of threat. This could be a dangerous line of thinking as it could be reasoned that anyone is a threat to a soldier and thereby justify any extreme actions against civilians.

I agree with everything you said, except that people should rebel and reform the government in every case. We live in a country that constitutionally protects protests, but a lot of other countries don't. If a citizen of one of these countries were to go against their decisions publicly, their life, and the lives of their family could be in danger. I feel that in this case, a cause could be better fought through more quiet protest, instead of rebellion. I also think soldiers should not be held accountable for some of their actions in war (besides unneccesary killing of civilians), ONLY if the soldiers did not have a choice. In some countries, refusal to fight can result in severe consequences, and as said above, should be held to a different standard.

Originally posted by opinionated person on October 21, 2024 18:17

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

On the whole, I tend to agree with this peer’s post. I agree that war is sometimes necessary, but that shouldn’t take away from the fact that war is horrible and should be avoided when possible, and I mentioned something similar in my own post. However, the main point that stood out to me was something that I hadn’t talked about in my post, the point that people’s different moral compasses influenced their actions and therefore the actions of the whole war. In a way, I agree that people with a looser moral compass are more likely to support a prolonged war, past the point of being a just reaction. While I do think that people can have looser moral compasses than others, the idea of what makes one’s moral compass different from another’s is highly subjective and depends on many factors. The differences in moral compass could stem from many things, such as past life experiences, but doesn’t make one person more willing to allow horrible things. If I am interpreting my peer’s words correctly, they argue that people with moral compasses that allow them to be harsher lead to the prolonging of wars. In my opinion, this is correct, but there is much more that must be considered (not necessarily in their post) in order to properly understand moral compass and its effects on war.

While the premise of war is hard to justify, the way our society is constructed makes war almost impossible to avoid. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to resort to such violent and extreme measures just for people's needs/wants to be met, but we've constructed a society in which we need to garner attention and help through mass destruction and death. I personally do believe war is morally wrong and there is no way around that. To rationalize the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children is absurd regardless of the reason. Any problem can truly be solved by having a meaningful conversation with the other side and trying to come to a mutual understanding among each other. However, this is not something that is probable when it comes to conflict with global affairs. Most people in power thrive off the authority they hold and are stubborn in their own beliefs, making it difficult to talk anything out and actually have it get anywhere. This dismissal and blatant disregard for what people may want to happen is what, typically, results in war. When enough problems and conflicts have piled up to a point, people are going to want to do anything in their power to get what they want. War can be necessary, although it shouldn’t have to be. Unfortunately, sometimes there is no other solution to have needs met and people would rather die for a fair cause than die in a society they deem as unfair.

I don’t think the majority of people enjoy war. People don’t go to war just to go to war. People aren’t just willing to die for no reason. People go to war to have a means to an end, even if they aren’t alive to see that outcome. As much as I personally hate war, it is difficult to sit here and say that it isn’t ever necessary. Both the intrinsicism and consequentialism models have understandable points, but consequentialism is much more realistic given how things actually tend to pan out. I think intrinsicism is unrealistic and difficult to genuinely stand behind as much as I’d love to truly believe that war is morally wrong. I can’t emphasize enough that war is wrong, there’s no way around that, but it still can be the only way to come to a positive outcome for the next generation.

Once war is already waged, I think people should have the right to refuse to serve and it doesn't make them cowardly or disloyal to their nation/country. If someone doesn't feel passionately about what the war is towards or simply doesn't believe in the concept of war, who are we to point the finger at them for not wanting to die in war. People should be able to live out their lives in the way they seem fit and war shouldn’t be a determining factor in how we perceive them. On another note, I also don’t believe soldiers have to necessarily agree with the cause of war to fight in it. If there is already danger impending and war is already declared, it puts soldiers in a difficult situation to pick between fighting for their nation and sitting aside. Regardless of their beliefs, they’re going to be held accountable for their actions and they are aware of this. You can have such an intense love for your nation that even if it is in the wrong and you’re aware, you are still willing to sacrifice your life to protect that land. At the end of the day, it is their home. I view it as someone defending their mother even if she isn’t necessarily right. For example, if your mom orders something in a drive-thru and begins to argue with someone at the window, you’re probably going to back her up in the moment and maybe say something to her later when someone else isn't there. I think that’s how people might feel in an unjust war. They know what they’re doing isn’t necessarily right, but they’d rather defend that land they hold dear than turn their back on it. It is their own internal battle to fight, so trying to label them and insult them for making their own conscious decision is just a waste of time and an argument that doesn’t need to occur, in my opinion. They are still going to be tried for the actions they take anyways, so it is their own problem and conflict.

The last point I wanted to touch on was what is considered just in war itself. Something that stuck out to me in the second excerpt of Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum was the debate on whether killing a civilian can be justified in war. Initially I had strongly believed that only soldiers should be targeted in war, but then the idea that a civilian might have intel or information that could potentially be destructive or dangerous changed my mind. It reminded me of the ultimatum between saving one innocent person or saving the majority. This is a concept that pops up often in films and games, like Spider-Man or The Last of Us. In Spider-Man Across the Spider-verse, Miles is faced between saving his father, who was destined to die, or accepting that his father’s death was necessary for the universe to stay intact. In The Last of Us, Ellie is the only one immune to an infectious disease that has affected the majority of people, and in order to concoct a cure, Joel has to sacrifice her. Selfishness can get in the way of these though, because everyone’s life is valued by someone and obviously wouldn’t want to lose them but sometimes a life is the cost of the greater good.

Sorry to whoever reads this, I didn’t mean for it to be so long. :(

A man who doesn’t support his country is a man with no standing. That is the way it has always been portrayed. The history lessons, ranging from The Armenian Genocide to WWI and more, nationalists have been made to be the good guy, and the true Country Man (“All American Man”). Yet, what is to be said for the people who feel moral discomfort during war? Why do we hold such a pedestal for nationalists, but not for those who dare to disagree? These questions rung in my head when learning about the Just War Theory. In a perfect world, I am anti-war on all decisions and all ideals. Yet, I understand that this is less than likely, especially considering the human desire for revenge, power and greed. Reading the Just War Theory, I found that most countries were prided by the amount of nationalism they had, and anyone who didn’t agree with wars or the current war of that country would be treated as less than a citizen, and not far enough from a traitor. I believe there is a toxic reality in nationalism, as beautiful as it is to see in other aspects of life; specifically when it comes to the war movement. One example that carried with me throughout the lessons I’ve learned in both Facing and other history classes, was the propaganda and call to nationalism during WWII. So many memorable characters, movies, and songs have come with the time of WWII in support of the American effort, but it is often forgotten the pressures that non-conforming citizens felt to fully support the war. Although it may be hard to discern citizens from enemies, Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum offers the belief that “It would be wrong” based upon principles of discrimination, “to group the enemy into one targetable mass of people”. I agree with this, but it seems that countries and mass groups of people who fail to realize just how far their push their nationalism and condemn others, may not. I firmly believe that citizens should not be persecuted for being brave and courageous enough to not agree with their countries role in war. And I especially believe that the process of disagreeing with your countries role in war alone is very valiant, as the consequences may be as violent as ones own death. Civilians, in my eyes, will always remain innocents unless abiding directly to the war crimes. A civilian alone cannot choose if their country enters war, and I therefore believe they shouldn’t be forced to disregard previous morals for a completely nationalistic mindset. This goes against anything that Free Speech and belief may stand for, and blatantly illustrates whether a country is stable enough to not feel threatened by such differing ideologies. Anyone who does not stand for genocide, who does not stand for unjust war crimes, who does not stand for the warping and villanizing of another country or race, is unfortunately in our current societal climate, brave. This should not be something that is considered bravery, it should be normalized. We are a melting pot of people, and that melting pot becomes awfully small when we cannot accept differing opinions without violence or harmful persuasions.

We learned in the previous unit that mass movements are nothing without a large following that is willing to listen to and carry out what the leader of it is saying. If they don’t believe in the movement, there won’t be one. I believe the same thing applies to war. If a nation wages war for unjust reasons and they are aware of it, I think that ideally citizens should refuse to participate in it. If you know that something is wrong you shouldn’t do it, especially with something as dangerous and destructive as war. War makes it so that people are forced into a position where they have to choose between life and death. This could completely be avoided if people just didn’t help the effort because then there wouldn’t be one. I feel like the biggest problem that comes with this choice is the fact that the opposing country may decide to attack the refusing nation regardless of whether or not they’re fighting, simply because the initial threat was there. I feel like the fear of being attacked and losing everything does create the need for more courage if one were to decide to sit out of the war effort. It’s absolutely not cowardice to refuse to fight in a war that is believed to be unjust though. The war goes against the morals of the people and not wanting to put everything on the line, including their good conscience, is fully understandable. War is really heavy and dangerous and I feel like calling someone a coward because they don’t wish to partake in it is completely ignorant and nonsensical. With that being said, I feel like differing opinions on the war may cause some internal conflict in the nation. In Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum it said that “Possessing just cause is the first and arguably the most important condition of jus ad bellum”. The issue with this is that it is too vague, and too much can be left up to interpretation. Something one person may feel is just cause for war is something that another may not agree with and that can lead to more internal issues. If the majority of a nation doesn’t believe in the war effort it would be far less destructive than half supporting it and the other half not supporting it. In fact, I feel like that could be nearly just as dangerous as warring with another nation. War is incredibly messy and I believe that 95% of the time it is never the last option. With that, I will also say that I do not believe that war is always immoral. It’s not a favorable outcome in the slightest and it would be more ideal if it didn’t have to come to it but there have been times in history where it actually helped people gain freedom from their oppressors. I think that especially at this point in time, the world has seen so many wars and has built up so much conflict that it’s practically impossible to eradicate, which is the sad truth.