learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by shirleytemple on October 18, 2024 09:22

We all hope that we would be against war, regardless of the situation. However, modern society leans more towards war, and having a cause for fighting. Often throughout history, war has been unnecesary, therefore wrong, however with the change of society, war has become less frequent and more well thought out due to jus ad bellum. War is to restore peace, rather than just revenge. As seen in Jus Ad Bellum, war has criteria it needs to meet in order for it to be considered just. Some of this involves the idea that war should be a last resort, sometimes there is no other way to stop a common evil or protect a country without it; “justice of war…:having 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. (Jus ad bellum. 5)”. As well that measures should only be taken to the extent needed, which prevents excessive killing. These guides apply into Jus in Bello, where rules are applied to how you treat civilians and POWs. The idea that civilians shouldn’t be targeted, which limits casualties in war. This is not a one way mirror though, for this idea is broad and has holes in it. What if the civilians were old soldiers, what if they aid their soldiers, what if the soldiers hide with the civilians. All of these questions have answers that are dictated by individual morals. Which is also why no one can ever come to an agreement. Throughout Jus ad belllum, the writer constantly reminds the reader that this is a guide, “jus ad bellum are useful guidelines …” and “a useful starting point for ethical examination and they remain a guide…”. This is an important distrinction because while everyone hopes people would follow these rules, but many people don’t. You can make the argument that these aren’t real rules, which in truth they aren’t, but they can be used to keep people in check during war and analyze if the war was necessary and help politicans take the next steps after war. The hard part about this is that rules are only as good as they are enforced. Meaning that if people don’t push people to abide by them, they are less likely to follow. Moving on, civilians should be allowed to refuse war, if they feel it is unjust. Following, that if it so happens so many people do not wish to participate, that a country is left with a small army, that maybe leaders should reutrn to why they are going to war, and if it is necessary since so many people deem it not. It takes courage to fight and to stand against your country. Courage to fight because you are coming to terms with the fact you could die, you give up your life for others, for your country. While courage to stand against it because you are defying a greater power, and often the majority, which can seem like everyone dislikes you and is against you. Soldiers can act morally and immorally during war, even if it is unjust. Soldiers fight for so many reasons, it’s not all just simple. They could be forced, they could feel align with the cause, they could be pressured, and so many more things. Regardless of what side of war they are fighting on, it is possible to act morally. The soldiers are doing what they are ordered. Jus in bello helps soldiers know what acts are moral and which aren't, and keeps them in line. It also gives not only soldiers but leaders as well a rule book, and enforces responsibility onto them. As said in jus in bello, “the principle of responsibility re-asserts the burden of abiding by rules…on those acting in war to remind them that one day they will…take up civilian status…free of any guilt from war crimes.” This is an important and necessary thing in war, because the feeling of responsibility forces people to act better, knowing they could be punished for their actions. This is also why figures who don’t feel harsh responsibility often do whatever they want, and harm whoever they want because they know they won’t/can’t be punished (this was seen with the rise of Hitler, European countries believed if they left him alone he wouldn’t become anything bad, and Hitler used this as an incentive that he had the power to do whatever he wanted).

The most compelling idea in my peers' post is the idea that the theories such as Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bellum provide a form of reasoning and structure to the ways of war. Through their extensive evidence and justification, my peer clearly supported their statement. Throughout the response they describe in detail the ideas of Jus Ad Bellum including the ideas that due to war becoming less frequent there has been a restoration of peace in our society. This restoration of peace in our society comes solely from the fact that war is now more well thought out due to Jus Ad Bellum and we now view war as a last resort. The author highlights how war is not a form of revenge but rather a form of reinstituating peace and unity in our societies. In my own writing piece I also discussed the role courage plays in war. Like my peer, I discussed when and how courage is needed and when it is not particularly needed in war. My peers' views are very similar to my own views in the sense that war should not always be deemed necessary nor be our first option. War is sometimes, though, the thing we need in order to completely restore peace and unity. Through the systems of Jus ad Bellum and Jus In Bellum, when war is necessary we can fight, defend, and protect our country as safely as possible.

Originally posted by mrgiggles!! on October 22, 2024 07:42

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

I believe that the most compelling argument in this post is that humans aren’t naturally violent, but that we are drawn towards it. I agree with this argument considering it is displayed in more ways than just war. For example many people enjoy watching things like WWE shows where people get very injured, and at sporting events when the players start to swing at one another the crowd gets incredibly rowdy. Therefore, I feel like it is really compelling to have that discussion between being violent and liking the spectacle of violence. There are many ideas shared across posts, but one that really stuck out was about how being a conscientious objector, and standing away from the group is a difficult task. My views heavily align with those included in my peers' response, and as I was reading I continued to agree with each of the ideas and concepts that they were listing. I also found many of these topics to be very interesting heavy discussions which made it easier to really follow along and agree with what they were saying. There isn’t anything which I would suggest to add or improve on seeing as this post was very clear and all the points were very direct.

Originally posted by EX0 on October 20, 2024 20:39

Although war is morally wrong, there are some cases in which the immorality of war can be offset by the use of violence. Just War Theory is a philosophical theory that seeks to balance the consequential and intrinsic models of war and serves as a basis for war regulation. The theory deals with the justification for wars, seeming to find a more consequential view of the morals of war and wartime behavior. It provides reasons for powers to go to war permissibly, such as self-defense, defense of others, and the extremely vague ‘right intentions.’ These ideas play into the consequential model for war because they argue that the end is worth the means. However, the Just War Theory also states that “war should always be the last resort,” which ties in with the idea of intrinsics. As the intrinsic model states, war is always wrong. Every philosophy, religious or not, has doctrines against the killing of others. Therefore, large-scale, organized killing must be immoral and wrong. The justification for the war or the result of it, however good, cannot change the morality of war. The Just War Theory brings the two together by saying that, yes, war is horrific and morally reprehensible, but they are inevitable and can have justifications. Just because a war is justified doesn’t negate the moral issues with it. It is possible to do bad things for a good reason.

As for the individuals in the war effort: the soldiers and the medics, it is not their responsibility to determine the morality of the conflict. Their job is to act in a way that minimizes non-combatant harm and to support their compatriots. If they are fighting what they believe to be an unjust war, they can’t necessarily stop fighting without risking their own lives, livelihoods, or reputations. Soldiers do have agency over their actions, which should prevent them from committing war crimes. However, their duty is to protect their fellow soldiers, not make judgments about the war itself. Similar to the German left before World War I, they fought against an unjust war up until it began. Once they saw that they had lost the anti-war fight and they had to “face the inexorable fact of war,” they recognized that it no longer was for them “to decide for or against war; rather [they] must decide which means are necessary for the defense of [their] country.” They weren’t in control of whether or not there was war, but they could control how that war would be waged and how their people could be supported. The argument that soldiers are responsible for the morality of the war is like arguing that field medics are morally reprehensible for keeping soldiers (people aiming to kill others) alive. Yes, medics saving soldiers are perpetuating the killing of others, but their actions are in the pursuit of the support of human life. The parallels stretch to soldiers fighting an unjust war. They should be incentivized to follow jus in bello practices regardless of the jus ad bellum reasons. Returning to the German left, it is a person’s duty, in a situation of the inexorable fact of war, to support their community through moral means. This does not necessarily mean fighting, however, the Conscientious Objector (of non-religious motives) who fully removes themselves from all aspects of the war is a person who is unable to see that they are now at war. They can still protest against the war and see the immorality in it while simultaneously providing support in moral ways to their fellow people.

Although the morality of the individual in a war is murky, it is possible to act morally in the context of war, which is an inherently immoral thing.

I think that your post presents a nuanced exploration of the ethics of war, particularly through the lens of the Just War Theory. The main point I took away from your post was that war is fundamentally immoral, but there are some scenarios when it is the best decision. I agree with you that war should be a last resort, but sometimes it is necessary and definitely better for the greater good. It is important that you mentioned the difference between the ethics of starting a war and being in one, as they call for different protocols. It also emphasizes the fact that morality can exist with the presence of immoral actions. It was also interesting that you think that it is not a soldiers role to act on their moral stance of a particular war, as they are there to follow orders. I am conflicted regarding this topic, as I understand the importance of soldiers following commands no matter what, but I also believe that they should have a right to act on their moral stances. Overall, I think there are a lot of different ways to approach the ethics of war, and I do not believe that any way is the "right" way, but I do agree with a lot of the points you made.

Originally posted by star.lol on October 22, 2024 23:11

War is always wrong, solely on the fact that so many lives are being taken, lives of those who have a life and family outside of violence not just their duty to their country. However, there are some circumstances that war can be justified even if the outcome is wrong and very sad which is laid out by the jus ad bellum. Even though war can be seen very negatively, there are other ways to look at and ways that war can be justified. A way that war is justified is described to prevent worse things from happening, and higher evils. This can be done as someone protecting themselves, and had no choice because an attack or invasion was put on the person, protecting those who are innocent, war was a response to protect those who don’t deserve this crime, and being treated unfairly and need to respond to it. My point of view aligns with the consequentialist view that war is wrong but there are some justifications, which is a more realistic view for society because so many different things happen nowadays, and wars were so common so there's so many different reasons on why that war took place. If a war is waged for unjust reasons, citizens should refuse to participate if they do not feel like it is right, they should be able to fight in a war that they believe is right, not because they feel obligated or are forced. It takes more courage not to fight in defense of your nation because there is so much pressure to feel as if you need to fight in this war because everyone else is doing it, it ties with conformity and conforming what every else is doing, and so it takes a lot of courage to do something different, to be different from the group because people don’t want to be seen as the odd one out, or be judge and/or made fun of because they did not fight for the country which can be come with a lot of cons and consequences because it can be seen as cowardness and not fighting for their country. If each citizen acts only according to his own moral compass then there would be a lack of cohesion because everyone would be thinking about themselves, and not the group of the people which can have other types of conflicts. “ The conscientious objector does not believe that violence can cure violence or that militarism can exorcise the spirit of militarism. He persists in feeling “solidarity” with those who are called “enemies,” and he believes that if that feeling were more widespread among us it would do more than armies and navies can ever do to prevent the growth of aggressive Imperialism” (Between Peace and War). This quote shows how solidarity among humans can lead to peace, and that those who refuse to participate care more about humans and how they feel but now how it can divide people. Jeff McMahan’s assertion shows and asks whether soldiers are able to act honorably and morally during wartime, even if the war they are serving in is unjust, which shows the soldiers feelings and point of view.

I agree with the statement that war is always wrong, but sometimes can be explained. It ties into the idea of not justifying crimes but explaining and analyzing why they occured. The concept of war never existing isn’t a real ideal in todays society, and we have to accept that and try out best to soften the blow of war. I agree with the idea that citizens should be allowed to chose whether or not to fight for their country, which aligns with freedom of choice in america, however I don’t agree entirely with the idea that it takes more courage to stand up against your country and say you won’t fight. It is very courageous, however it is also equally courageous to go to war and confront the idea of death. The idea that if everyone is given the choice to defy the government, then there would be no unity. Which is an issue, and in a perfect world we wouldn’t have to solve it but this is the real world. If a majority of a country refuses to fight, countries should take a step back and reevaluate why they are going to war and if it is necessary. It does bring up good counter points, of if people should use feelings as the deciding factor of war. WIth the last statement about soldiers, I was confused on if you mean they can act honorably or not. It feels like an unifnihsed thought. Another note to make is in the future try to condense your sentences. Some of them run for multiple lines and it can be overwhelming.

Originally posted by map on October 18, 2024 09:44

War is not always wrong. In matters of self-defense, what is a country, people or culture to do except counterattack? On the other hand, there is no just cause to invade another country for any reason with the intent to steal from it, conquer it, or occupy it. One side of the war is always unjust. So in that sense, no war is ever totally justified, but many are necessary out of self-preservation. This is where jus ad bellum begins to contradict itself. It claims that the only just reason to go to war is out of self defense, but war may never be fought for ulterior motives. If war is declared to push back invaders and protect a country’s land, people, and resources, it is inherently fought for self-gain, making it again unjust by the definitions of jus ad bellum. This is why the intrinsicist model doesn’t really apply in the real world—moral ethics are full of contradictions and based purely in theory. On top of this, many aspects of ethics are cultural or religious, and not all people can agree on what is right or wrong. For example, Just War Theory itself is founded on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, but not all religions share the same principles as Christianity. A consequentialist model is better, since sometimes, as Just War Theory itself shows, it is necessary to break the rules of jus ad bellum and jus in bello. According to the rules of Just War Theory, self-defense is both just and unjust. So how do we move past this stalemate? We must sometimes break these rules.

The answer to whether civilians should participate in these unjust wars is not so simple. It certainly takes more courage to refuse to fight in war than to fight. Nevertheless, this is not always possible. The draft forces people to fight, and sometimes, the risk of deserting is too great. There is a balance, though, between self-interest and morals. When does it become too selfish to fight instead of keeping your moral stance? Similarly, when does it become too selfish to not fight? Is one’s own life truly more important than the lives of those they will kill in war? But if they face the consequences of desertion, who else is impacted? What about their families and kids that depend on them at home to survive? Are they a cultural leader? Are they a doctor or a farmer or a teacher, someone essential that their society cannot afford to lose? Nothing exists in a vacuum, and the results of even one death or imprisonment on either side can have drastic ripples.

If everyone acted by their own moral compass and refused to fight, though, there can be no assurance that the other side will do the same. It becomes a complicated web of right and wrong. By upholding just morals, we sacrifice justice itself. Should a culture stay peaceful and not resist in the face of oppression for the sake of just moral and ethical behavior? That doesn’t seem just at all. It is impossible for a nation, culture, or people to survive the consequences of morally justified inaction in the face of injustice.

In the map’s response to the Just War Theory Reflection assignment, they create a compelling involvement of the complexities that challenge the war concept. Highlighting the imbalance of self-preservation and moral duty, which can raise ethical contradictions and thoughts. My peers explain the true sides of the concept revolving around war and the justification theory, in which I found it very interesting the way the different sides are perceived and explained. In most cases, people believe that war should only be justified when it's a matter of self-defense, as it forms the human rights we have. Though, I was compelled to read more about how jus ad bellum can be contradicting. A big part of figuring out whether war is acceptable is the intention, as there should be no cruel motive when waging this battle that could be putting many innocent individuals at risk. Therefore, when the party is willing to create such chaos in hopes of breaking off their nation and gaining independent benefits, it's no longer self-defense from an attacking party. Reading my peers' reflections, there are many similarities between their views on this concept and mine. Map puts into perspective that ‘many aspects of ethics are cultural or religious, and not all people can agree on what is right or wrong’ which emphasizes the different positions people can hold, not all will believe in the same terms. Similar to my statement of determining the war’s justification based on one's beliefs, between intrinsicism and consequentialism. I strongly believe that this theme of Jus ad bellum is a heavy topic that has most likely been the topic of many political conversations. Many aspects must be considered when making such intricate decisions and statements. Everyone is entitled to their own set of rights or wrongs, there is no true telling of whether these values and beliefs are what's the only way to view things. Just like my peer, map, has explained their overall views on the Just War Theory and concepts we've discussed in class.

Originally posted by Merry on October 18, 2024 10:13

As displayed throughout history, humans seem to exhibit a need to solve even minor problems using violence. This repetitiveness can lead people to dismiss this behavior under the justification of everyone doing it, but just because it is rather habitual is it right? There are definitely more cases where violence is unnecessary than cases where it can be justified, however this doesn’t mean it never is to many people. For example, many consider acts of self-defense to be a justification for war seeing as it is merely protecting yourself from unprovoked acts of harm. However, in the modern state of the world, the intrinsicism model is more realistic because so many innocent people are dying due to wars that were unnecessary to have been waged in the first place. Just war theory also does provide us with permissible reasons for war, however it doesn’t entirely bridge the gap between the two philisophical ideas, and seems to lean more towards consequentialism. This is because by showing us things that would make war justifiable, it doesn't directly acknowledge whether or not war is morally right, but merely when it is reasonable. Also, if nations choose to wage a war that is unjust, then civilians should most definitely choose not to fight in the war seeing as no one should be forced to go against their own morals to commit unjust acts. Regardless of what many think, it takes loads of courage to choose not to fight in an unjust war because you are bound to face many social reprocussions, and you are choosing to stand up in the face of the nation for what you believe in. People have this common misconception that choosing not to fight in the war means you don’t love your country, however many conscientious objectors have expressed that they feel great amounts of love for their country which is why they are choosing to not go to war for an immoral cause. For example, Philosopher Bertrand Russel when discussing choosing not to fight said that his feeling of patriotism “is very nearly the strongest emotion I possess, and in appearing to set it aside at such a moment, I was making a very difficult renunciation.” In this quote he says that his love for his country is so strong that he will not contribute to the effort of putting it in harm's way. However, if everyone chose to listen to their moral compass, and it led them to not fight in the war, the country would likely be in great amounts of danger since no one would be able to defend it. These consequences are unrealistic for a country to endure especially considering that that would likely never happen. Especially in a country like America where so much of our patriotism comes from the idea of how powerful our military is, it is unlikely that enough people for it to be an issue, would opt out of fighting for it. However, as we learned in the articles, soldiers subject themselves to harm in more ways than just being on the battlefield, which might sway one's decision regarding joining the military.

The most compelling idea in Merry’s argument is that humans feel the need to use violence to solve their problems. I absolutely agree with this statement because this can be seen many times not only throughout history but in day to day life. When people get into disagreements with one another, they tend to resort to violent tactics. This idea is very interesting because through history we can see people immediately resort to violence in situations where they look for change in society. In other posts made by other people, common themes are stated. In shirley temples post, they state, “modern society leans more towards war, and having a cause for fighting”. My own ideas are similar to the ideas of Merry because I believe that It seems people are always trying to make an excuse to use violence in the modern world. Just War Theory gets altered and abused in order to fit people's agendas. I appreciate the use of quotes throughouts Merry’s argument in order to emphasize their point.

Is war just, ethical, or moral? I believe that if a nation wages war for unjust reasons, then citizens may have a moral obligation to refuse to participate in the war effort, for they would be committing unjust acts. And, in many ways, it may take great courage, rather than cowardice, to accomplish such a task.

Whether it be through the Avengers movies or Call of Duty video games, we are all made to support war and even become desensitized to it from an early age. Societies around the world glorify war and use propaganda to promote the war effort. But, without all of this societal pressure, would everyday people’s reactions to war be the same? What would inspire us to take up arms and join the fight? Perhaps the absence of social norms and desensitization would expose the true nature of war, and therefore incite proper actions towards it.

Similarly, war and the military is closely linked with patriotism. This results in societal pressure to join the army and fight for the country. Thus, many people succumb to peer pressure and conform to the majority by joining the military and becoming a soldier. However, many people may believe that the war is being waged unjustly, or that the war effort is morally wrong. In Between Peace and War, philosopher Bertrand Russell states, “‘The greatest difficulty was the purely psychological one of resisting mass suggestion, of which the force becomes terrific when the whole nation is in a state of collective excitement.’ Almost everywhere, conscientious objectors were imprisoned for refusing to fight.” Everywhere around them the war effort is being promoted as honorable and heroic. Thus, these people must be able to break out of group-think in order to come to these personal conclusions. Refusing to participate in an unjust war means that a person is willing to accept personal punishment rather than committing harmful acts to innocents; they must go against everything that they have been taught about patriotism and be willing to contradict their own peers and authorities. The individual must resist against a system that they believe is unjust. Such behavior takes courage, not cowardice; in many ways, it may be easier to continue to join the war effort, even if it goes against one’s own moral beliefs.

However, what will come of a country if many people object to participating in the war? People will still fight. Many individuals view the military as the most honorable and heroic group a citizen can be a part of. These links between the military and patriotism are historic, and continue to this day. However, if too many people in a country refuse to fight in an unjust war, the country may find that the war is too costly or impossible to wage. Thus, countless lives could be spared on both sides of the hypothetical battle. Moreover, the concept of “just war theory” is meant to ensure that there are rules to war, and that it remains free from self-interest. However, this is merely an ideal, and is not completely possible in the real world. Countries will not wage a war if they gain nothing themselves, even if the cause is completely just and would help countless numbers of people. Thus, the entire concept of “just war theory” contradicts itself, for cost and self-interest always come in the way of justice.

Originally posted by make_art_not_war on October 21, 2024 23:52

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

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

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

The most compelling idea in this post is that citizens who decide to not support a war that they don’t personally believe in are courageous. This peer goes into how great of an impact that citizen advocacy can have on their society. “If a large number of citizens do not support the war effort of their country, this could not only lead to civil unrest within the state but also a prolonged war as leaders would not have the support emotionally or physically from their own people” is a great point and I feel that it is important because if citizens were to stop supporting bad ideas from their government, governments would be forced to actually keep in mind what the citizens want for their future. This student’s post also connects the Just War Theory to the last unit we focused on discussing, the concept of conformity. It shows a strong moral compass to be your own person and not justify and follow with immoral actions, this is difficult because in these scenarios going at against the majority can have huge consequences. I also agree with the idea of soldiers act morally in an immoral war because there’s a code of conduct for them to act morally. Often times even if they are willing to fight in the war that doesn’t mean that they are the reason for the war happening so they shouldn’t be ridiculed and blamed for the immortality of the war but be held accountable for their own individual actions.

Originally posted by Vonnegut123 on October 21, 2024 22:35

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

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

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

I personally think McMahan’s idea is a bit restricting. Soldiers who try to abide by just rules despite their situation should be hoped for. Additionally the Encyclopedia of Philosophy debates who is defined as a participant, “if they are culpable in giving moral, financial, or economic support to some extent does that mean they may become legitimate targets?” (page 2). In relation to McMahan’s point, perhaps this means that soldiers and those less directly involved should strive to be just and take into account the best course of action– something in the greyspace between consequentialism and intrinsicism. I hope that people, soldiers, leaders and others can act honorably in war regardless of the justness of their cause and follow guidelines that limit destruction. Especially in the 21st century, when nuclear weapons are ever looming, a mutual acknowledgement and agreement ought to be abided by. Treaties in writing are harder to break than thoughts so hopefully these rules also aid soldiers in acting morally. However I am not really sure because, well I have no idea what soldiers are taught.

I really enjoyed reading your reflection, Vonnegut123! I found the idea in your post that soldiers should act in the “gray-space” between consequentialism and intrinsicism very interesting because I couldn’t seem to agree with either mode of thought. Both are too vague to follow their sole purpose—to serve as guidelines that limit destruction. Simultaneously, they both seem unrealistic as well. Taking aspects from both of these systems may be the solution to these problems. Personally, I agree with your point that soldiers might be forced into doing unjust actions, yet should prioritize doing what is right as much as possible. I think that this is the real purpose of “just war theory,” limiting destruction and making just actions. I also found it interesting how you commented on the justification of soldiers’ actions by their militaries and governments. During World War I, nations believed that the war would result in a quick victory, and thus, further justified the soldiers’ conduct. Moreover, it is important to point out that soldiers should also act honorably even if the cause of the war is unjust. An unjust war should not be fought unjustly, and soldiers can still abide by these guidelines in order to minimize destruction.

Originally posted by Zinnia on October 23, 2024 12:06

Is war just, ethical, or moral? I believe that if a nation wages war for unjust reasons, then citizens may have a moral obligation to refuse to participate in the war effort, for they would be committing unjust acts. And, in many ways, it may take great courage, rather than cowardice, to accomplish such a task.

Whether it be through the Avengers movies or Call of Duty video games, we are all made to support war and even become desensitized to it from an early age. Societies around the world glorify war and use propaganda to promote the war effort. But, without all of this societal pressure, would everyday people’s reactions to war be the same? What would inspire us to take up arms and join the fight? Perhaps the absence of social norms and desensitization would expose the true nature of war, and therefore incite proper actions towards it.

Similarly, war and the military is closely linked with patriotism. This results in societal pressure to join the army and fight for the country. Thus, many people succumb to peer pressure and conform to the majority by joining the military and becoming a soldier. However, many people may believe that the war is being waged unjustly, or that the war effort is morally wrong. In Between Peace and War, philosopher Bertrand Russell states, “‘The greatest difficulty was the purely psychological one of resisting mass suggestion, of which the force becomes terrific when the whole nation is in a state of collective excitement.’ Almost everywhere, conscientious objectors were imprisoned for refusing to fight.” Everywhere around them the war effort is being promoted as honorable and heroic. Thus, these people must be able to break out of group-think in order to come to these personal conclusions. Refusing to participate in an unjust war means that a person is willing to accept personal punishment rather than committing harmful acts to innocents; they must go against everything that they have been taught about patriotism and be willing to contradict their own peers and authorities. The individual must resist against a system that they believe is unjust. Such behavior takes courage, not cowardice; in many ways, it may be easier to continue to join the war effort, even if it goes against one’s own moral beliefs.

However, what will come of a country if many people object to participating in the war? People will still fight. Many individuals view the military as the most honorable and heroic group a citizen can be a part of. These links between the military and patriotism are historic, and continue to this day. However, if too many people in a country refuse to fight in an unjust war, the country may find that the war is too costly or impossible to wage. Thus, countless lives could be spared on both sides of the hypothetical battle. Moreover, the concept of “just war theory” is meant to ensure that there are rules to war, and that it remains free from self-interest. However, this is merely an ideal, and is not completely possible in the real world. Countries will not wage a war if they gain nothing themselves, even if the cause is completely just and would help countless numbers of people. Thus, the entire concept of “just war theory” contradicts itself, for cost and self-interest always come in the way of justice.

I agree with a lot of Zinnia's points on the argument of whether or not 'Just War Theory' is even possible. I think it was important to bring up the point of how modern day media has desensitized us to violence, and in doing so has made it easier for us to turn our backs on the blatant cruelty and injustices of war. Another compelling point attached to media is the argument Zinnia made on the issue of patriotism in war. It's interesting to think about how in many ways, our attachment to this kind of large scale violence is tied closely to the image of honor, and love for one's country. I also agree that with the value our society places on patriotism, choosing to stand against the status quo and refuse to fight in a war can be braver than succumbing to the pressures of those around them. This is a compelling and well crafted reflection, but I think that Zinnia could have made a more firm argument by focusing in more closely on one point, such as the contradictory nature of 'just war theory' in itself, and exploring it more deeply.

Originally posted by WoahWoah on October 21, 2024 10:06

I definitely think that there have been some wars that have been warranted in history. For example wars that involve obtaining one’s independence and freedom from an oppressive government to me is a just cause. Unfortunately the problem can’t be resolved with peaceful action so the only way to move forward is through violence. I think that the consequentialism model is more realistic for the modern world, because these days governments do evil things behind the scene and these actions require some type of reaction. Often in these situations peaceful approaches simply can’t be taken, because everything has become more about benefiting ourselves and less about the morality in our actions. I think that Jus Ad Bellum can act as a bridge between the two philosophical ideas, because it is supposed to give leeway between the two contradicting sides. Jus Ad Bellum adds context and reasoning behind the decision to going to war. Although intrinsicism believes that war is always morally wrong, there are wars that do have just causes which would make them moral on one side. A war can’t be moral on all sides, since there has to be an action of aggression that sparks the war so someone has to be in the wrong. In cases of self defense or for freedom success in a war would bring the morally right outcome. This connects to consequentialism because if the war doesn’t bring a just outcome then the war shouldn’t be fought in the first place, which means that that specific war is morally wrong. Intrinsicism is an absolute theory that doesn’t take into account the context of a war, whereas consequentialism uses the context of the war to decide whether or not if it’s moral. Jus Ad Bellum connects the two by supporting that war is immoral, but not always at times there can be wars that should be fought.

If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, the citizens of the country should refuse to participate in the war effort, there are times where refusing to support can lead to further consequences but if all the citizens were to stand against the war their government would be forced into a bad predicament. I think it is cowardice to fight in a war that you believe is morally wrong, because this just shows that your own moral compass is easily swayed by others. Instead of standing up for what you believe to be right, you force yourself to agree with the majority that are wrong and want to deal great harm to others for an unjust reason. Consequences that have happened to these citizens that chose to stand up is being arrested or whatever else they can do.

I disagree with McMahan’s idea, because even if the cause is unjust they are not the reason for the war taking place they are just the ones that are fighting in it. They are involved in the war so yes they do have some responsibility, but at the end of the day they still laid their life on the line to fight for their country and many of them die. The ones that don’t die go on to deal with mental illnesses that they got from the war. I think too much of the blame goes on to the soldiers in wars, saying that they shouldn’t have fought in some war because it was immoral but don’t focus on the politicians and the upper class who funded and wanted the war.

I think the most compelling idea in the post was “I think it is cowardice to fight in a war that you believe is morally wrong, because this just shows that your own moral compass is easily swayed by others. Instead of standing up for what you believe to be right, you force yourself to agree with the majority that are wrong and want to deal great harm to others for an unjust reason.” The idea is interesting because it takes a strong stance against soldiers who fight in unjust wars. While I disagree with the point it is not weakly argued and I think it would be a good topic for an open debate to see different points of view. My view differs from my peers in the sense that I think while fighting in a war that you believe is morally wrong is not an ideal situation, sometimes you don’t have a choice. If you are drafted into the United States military to fight your options are: leave and never come back, or fight. You can guess which is more popular. Just because you believe it is wrong and you still fight doesn’t mean your moral compass is swayed, however, I think soldiers can have strong and intact individual morals even if they are fighting for a cause they believe goes against their morals. You don't have to agree with a cause to fight for it. Sometimes there is no other choice.

Originally posted by fishgirlbahamas on October 21, 2024 17:48

The question of whether war is always wrong or can sometimes be justified is a tough one, especially today. I see two main ideas in this debate: intrinsicism, which says war is always morally wrong, and consequentialism, which says war can be okay if it leads to good outcomes. I think Just War Theory, especially its rules about jus ad bellum, helps connect these two views.

When I look at the history of World War I, it’s clear how people's opinions changed. At first, many Europeans, including members of the German Social Democratic Party, protested against the war.. Their view came from intrinsicism, believing that war should be avoided at all costs. But once the war began, many people switched sides. National pride and fear of being attacked turned anti-war protests into support for their countries. This shows how strong feelings for one’s nation can push people to ignore their earlier beliefs. Everyone always thinks that their side is right, so when trying to justify war, it only causes more rifts and the dehumanization of the enemy. When thinking about why people choose to fight, I see a consequentialist viewpoint. Many who opposed the war felt they had to join the army to protect their country. For example, Ernst Toller, despite being a socialist, decided to fight for Germany because he felt a deep connection to his nation. This makes me think that sometimes people prioritize protecting their homeland over their personal beliefs against war. On the flip side, I admire those who stood firm as conscientious objectors. People like Bertrand Russell argued strongly against war, believing that violence doesn’t solve problems. He felt that true unity among all people, even those we see as enemies, could lead to peace without fighting. I agree with him; it seems that war often causes more suffering than it solves. This perspective challenges the idea that any war can truly be justified. Just War Theory is important because it gives us guidelines on when it might be okay to go to war. It asks us to think carefully about reasons for fighting, like whether there is a just cause and if war is a last resort. I think this is a valuable way to approach the topic, it encourages us to consider the serious consequences of war and not rush into conflict. Ultimately, I think the debate about the morality of war is complicated and involves both intrinsicist and consequentialist ideas. Just War Theory acts as a bridge between them. The changes in attitudes during World War I show how complicated motivations can lead nations into conflict, often against earlier beliefs. While some people firmly oppose war for moral reasons, others find it necessary when they feel their communities are at risk. Balancing these views is crucial as we think about the morality of war in today’s world.

I think the most compelling and interesting idea here is nationalism. I remeber talking about this in class and it was brought up that at the start of WWI people were against an all out war and I also mentioned it in my post as well. They couldn't see themselves as participating in a war that would result in so many casualties and death. However, once their nation joined the war, that idea suddenly left their minds. It was now about their nation and defending it. You mentioned national pride and I think that phrase is very interesting. I know for me, I can go on and on about how much I hate America and how the laws the way of things are unjust and unfair but the moment someone, lets say someone British, starts attacking America, I want to fight back. But didn't I just go on and on about how much I disliked our country a while ago? It's the same feeling that nobody can bully your sibling but you. It's the feeling of possession and togetherness. But does that make it right? No. No matter how much we feel compelled to defend our nation, we should keep our eyes open and see the difference in what's right and what's wrong, what's just and what's unjust.

Originally posted by shaquille.oatmeal123 on October 21, 2024 16:58

In my opinion, war is in most cases almost never justified. Even the people within societies that commit horrendous acts do not deserve to experience the tragedy of war. I believe that while I agree that the intrinsicism model is the one that we as a society hope to achieve, the model of consequentialism is one that is far more realistic than that of intrinsicism. Just War Theory acknowledges the complexities of foreign relations and therefore acts as a bridge between these two models. This framework encourages the idea that while war should always be a last resort, it is not entirely morally wrong when undertaken with justifiable conditions. When considering the individual role of soldiers in a war, Jeff McMahan questions the reassurance that we give soldiers in war. I agree with McMahan on this end, while soldiers may act with honor and follow established rules, there is an underlying justification of their actions that is equally as important. I also believe that basically all nations wage war for an underlying unjust reason. They might say that they are waging war in order to stop an authoritarian and restrictive force, but their ulterior motive is to gain economic and political power over their enemies, while also giving themselves an advantage. I believe that if a citizen acts only according to his own moral compass when a nation is at war it would cause disaster. This is because there would either be no support for a war or a lot of support, given that everyone's moral compass is different. In the “Between Peace and War” by Facing History, there is a quote from a conscious objector named Bertrand Russel: “In another letter, he wrote, “The greatest difficulty was the purely psychological one of resisting mass suggestion, of which the force becomes terrific when the whole nation is in a state of collective excitement.” Almost everywhere, conscientious objectors were imprisoned for refusing to fight. Russell was no exception.” I believe that the idea of a conscientious objector is an interesting one, the idea that an entire civilization of people would be a conscientious objector is rather unrealistic at best. These objectors would most likely cause the nation to be defenseless, an unmotivated population to fight a war is what causes the nation to lose. The sad truth is that there will always be a sense of nationalism for a nation, which can then further fuel a war.

In conclusion, Just War Theory offers a critical framework for the morality of war. It acts as a bridge between intrinsic and consequentialism models, while also offering justification for those soldiers who are battling within the war. The justification of war is not always for the same reasons, and in my personal opinion it is near impossible to justify a war without having ulterior motives. Honor in battle does not equate to moral justification. At the end of the day, war in itself is a horrible act for all parties involved. As a society, we should work towards a better dialogue about the ethics of war and its consequences.

The most compelling idea that I took away from my peer’s reflection was that while a war itself may be waged for a just reason, there is typically an underlying unjust ulterior motive. I think that we see this happening more often than we’d like to admit, as many people may wage war for what seems like a just and valid reason, but in reality, the leader simply craves more power and control. I do think that even if a war is started for all of the “right reasons,” people eventually become intoxicated by the desire for greater opportunities, whether that’s social, political, or economic. It’s easy to succumb to those desires because it’s part of human behavior - typically, we always want more, especially if it will benefit us. I also agree that a nation of people who abide by their moral compass in times of war would be a disaster since moral beliefs vary so much from person to person. What one person believes may completely contradict what someone else may believe - this creates grounds for even more conflict, especially in the larger context of war. While it would be great if everyone recognized that many aspects of war are unjust, this is highly unrealistic, especially since humans are willing to sacrifice their morals to appease the majority. Overall, I agree with many of your points, as they definitely were thought-provoking and can spark great dialogue!

Originally posted by map on October 18, 2024 09:44

War is not always wrong. In matters of self-defense, what is a country, people or culture to do except counterattack? On the other hand, there is no just cause to invade another country for any reason with the intent to steal from it, conquer it, or occupy it. One side of the war is always unjust. So in that sense, no war is ever totally justified, but many are necessary out of self-preservation. This is where jus ad bellum begins to contradict itself. It claims that the only just reason to go to war is out of self defense, but war may never be fought for ulterior motives. If war is declared to push back invaders and protect a country’s land, people, and resources, it is inherently fought for self-gain, making it again unjust by the definitions of jus ad bellum. This is why the intrinsicist model doesn’t really apply in the real world—moral ethics are full of contradictions and based purely in theory. On top of this, many aspects of ethics are cultural or religious, and not all people can agree on what is right or wrong. For example, Just War Theory itself is founded on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, but not all religions share the same principles as Christianity. A consequentialist model is better, since sometimes, as Just War Theory itself shows, it is necessary to break the rules of jus ad bellum and jus in bello. According to the rules of Just War Theory, self-defense is both just and unjust. So how do we move past this stalemate? We must sometimes break these rules.

The answer to whether civilians should participate in these unjust wars is not so simple. It certainly takes more courage to refuse to fight in war than to fight. Nevertheless, this is not always possible. The draft forces people to fight, and sometimes, the risk of deserting is too great. There is a balance, though, between self-interest and morals. When does it become too selfish to fight instead of keeping your moral stance? Similarly, when does it become too selfish to not fight? Is one’s own life truly more important than the lives of those they will kill in war? But if they face the consequences of desertion, who else is impacted? What about their families and kids that depend on them at home to survive? Are they a cultural leader? Are they a doctor or a farmer or a teacher, someone essential that their society cannot afford to lose? Nothing exists in a vacuum, and the results of even one death or imprisonment on either side can have drastic ripples.

If everyone acted by their own moral compass and refused to fight, though, there can be no assurance that the other side will do the same. It becomes a complicated web of right and wrong. By upholding just morals, we sacrifice justice itself. Should a culture stay peaceful and not resist in the face of oppression for the sake of just moral and ethical behavior? That doesn’t seem just at all. It is impossible for a nation, culture, or people to survive the consequences of morally justified inaction in the face of injustice.

I think that the most compelling idea in this post is the idea that no war is justified in every aspect and that in some sense every war is unjustified. I think this is interesting because sometimes it seems as if countries pick and choose which parts of the just war theory apply to them and try to manipulate the theory to claim their war is justified. I do agree with this idea because since there are several criteria to meet what the just War Theory considers a “just war” it is very difficult for a nation to meet all of the criteria. Most likely a war can be justified with come but not all criteria.

The idea that if all citizens only followed their moral compass the entirety of the country could be at risk is reflected not only in this post but also in many others. Many posts, including mine suggested that if citizens all followed their morals ultimately more harm than good would be done because most likely the other side, the aggressors would not give up and continue to fight.

I think that overall this post was very interesting and I agreed with many of the points stated. However I do think that in the second paragraph you could have included more of your opinion. I think that the questions you brought up were very compelling but you could have added more of your personal response to those questions.

One question I have based on your response and our readings is if a country is ever required to act rather than a situation when one could choose not to act. This question might be better answered later in the year but it still is an interesting one to be asked now before we get into WWII and as we start to learn about the Armenian Genocide.