learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by ilovemydog34 on October 21, 2024 17:06

War is a complicated topic, there are many ways to justify many points of view and that is why it has been up for discussion for so many years. People have different experiences, some personal and some from the outside, offering even more conflicting opinions. War is not always wrong and the use of large-scale organized violence can sometimes be justified. With this being said, there are certain restrictions these leaders have to abide by to make it justified. The times that war is the only option are not common yet they certainly exist. Much like the Just War Theory states, all exhausts have to be tried in order to resort back to war. What this means is that all attempts to keep peace and not kill have had to be thought through and put to the test before we can decide it is okay to start using violence as the answer. We can see this in Excerpt 1: Just War Theory-Jus In Bello (Encyclopedia of Philosophy), when they talk about the principles of Just War Theory, “The resulting damage that war wrecks tends to be very high for most economies and so theorists have advised that war should not be lightly accepted: once unleashed, war is not like a sport that can be quickly stopped” (page 3). This is something important to consider because nations can get ruined because of how much money and distraction is caused by war and inevitably never fully come back from it. Weapons and organizing armies costs millions but in order to win and save lives, they are needed when going against a powerful enemy. Due to its extremity, it needs to be fully confirmed that war is the only option left because it is declared. This decision of it being the last and final option should not come from that nation's ruler alone due to basis but rather an organization whose job is that. In the modern world, for the average citizen, it is easy for us to say we would follow the intrinsicism model. Yet most of us have never been leading a group of soldiers or been a soldier, where millions of peoples lives are in your hands, including your own and you have to make a decision on the spot. For example, if there was a shelter where they knew the enemy's citizens were staying to seek safety but there were hundreds of bombs being stored there by the enemy as well, is it wrong to bomb those to eliminate the deadly bombs that can be used against their own troops? That is something that needs to be considered before we state we follow one model or the other, what we would do if we were actually at war. This is why the conversation of war and justifying actions during war is such a hard one to grasp because there are so many ways to look at it. If your country declared war but you believed it was morally wrong, then it is brave to stick up and not fight because you believe this is wrong. This is what a nonconformist would do while the majority would go with the group, meaning they would ignore what they know and believe to be wrong in order to not stick out. When all others are following the authority, they are not, they are resisting, this is brave. This is why it is more cowardice to fight in a war you do not think is right. Also by fighting in a war, you are choosing to put your life on the lines for whatever you are fighting for, meaning you should wholeheartedly believe in the cause and actually want to fight the war. With this being said, not every citizen can go around following what they believe because then there may not be enough people to be in the army. Therefore, there needs to be some kind of boundary set that you have the right to follow your own beliefs but there have to be some kind of limits set. Overall, war being justified or not is such an expansive topic and can be taken in many different directions by people with different backgrounds regarding war.

Hi ilovemydog34. I really liked your response! I thought you did a wonderful job considering both sides of the argument: whether war is justifiable or not. I agree with you fully that the topic is so expansive due to the different interpretations and backgrounds of nations around the world. The quote you pulled from Just War Theory-Jus In Bello (Encyclopedia of Philosophy) was particularly interesting; as you explained, war may be an option but all consequences should be considered due to the extreme destruction that can result.

I think you brought up a good point that people are often quick to follow the intrinsicism model due to the fear and reflection of history's past wars, however, none of us are soldiers or leaders who need to make a decision regarding mass safety on the spot. In my response, I stated that consequentialism is most relevant for today's guidelines surrounding wartime, I'd be curious to see if you agree?

We both brought up the idea that those who do not fight are considered quite courageous because they are actively going against authority; these conscientious objectors are also putting their life on the line by choosing to follow their own moral compass. However, I think you brought up an important point that not every individual should follow their own moral compass because that could lead to hectic events during times of panic; I agree with you that some leader or order should be in place to avoid irrationality.

Overall, I thought your response was very well thought through and we brought up a lot of the same points!

Originally posted by frozencoffee127 on October 21, 2024 23:44

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.

Hello Frozencoffee127!

There are so many valuable and insightful points made in your response! I very much agree with your point that war is morally wrong and your points backing that up are very strong. Many points that you made, I also made in my response so I agree with a lot of them! A point that was especially compelling to me was how a morally right war seems contradictory, especially in the modern world when it seems like leaders are greedy and want more power. This was interesting for me to think about because it really applies to the current world and I can think of multiple examples where this would apply. Some of these being reasons behind wars but also some politicians in general. Something that you mentioned that made me think, is when I think about war, I often think of it on the level of how it would affect humans, rather than why we typically go to war. I believe we focus more on the affects of humans because the majority of us have not fought in the war or led the war ourselves, so it is hard for us to put ourselves in the position of making a decision that ultimately could affect the future of a country. With moral war being such a hard concept, self-defense is a great example you provided that could, under the right circumstances, fall into the morally right war category. Overall, you have good ideas and provided great points and I also mentioned many of them in my own response!

Originally posted by redboylife on October 22, 2024 09:25

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.

The most compelling idea in this post is that war is “trading deaths”. I don’t agree with this idea because although the argument is that killing people is not okay, which I agree with, this sentence seems to go against the argument being made. I also don’t agree with the idea that Just War Theory is based primarily on consequentialism because there are intrinsicist values implemented in Just War Theory, particularly in jus post bellum, which holds people accountable for their actions during war. This is not based on consequentialism, but it is based on intrinsicism. However, I do agree with the idea that war may be justified, and this was mentioned in others’ posts as well. The point made that people should be conscientious objectors is questionable because if everyone was a conscientious objector, no war would occur at all, and there wouldn’t be a need for war at all. This point is then refuted, which confuses me, but my understanding is that participation in war could make the war shorter and lead to less casualties overall, which would be better morally. My main takeaways were that this person should be confident in the ideas they are making because the use of auxiliary verbs was detrimental to the points being made. I found this piece confusing to read because of some of the phrasing and grammar errors, but the ideas were displayed. It felt redundant, and I think it could have been shortened to make the arguments stronger.

Originally posted by mouse0 on October 21, 2024 11:21

War is not always wrong, as the formation of organized violence can be justified in self-defense. If a state is attacking and posing a threat to your own state, you must defend it for the sake of your state’s survival and proliferation. It may be necessary to use methods that may end the lives of the attackers, however, as a soldier you have given up your protection. You transition from a protected citizen, where you aren’t classified as a target, therefore your death cannot be justified, to a combatant, who participates in the threat and possible destruction of another state. In accordance with The Principles of Jus in Bello, when you are considered a combatant or a soldier in war, you are putting your life and the lives of those you face at risk, therefore you renounce your immunity and innocence from the war. This distinction is important in terms of the principle of discrimination. This covers who are legitimate targets in war to prevent indiscriminate attacks against innocents who may be deemed as not being a part of the war. If a soldier is drafted into an unjust war, they are still capable of upholding honorable war methods. This would include following the principle of discrimination as stated previously, making sure only legitimate targets are being focused on. Nevertheless, the notion of an unjust war, or legitimate targets, entirely depends on the views of the nations at war. Many can twist these principles to make their reason to war just. Throughout history, many war acts were based on religion and other subjective topics which are different between cultures. The principles of war make it so that these subjectivities are conquered, and the world can hold the same/similar morals on how war is fought. However this has not provided a solution. Technically, with the right reasoning and manipulation of such principles, any war can be justified. With the principle of proportionality, however, you can gauge certain war acts as being justifiable or not. From The Principles of Jus In Bello, the principle of proportionality covers the amount of force is morally necessary. When classifying self-defense in war, you can determine whether the defense is excessive or not, based on the magnitude of the initial attack. Although the attack itself may have been from an unjust cause, the actions taken against it can be justified, insinuating that although the cause of war can be unjust, the way war is fought can be moral. One requires a combination of both the intrinsic and consequentialist model to classify war realistically. The intrinsicism model is necessary after determining the set proportionality of war acts. If, at the start of the war, the border is challenged, it would not be proportionate for the opposite nation to bomb the threatening nation’s hospitals. That would be immoral in accordance with the principles. However, if the attacking nation had begun with the bombing of the hospitals, an attack in retaliation that reflects the initial attack would still be immoral. The consequentialist model deems that war acts are only permissible if the outcome is just. If bombing the attacking nation’s hospitals in response to them bombing hospitals first brings an end to the war, that action would be justified. This, however, may become problematic as leaders may have different views of what is a proportionate attack or not. However, one cannot choose the intrinsicism model over the consequentialist model or vice versa. Both are needed to assess war acts.

The author of this piece has a wonderful grasp on the topics and complexities in Jus in Bello. I think one of the strongest parts of their paragraph is the uncertainty of justness because it is a heavily debated topic and I really liked your point about how any good arguer can make an unjust war seem just by bending the facts. The author of this piece states their own opinions on various topics such as civilians versus combatants and intrinsicism versus consequentialism but emphasizes the gray areas that exist in the Just War Theory. This student has a very different position from me about Just War Theory however they argue their point extremely well and I understand their opinion on it. Their ideas follow closely with the articles we have read and the topics we have covered in class and fall into the masses. War is an incredibly complex subject and it is difficult to have a complete stance that war is always wrong or always right and I think that this student does a very good job of expressing not only their knowledge of the topic but also their personal opinions on it which remain complex but are presented in a very through and cohesive manner.

Originally posted by VelveteenRabbit on October 22, 2024 07:45

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.

I like the point that you made in the first paragraph concerning variability of different wars and the declarations of them. I made a similar point in my own post, saying that wars can be justifiable if all other options are exhausted before resorting to a declaration of war, which not only ties into Jus ad Bellum principles, but also the fact that humans are innately aggressive and are capable of great atrocities, which you mentioned not long after. I like how you brought attention to the indifference of the enemy in wartime when concerning your own moral views, the fact that an individual whom I don’t know, and is simply acting under the command or persuasion of their own country’s messages, could truthfully not care less about my own moral standing. This works the other way around too, if I were persuaded into seeing my group’s enemies as purely an enemy and nothing more, I likely wouldn't think much on the idea that these people could possibly be pacifists. I also like the point you made in your second paragraph about how one’s willingness to fight in a war, despite it being just or unjust, depends on a great variety of possibilities, it serves as a testament for the human need to keep themselves afloat in society, despite whatever repercussions the necessary actions to do so may have.

Originally posted by bnw88 on October 22, 2024 00:14

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.

Great work bnw88! You brought up some interesting points about the struggle between personal morals and the need for teamwork during unjust wars. It’s true that while individuals have the right to refuse participation based on their beliefs, this can create chaos for the military. I like how you criticized McMahan’s idea when you said “... it may be hard to implement in the reality of war”. This shows the tough spot soldiers are in when they have to choose between following orders and staying true to their ethics. Your mentioning of jus in bello principles is important too, as you said it highlights how soldiers can try to keep their humanity even when the situation is messy. It’s a tough balance, as soldiers may face serious consequences for refusing to fight, even if they feel the war is wrong. This decision emphasizes how complex war really is, both ethically and emotionally. Overall, you make a strong case for the complexity of war and the personal dilemmas soldiers face. It’s important that we consider that these people are human in the long run, and the choices individuals must make in these situations are not easy. Great job describing such an important view!

Originally posted by frozencoffee127 on October 21, 2024 23:44

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.

Post your response here.

I agree with your claim that war is moral if the cause and conduct is moral as well. Since people are killed in war, which affects their family members and friends, steps must be taken to prevent unnecessary death. War can be immoral even if the cause is just, since the actions taken in war may be immoral, and war is immoral even if only the cause is immoral since such causes are often specifically to cause death. I also believe that it is difficult to quantify proportionality since it is the task of giving a specific value to a person and their life. Thus, I agree that the consequentialist model is more effective in inferring morality.

However, I disagree with how citizens aren’t morally obligated to decline participation in warfare. While I believe it is more courageous to disobey orders or to reject combat entirely, I believe it takes the same courage to accept the responsibilities and risks of being a combatant, so people must have morals that align with these responsibilities for them to be willing to handle them. As a result, people must decide whether to obey the nation or to obey the self.

Overall, I enjoyed your reflection and I am hoping to see more from you!

Originally posted by Estalir on October 22, 2024 07:01

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.

I completely agree that your opinion on war isn’t always wrong. I thought your argument about the necessity of some wars were really compelling and how these wars are mainly fought for rights and freedom. I really liked what you said about how there is really no reason to go after citizens with no choice but to simply follow their rules. I also believe that it would just lead to unnecessary and cruel death. I also agree with your statement about the bombs and killing thousands of people that generally had no part in the wars. Our new state of power with changing and ending a war with a bomb is terrifying and I love how you brought it up. I agree with the thought that war can be justified, but it is important remembering that considering the morality of targeting opposite forces and not civilians. I really liked your emphasis on the courage that is needed to turn down participation in unjust wars. I slightly disagree with this since nonviolence resistance can be an extremely powerful alternative to war. We can see this in Gandhi's civil rights movement that shows the significant change that happened without violence. There are many perspectives on this view, but this is mine. I also believe that the psychological impact on the soldiers could be a great part to add.

Originally posted by crunchybiscuits on October 18, 2024 12:17

The moral justification of war is a deeply contested issue, one side of it developed in the mindset of intrinsicism, the other being deeply rooted in consequentialism. These two ideas fall on opposite sides of the spectrum, each representing incredibly valid ideologies and reasoning. These two perspectives catalyze how society views conflict, justice, and morality collectively. Just War Theory serves as a medium to which these two ideas can form into one, providing moral boundaries of what is just in war and what is evil. In the context of human society, war often feels inevitable, especially when we consider the complexity of global politics and how intertwined various systems are. However, given how much connection humans have built over diplomatic systems and political stand points, strong diplomatic structures exist for the very problems that war brings on all sides of the party: hatred. However, what would war look like on a common moral ground if diplomacy fell short? In some cases, war is justifiable. For example, the act of self defense. This mechanism can be viewed as an action of protecting its people from an evil source. If there are no wars, there would only be one power taking advantage of the lack of self defense. When a nation wages war, it gives reasons for societal tensions and moral dilemma. There is never a legal obligation to oblige a country during war, but many experience forced obligation to serve their country. In many cases, people who did not explicitly fight for war still contributed to the war efforts through less heinous acts. Refusing to fight, even if the effort is negative or positive, takes a lot of courage to do, because it preserves the idea that one might have of their nation being inherently peaceful, and therefore, their act could be seen as patriotic. Those who do refuse war have a high sense of self or rationalized mindset. Within society, people who have refused to fight wars are spoken very ill of, causing negative connotation to their actions. Jeff McMahan’s views on Just War Theory are very innovative, and there are some things in his argument that are agreeable to an extent. The continuity of people going beyond their moral compass for the sake of following orders is very great, and is a common example of human nature, especially in war. The Milgram Experiment speaks many volumes within this realm of psychological theories. The emphasis McMahan makes on keeping people in check is very valid, and criticizes the human nature of fear, opening the perspective of this in a higher moral sense. However, it is still important to be on the optimistic side of this continuity, as society is always evolving with the hopes of living better lives. Many soldiers have a high sense of morality, and some are currently helping reform the war justice systems and war models. In conclusion, although war can be invasive, it is still necessary to have them because of the very complicated systems we live in today.

The most compelling idea that crunchybiscuits made in my opinion is that is takes more courage to not go to an unjust war rather than going to war. Their reasoning is that the social backlash that one faces when refusing to go to war is greater than the fear of actually going to war. I agree with this idea, which is similar to that of Tim O’Brien’s The Things We Carried, where the whole reason his character goes to war is because he is afraid of being outcast by his town for being a coward. The story is loosely based on real events so it’s not unreasonable to believe that this idea could be real. They also talk about how some people refuse to go to war because they are trying to preserve the idea that their country is inherently peaceful. I don’t really agree with this statement because it’s more likely that the people in a country that is declaring an unjust war have recognized that their country is becoming more violent instead of living in denial. However, it’s still an interesting argument because it offers a potential view of some people in a warring country, I just don’t think that it is widely shared enough to be included when giving reasons for a group of people not joining the war.

Originally posted by msbowlesfan on October 22, 2024 00:20

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.

Hello, msbowlesfan! First of all, I just wanted to let you know that I had a very good experience while reading your Learn to Question. It was very interesting to see multiple perspectives, especially because I have seen so many different takes on war. I think it takes a lot of courage to believe in Intrincism, simply some people cannot abandon the nature of violence within their daily lives.I really found your criticism for the idea of self defense. Although self defense is a very big topic within the morality debacle, it would not be beneficial to use if all countries used diplomatic systems correctly. I also appreciate how you are able to understand the side of consequentialism within this ideology. It is important to see both sides, especially when you pointed out that many aspects of Just War Theory become situational. Lastly, I think it is so essential and great that you mentioned having a strong mindset to object to war is beneficial. I think especially with recent wars, not having an opinions or not endorsing a side is very cowardly, because even if you believe in intrinsicism, many people view it as bad because people will not speak out.Personally, I am in the middle of the spectrum within the discourse Just War Theory, but after reading this, it was able to help me see the intrinsic side of the theory.

Originally posted by pinkpenguin on October 21, 2024 17:06

Pinkpenguin’s first statement, war is always wrong, is very interesting to me. If war is always wrong then how could it be justifiable? I do disagree with the idea that war is always wrong because I believe that war is sometimes inevitable. I think war is a necessity for enacting change within a broken society that refuses to change. I do not agree with killing people, but if the people are ready to die for their cause then I see it as a justifiable war. We need to stop asking if war is morally wrong or right and focus more on whether it was a fair war because that is more realistic.

Similarly, my idea about people being ready to die for their cause reminds me of how wars were viewed in the past. Is it an honorable war? Were the people killed in an honorable way, without cheating and backstabbing? Honestly, that is how I view war, and that is why I know war will never be fair. There will always be people who are being forced to fight yet don’t believe in the cause, and eventually end up facing their demise on the battlefield. It’s sad but understandable because that's how life goes.

Pinkpenguin clearly has a more intrinsic point of view than me. I look more on a personal level and how I feel. Sometimes I agree with the rules and other times I don’t. I like a lot of what Pinkpenguin said, but it felt a bit disorganized, and sometimes they lost me. My suggestions would be for them to include paragraphs within their post and a more outlined thought process. Other than that, it's pretty good.

Originally posted by shark11 on October 21, 2024 23:58

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.

Hi shark11!

Amazing response!

I really like your point about the theoretical nature of Just War Theory in that it can be subjectively interpreted and can thus be morally ambiguous. I think it raises a really interesting question of what impact these theories have concretely had in the world in terms of preventing unjust wars or holding nations accountable for their actions in war. The fact a universal ethical framework exists must certainly have made an impact, yet we still see numerous wars, some arguably unjust, that are happening in the world today.

I also agree that Just War Theory melds intrinsicism and consequentialism in the sense that it provides moral rules that must be followed but that are grounded in the consequences of violation. I think, though, that I have a slightly different personal view of intrinsicism in that I don’t think those subscribing to this view would necessarily find actions in war unsolvable, just that they would argue war should likely never happen in the first place and there are very strict rules as to what can be done during said war.

Lastly, I completely agree that the weighing of potential outcomes of a war can incentivise unjust attacks against people simply because a group has a reasonable chance of winning, which seems to be an unjust thought paradigm insofar as, on its own, it essentially argues violence CAN be justified solely by success. I think even the necessary existence of these theories can prove the injustice of war.

Originally posted by astrali_ on October 21, 2024 18:52

War is morally wrong when it is one-sided, however, it is inevitable for war to happen sometimes, which is why it is important to establish reasons for what makes the cause just as well as moral actions that can be taken during wartime. Organized violence could be justified as a means of self-defense against a threat, but otherwise organized violence unprovoked is definitely wrong. As stated in “Just War Theory” from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “War should always be a last resort,” which brings back the point that sometimes war is inevitable due to options of keeping peace being exhausted. Also, in terms of the modern world, the consequentialism model is more realistic because, as stated before, war is inevitable and is reoccurring throughout history. Therefore, it would be best to think of how the actions of war will impact a nation or society rather than think that war is bad no matter what because that is a naive way to look at today’s world. The saying used today, “impact versus intent,” could also apply to the causes, actions during, and actions after a war because even if one has good intentions, they could certainly go about it in an unnecessarily violent way that could leave the victim devastated. Jus ad bellum doesn’t act as a bridge between the two models because in intrisicism, people believe that war is bad no matter the cause. Rather, jus ad bellum acts simply as a boundary, albeit a little nuanced in some principles, that determines whether one should be held responsible for whatever actions are taken during a war. By nuanced, one of the principles is “having just cause” which could be interpreted in an infinite amount of ways due to different nations and societies having different expectations, traditions, and/or values.

Citizens have the option to choose whether or not they want to participate in the war effort, including all interpretations of “participating.” For example, one doesn’t have to fight in the war itself, however, can still participate in the war by providing medical care on the front or housing soldiers. Even if passively participating in the war effort, citizens can decide if they want to participate in war or not, especially if war is waged for unjust reasons, because the decision of the government/leader to wage war doesn’t always align with the morals of the citizen and their internal decision of whether or not they agree with the reasons for war. Being willing to fight in a war is brave, however, because of the idea that people have differing beliefs and morals, it also wouldn’t be cowardice to not fight in a war that someone believes is morally wrong, especially if that person has a different definition of cowardice and bravery compared to another person. The consequences of fighting a war where each citizen acted on their own moral compass would be much more serious, depending on the extent to which people act on their morals. For example, a “good-case” scenario’s outcome where every citizen acted on their own moral compass would be that people would just socially group themselves to wherever their morals aligned and that the groups wouldn’t act on their morals. However, a “bad-case” scenario’s outcome, or even worst case scenario, would be that the nation would be not unified at all and everyone is doing their own thing. This could even result in internal conflicts, such as riots, in addition to whatever conflict the nation is at war for. Therefore, although it may seem unfair or difficult for some, during times of war, it is best if people were to not act on their own moral compasses.

Hi astrali_,

Two of your statements really stood out to me in this reflection. The first would be that it is naive to think that war is bad no matter what. I also believe that it is necessary at times and is not always a horrible thing. I think you did a really great job explaining what you meant by this when saying that “war is inevitable due to options of keeping peace being exhausted,” meaning that sometimes there has been a disagreement for far too long, and war is the only way to come to a conclusion. The second place that was really compelling to me was when you said that acting on your own moral compass could potentially be worse than conforming to society and “participating” in war. I most likely wouldn’t have agreed with this before, but your explanation about how this would divide a nation and result in riots, internal conflict, and an overall chaotic society really changed my perspective. Overall I agreed with everything you wrote here, but I also liked that you brought up new ideas that I hadn’t even considered, while also changing my opinions on them. The only thing that I think differed from what I’ve seen from my other peers was the idea about how people working on their own moral grounds would be wrong. It makes sense to me now, however, because even though people should act on what they believe in, constant riots and conflicts would not be beneficial to a nation, especially during a time of war. Everything was very clear and direct in this reflection and I thought it was really interesting to read!!