learntoquestion ltq discussions

Questions to Consider:

Please craft a well written response that incorporates what we have discussed as a class and your own views on Just War Theory. You should also refer directly to the readings linked below as well, including at least one quote for reference to at least one of the readings in your response. You can choose to focus on one of the question sets, or to incorporate several of them into your response.

1. Is war always wrong or can the use of large-scale, organized violence sometimes be justified? Is the intrinsicism model (war is morally wrong) or the consequentialism model (war is not morally wrong if the outcome is just) more realistic for the modern world? Does Just War Theory, particularly the permissible reasons for war (jus ad bellum), act as a bridge between the two philosophical ideas? How?

2. If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, should citizens refuse to participate in the war effort? Does it take more courage not to fight in defense of your nation or is it cowardice to fight in a war you believe is morally wrong? What are the consequences though if each citizen acts only according to his own moral compass when a nation is at war? Are those consequences realistic for a nation to endure?

3. The philosopher Jeff McMahan has argued that “we must stop reassuring soldiers that they act permissibly when they fight in an unjust war, provided that they conduct themselves honorably on the battlefield.” Do you agree or disagree with McMahan’s idea? Can soldiers act morally and honorably during wartime, even if the greater cause they are fighting for is unjust? Do the rules of war (jus in bello) assist soldiers to act morally? How?

Word Count Requirement: 500-750 words

Readings to Reference:

Please refer to the ideas, either using a quote or paraphrasing, from at least one of the readings in your response.

Excerpt 1: Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum (Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Excerpt 2: Just War Theory-Jus In Bello and Jus Post Bellum (Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

In Between War and Peace (Facing History and Ourselves)

Rubrics to Review:

In general, I believe that war can be justified. War isn’t a good thing, but sometimes it is necessary to occur. Take the example of wars of self-defense, should countries just roll over and not defend themselves and their citizens, as they have an obligation to do? I definitely think that consequentialism is more realistic for the modern world. For example, would you prioritize the safety of other countries’ citizens over your own soldiers? I think not. Say you kill civilians to save an untold number of your own people and end the war, would you do it? Most often I believe that people would choose to push the button. I feel that the just war theory is kind of a bridge but not really, it feels like an intrinsicist model, it is not as flexible as the consequentialist model. While war isn't great, sacrifices are always required, whether that be from soldiers or other people. Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum, discusses the differences on intrinsicism and consequentialism, and I believe that in the modern world, consequentialism is what we see today in the fighting in the Middle East.

I would like to believe that if I was chosen in a draft to serve my country, I would do it, because it has not happened yet. I believe it is the duty of the citizen to participate in war, whether it be unjust or just. If everyone acts according to their morals, there would be more risk of losing the war, and more tragedy. However I believe that conscientious objectors who object because of their religious beliefs have every right to do so. While nations are built on sacrifice, people who object and don’t participate in the war effort should be forced to partake in it, because while others are sacrificing, they are being cowards. It is not cowardice to serve in a war that you don’t believe in, that makes you more of a hero. If everyone acts according to self preservation or morals, war would be lost, and there would be worse consequences. These would not be realistic because there would be people who are willing to serve and do so, so we don’t have to. In the article “Between Peace and War”, it discusses how nationalism will often motivate those who are on the fringes of not surviving into doing so, it is a powerful force during war.

I disagree with McMahan; they are acting properly and with honor even when fighting an unjust war. In fact I believe that they are fighting with more honor when doing so. I believe that they can act honorably during unjust wars. While they are fighting an unjust war, refusing to serve and fight while being in the military could lead to punishment and ostracization. While in Vietnam for example, soldiers often tried to justify the cause they fought for, even while it was unjust. While some soldiers may have acted dishonorably, the majority acted with moral cause and reason. The principles of just in bello regulate the conduct of soldiers and their behavior, morally and physically. The Geneva Conventions created the rules of war and established punishments for soldiers who act morally reprehensibly, and enacted the rules of war on everyone.

I think that war is one of the biggest moral paradoxes of humanity as it can be both a desperate attempt to secure peace, justice and democracy and the deadliest expression of mass violence and murder. The question of whether or not war can ever be justified is very closely related to the Just War Theory. It serves as a bridge between two extreme moral views, the intrinsic belief that war is always wrong and the realist view that it depends on the outcomes of the war. While I believe war is undeniably wrong as it causes so much suffering, the Just War Theory offers a kind of framework to ensure that if war absolutely needs to occur, it does so for ethical reasons that are for the betterment of the population and with moral restraint.

According to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy's discussion of Jus ad Bellum, “ a just war must be fought for a just cause - typically, self defense or the defense of others against aggression”. This idea shows that while war is tragic, passiveness in the face of violence or attack can also be immoral. The intrinsic model says that violence is inherently bad but the modern world has many situations, like genocides and invasions, where intervention may be necessary to prevent greater harm. Just War Theory attempts to bridge these two by allowing war only when all the other peaceful alternatives have been exhausted and when the intentions behind going to war are genuinely just.

However, how to determine what counts as just cause is very complex as it is a very subjective definition. As the start of World War 1 showed, the justification of the war is often influenced by nationalist and groupthink. When Germany invaded neutral Belgium, many people who opposed war actually supported their nation’s cause. In In Between War and Peace, Bertrand Russell condemned this shift, observing that “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.” Russell's experience shows how easily morals can be overwhelmed by a sort of mob mentality and nationalistic movement and sentiment. His defense and praise of conscientious objectors, or those who refuse to fight on moral grounds, shows that resisting war can sometimes require greater courage than actually putting up your life to join. He wrote that conscientious objectors "don't believe that violence can cure violence". This shows that their belief in mankind, even across “enemy lines” persists.

Russell’s stance is definitely more intrinsic and believes that one’s moral integrity shouldn’t be compromised even in wartime. But through the cases and scenarios, it showed that there is a huge social cost in pacifism. If every citizen were to follow personal conscience over defense of their country, a nation would become completely defenseless against aggression. This conflict shows why Just War Theory is so important. It offers a middle ground that shows moral reflection is needed while also protection of a country is needed. Finally, the Just War Theory does not glorify war, and instead is an attempt to regulate and limit it. It shows entire nations and also individuals that moral responsibility should not completely disappear in times of conflict or even aggression.

Personally I believe that despite a moral standpoint there should be a better means to resolve intense conflict without physical violence, It is simply not a logical expectation. There are and always will be people who prefer resolving conflicts by the means they see fit, the “If you hit me, I will hit back” mentality. Now I would not say that war is always wrong in the means that it can not bring benefits to a civilization, to quote the text Excerpt 1: Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum (Encyclopedia of Philosophy) it states that "intrinsicists may claim that possessing a just cause is a sufficient condition for pursuing whatever means are necessary to gain victory or to punish an enemy.” I agree that just wars have their reasons and benefits despite the losses it causes, but that is simply the nature of being part of a nation. In a twisted light it's something normalized, especially in history. I feel like both the intrinsicist and consequentialist models are present in the modern world. In a way they both balance each other out without being two completely separate ideals. Most would like to agree that war is morally wrong, from the killing to mental taxing mindset it does to the people it affects. But can be justified if the war is being fought more or less fairly for a good reason to back it up. Having to take the good with the bad. It is why many would say they either lean to one side or the other, if not right in the middle. Not to say that war is not morally wrong, but the actions itself can be justified. Connecting the first two questions, another thing to be considered is the topics considering the Geneva Convention and the things it brings. In other words the rules in place to make sure a war is justifiable in the first place. To make sure that no matter who you see the value of war or not, those who have nothing to do with it are not getting affected by it in the first place. Even to the people who are in the war itself are being treated fairly, like if you're an injured soldier you'd be protected and not expected to fight to your fullest capabilities while making your pain greater. It takes courage to take part in a just war, but when the table is turned and the fighting's purpose turns into something you don't believe or agree with logically or morally it also takes courage to work against that. Upbringings and revolts to show your standing, to even the smallest acts of simply refusing to partake in a war. The point of war in the first place is to show what you believe in and fight for it, so acting against it should give the same courage. No matter the standpoint or the reason behind it, though I will admit that even that can be debatable depending on the context of the revolt or fight in the first place. All and all what seems to be recurring is that morality and acting is a kind of balancing act, and depends on how you and the masses use it.

The battlefield, during times of war, is often viewed as a lawless land where there only exists plunder, destruction, and violence. Just War Theory serves as a mediator between morality and the horrific nature of war, which describes a set of rules that need to be obeyed in order for a war to be fought as ethically as possible. It is split into justices before, during, and after a war: Jus Ad Bellum, Jus In Bello, and Jus Post Bellum. Jus Ad Bellum states that the purpose of war must have a righteous cause, that it is declared by authority, that it has a chance of success, and that the severity of warfare used is proportional to the goal. The rules of Jus Ad Bellum have blurred lines, as any nation can state that their reason for going to war is a just one and therefore morally correct. Realistically, the consequentialist model of war will always rule the world because humans have a tendency towards violence to resolve irreparable conflicts. Although Jus Ad Bellum does appeal to morally correct reasons to permit war, its rules are too ambiguous and need interpretation. Therefore, in the chaos and confusion of war, people will unite under a common cause to destroy the enemy to protect themselves and their cause. Psychologically, humans will focus on the survival of their own in-groups (in this case, their country) and would rather prefer the destruction of other countries for their own self-preservation. In order to act with proper moral intent, it is required that we “think about what is proper and it is not certain that not acting in self interest is necessarily the proper thing to do” (Just War Theory). So, although it is important to leave room for empathy for the enemy, it’s not guaranteed that the enemy won’t attack with the same mindset. Therefore it can be better to act in self-interest to protect your group rather than empathize with an enemy. Just Ad Bellum only scratches the surface of the complexities of going to war, but does suggest insightful ideas into leaning towards a more intrinsic view of a consequentialist-dominated world.

There are conscientious objectors that, no matter the circumstances, refuse to fight in war because they believe that war is inherently wrong. Although they hold this belief, nations still shouldn’t offer citizens the option to participate in the war effort. Specifically, they should require that citizens fight in the war. People are neurologically conditioned to be repelled by killing. If citizens are given an option, rather than required to fight in war, then there will be significantly less combatants. Not only are people scared to kill, but they are scared to be killed in war. The number of soldiers, driven by the cause of the war and patriotic motivations, will pale in comparison to the number of citizens that refuse to fight. As a result, the country will be fighting a war that they have no chances of winning. These consequences aren’t realistic for a nation to accommodate for its citizens because they will be exhausting lives and resources without being able to put up a fight. It takes more courage to not fight in a war you believe is morally wrong because you then face mass public condemnation for avoiding the war. To be able to resist the pressure requires a strong resolve in your own beliefs.

War can be viewed in every way. Society is divided by the intrinsicism and consequentialism ideals and can both be viewed as realistic. Neither ideals are wrong, they just correlate with the individual's inner morals. People who believe war is morally wrong tend to be intrinsic while people who believe war is not morally wrong, but only if the outcome is just. Although, in our modern day society, the consequentialist ideal does seem more realistic. Living in a world with foreign or external threats means our society needs to be prepared for anything. If we are being threatened and it could result in innocent lives lost, the strongest way to defend ourselves is war. At the same time, war can cause innocent lives to be lost too. Although there are just laws in place to prevent innocent civilians from being killed, this doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. The Just War Theory is a set of limits and rules to war to make sure the cause is justifiable and will be fought morally. This theory does act as a bridge between intrinsicism and consequentialism. Intrinsicism is the belief that war is morally wrong, but the Just War Theory sets limits to make sure wars are moral, which also plays into the consequentialist ideals. Consequentialistic ideas believe war is fair to the extent of making sure it is righteous. If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, citizens should be able to refuse to participate in the war efforts. It raises the question about why should people risk their lives and participate in war if they don’t believe in it or it’s an unjust reason for waging war? This question fits within the ideals of those who are conscientious objectors. In the “Between Peace and War” reading, a British man shares the view of an objector, stating, “I think that to be a real conscientious objector a man must be, consciously or unconsciously, an extreme individualist with little sense of the solidarity of mankind and of our membership one of another.” People viewed these objectors as people who had no sense of their nation and stood alone, like a traitor who doesn’t respect their community, but those who don’t want to participate in war also may just believe that it is unjust to have innocent citizens lose their lives for a war they didn’t want or believe in. It takes courage to not fight in the defense of your nation. Just because you fight in a war you believe is morally wrong doesn’t make you a coward, but rather it just proves the consequences one must face when they try to step away from the norm. There are consequences if one doesn’t stand with their nation as they are considered as an outcast and not part of the nation. If every citizen only acted according to their own morals during a time of war, the nation would be weak. It would have no sense of unity because there would just be so many different opinions and ways of thinking trying to run a country. Soldiers can act morally and honorably during wartime even if the greater cause they are fighting for is unjust because there are laws and values that soldiers must follow in order to have the most just war. This involves protecting innocent civilians and protecting buildings like not destroying hospitals. The rules of war through the jus in bello guidelines, attempts to make the most honorable and just war.

The Just War theory is a very crucial and notable theory that plays an important role in the topic of war, and murder. War is a very horrible and disgusting thing, and no ordinary or sane person truly deserves to die, and no group of people ever deserves. However, this does not mean that war cannot and has not been justified. War usually is started by two massive nations either to boast the size of their armies, or to collect resources or land for their nation. Within this, the allies and smaller nations that surround these large countries often join whichever nation they perceive as the winner or the most likely that would benefit themselves. Wars are often started for unjustifiable reasons, boasting the size of armies or to collect resources or land for their nation falling under that category. For war to be considered justifiable however, it must be started to protect an oppressed or weaker group or to stop a tyrannical or evil power. This has never truly been achieved in the real world. The nation declaring war may have used this as their reasoning, but behind the curtains, they are joining this battle for reasons that benefit themselves and their people, and helping others is just an accessory of the fact. When a nation wages a war, they often conscript civilians or have a draft. This raises the question, should one willingly participate in war for their country if they know that the war is being fought for unjust reasons? The short answer is yes. The nation will often push a nationalist agenda during this time, looking to fire up its people and get them “in the mood” to fight. This often works, but one must stop and think about what they are doing and why they are doing it. The war often does not even benefit the common folk, and instead makes the higher elites even richer than they were before. The government also often punishes those who refuse to participate or flee the draft, labeling them as “deserters” or “defecters” and preaching that they do not love their country and their people. In reality, it is the exact opposite of what the government is saying. These people actually care about their country and people more than almost anyone, as they know that the war being waged is unjust, and that it will only result in unnecessary deaths for the citizens of their country. In Facing History’s Between War and Peace it discusses the concept of a conscientious objector and the role they play during war, “Only a few men refused to fight. They declared themselves conscientious objectors—people who refuse to serve in or aid the military for religious or moral reasons… ‘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.” This shows how the government and army can stir up excitement for an incoming war and get people to enlist and join the war effort, when in reality the war only makes the elites richer while killing and crippling millions of innocent and unknowing soldiers and civilians.

Based on the Just War Theory, in my opinion there is no war where it is absolutely intrinsic or absolutely consequentialist. Intrinsic is the form who claims that there are certain acts that are bad or good in themselves and in which they do not matter if the outcome is good or bad and consequentialism is an open ended model, highly vulnerable to pressing military or political needs to adhere to any code of conduct in war. When it comes to choosing which is a better side, consequentialist in my opinion would be the better option because it matters what the outcome is and it justifies moral rules. I would rather choose a side in which myself and others care about the outcome being good or bad because if it is good that means people are happy, but if the outcome is bad, people are mad and will not enjoy the fact they did not get what they wanted. For the people who would rather be on the intrinsic side is up to them and they can have their opinion, but I would care based on what would happen in the world and to my life. I would care if the situation was disrupting my life or making it better in any type of way. Intrinsicists have many claims to which, “that possessing a just cause is a sufficient condition for pursuing whatever means are necessary to gain a victory or to punish an enemy” (Just War Theory- Jus Ad Bellum).

If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, citizens should have moral reasons to refuse to participate in the war effort. Refusing to fight in an unjust war usually takes courage because conscientious objectors may face punishment. If people stand by their courage, it doesn’t mean they are obeying the situation, it could mean people are standing up against it when it is wrong. But if people have their own moral compass and people choose to reject participation, the country will start to lose the ability to fight, which makes them look bad in that sense. If each citizen decides to go based on their own moral compass, those decisions would most likely be that people do not want to be part of a situation such as war where anything can go wrong. If you say yes to war, from there on it is on you and others to decide the actions in which you perform. They can either help part the world or it can cause many disruptions. In reality when talking about war there are also discussions among societies that protect conscientious objection, but that is why there are such situations like courts or debates to decide whether a war is just before it happens. Courts and debates are supposed to allow society to make a decision among each other to see what is overall the best decision when talking about a just war. A just war should only be presented if there is a major problem being caused, that has to come to an end by fighting within one another. Overall, a society should be respectful of moral objection while also acknowledging that wars should only be fought for just and appropriate reasons.

If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, citizens should be able to refuse to participate. I also think that citizens should have somewhat of a say in whether we go to war or not because the funding comes from tax dollars and citizens are the ones that are effected the most. It takes I would say an equal amount of courage to not fight in defense because you’re willing to accept the consequences while also facing public discrimination, but fighting in a war in defense of your nation also takes a lot of courage because you’re putting yourself on the life for several of reasons such as protecting your family. During drafts citizens would have to go to extreme lengths to even avoid it such as completely moving away from their homes and abandoning everything they had but by complying with your nation who is fighting an unjust war isn’t cowardice. This is because the consequences they’d be facing isn’t worth not going to war. If each citizen acted according to their own moral compass than we would have very little unity. There are issues and morals that we can find middle ground on by rarely how much people are willing to act on that or defend it. The consequences of everyone acting on their own moral compass would not be realistic because the nation itself would probably be more divided and wouldn’t be able to maintain unity or even be able to go to war. I agree with Mcmahan’s idea because if soldiers acted out and defied ordered then they are putting their comrades in danger as well. It would create chaos if someone were to disrupt the order that the military emphasizes. Yes, I think soldiers can act morally and honorably during wartime even if the greater cause is unjust because they will feel less responsible if they convince themselves that they aren’t contributing much to the cause. Also, if the soldiers did not harm to others for example as following with their moral compass they would feel that they aren’t responsible. The rules of war assist soldiers to some extent, although it’s a good moral blueprint, the consequences of defying it aren’t reinforcements enough and a lot of soldiers commit crimes anyways.

I think the debate between the questions “is war always wrong?” or “can the use of large-scale, organized violence sometimes be justified?” is more than just a simple yes or no answer. I tend to lean more on the side that war can be justified sometimes depending on the situation. For example, I think if a country is attacked first then they have the right to counter attack that country in terms of self-defense. However, on the other hand I don’t think it’s just for a country to attack disproportionately just because they think they are more powerful and have no legitimate reason to attack. In war, the intrinsicism model and the consequentialism model are both topics of debate. Excerpt 1: Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum (Encyclopedia of Philosophy) states, “Intrinsicists (who claim that there are certain acts that are good or bad in themselves) may also decree that no morality can exist in the state of war.” I agree with this quote to an extent. I think it is very hard to hold your morality during war no matter how hard you try. I believe someone can try and be a conscientious objector and stay true to their beliefs that war is morally wrong, but in the circumstances of war it’s hard to not fight back. It is either your life or someone else's and humans are selfish so they tend to pick themselves

If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, I believe citizens can refuse to participate in the war effort if they want to, but that might not always be their best option. I think it takes more courage not to fight in defense of your nation rather than it being cowardice to fight in a war you believe is morally wrong. The consequences if each citizen acts only according to his own moral compass when a nation is at war could result in their own life. For example, if one decides they don’t want to partake in the violence of war they could be putting their own life at risk by not just fighting and protecting themselves. These conflicting sides of whether to not fight because you know it’s morally wrong or to be cowardice and fight a war you know is morally wrong are realistic for a nation to endure.

I sort of agree with Jeff McMahan’s idea that “we must stop reassuring soldiers that they act permissibly when they fight in an unjust war, provided that they conduct themselves honorably on the battlefield.” I believe that although the war is unjust, if soldiers thought it to be permissible and are engaged in the war and are out there fighting then they have to be honorable. On the other hand, I think that soldiers, depending on the situation, shouldn’t have gotten themselves engaged in such an unjust war. I don’t think soldiers can act morally and honorably during wartime because they are trying to protect themselves and their citizens. Even if they want to act morally, times of war make it hard to do so.

I believe that war is not always wrong. I believe that this organized violence can be justified in a large scale can be justified in certain circumstances because war is sometimes needed. Although some people may believe that there are other options then to wage war with another country at the end of the day if another foreign power puts the citizens of your country in danger the only option is to resort with violence. I do believe that in most cases there is other options to problems that are not violence but ultimately war happens, and I believe that it can be justified in certain circumstances. “War should always be a last resort. This connects intimately with presenting a just cause - all other forms of solution must have been attempted prior to the declaration of war. It has often been recognized that war unleashes forces and powers that soon get beyond the grips of the leaders and generals to control - there is too much "fog" in war, but that fog is also a moral haze in which truth and trust are early casualties”. As described in this short excerpt of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy war should always be the last resort period for another reason then for it to be justified. It goes beyond the money, and arguments between countries. Innocent people end up dying, and without deaths importance war becomes a problem.

I believe that in certain situations citizens should refuse to participate in the war effort if the nation wages war for unjust reasons. I believe that there is a large difference in unjust reasons and a situation you may not agree with. If your nation is waging war for a completely unjust reason such as because they want to gain land or take crops or goods that would be a completely unjust reason, and you should 100% be against the war and the participation of it. But if you were to disagree with how the war was approached even if the intent was right I believe that the citizen should not refuse to participate. I believe that if your country to have the right intentions if it means that it is not in extremely unjust reasons that the citizen should still participate in the war. I believe that there are different sides to avoiding a war because you feel differently about it, and to joining a war for your country even if you believe it is morally wrong. I believe that one perspective to not joining a war because you believe it is morally wrong takes courage due to the amount of backlash you may receive for bystanders who do join the war. But I also don't believe that someone who joins the war even if they believe it is morally wrong is cowardice. To join a war takes a lot of courage no matter the circumstances. But it is also important to stick up for your beliefs so I believe that it can go either way.

I think that the use of large-scale, organized violence is justified under certain conditions, but can be sorted out in much more productive ways in most situations. I feel that the situations listed in Jus Ad Bellum are an accurate representation of when war is justified, which includes: having just cause, being a last resort, being declared by a proper authority, possessing the right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means being used. I think that just causes could include things such as defending a marginalized group in the territory being attacked, taking back land that was previously stolen, and defending yourself against wrongdoings. Being a last resort could be when the two sides attempt to sort the situation out through a diplomatic approach, but when that fails, war is the only available way of ending the conflict. Possessing the right intention could be that neither side is fighting the war in order to harm the civilians of the other side, which includes things such as stripping them of their rights or physically hurting them. The end being proportional to the means used could be things such as not using a nuclear bomb to simply prove military prowess or get back at the other side for a minor offense. I do think, however, that having a reasonable chance of success only applies to the side beginning the war as the side being attacked typically doesn’t have a choice in the matter.

I think that in the modern world, the intrinsicism model best applies to our political climate. Weaponry and war tactics have greatly improved since the beginnings of war thousands of years ago, and therefore, many situations are now more complicated than they would have been in the past. I think that simply viewing a situation in black and white and not weighing in the different factors that went into decision making would lead to frequent misinterpretations of events and a lack of understanding of a conflict as a whole. Some situations are plainly wrong, such as a genocide or a nuclear bomb that harms civilians as well as soldiers, but the vast majority of events have a number of different factors that went into the decision making process and can’t be interpreted in a single way. This is especially true for a summarization of a conflict as a whole. When describing a singular battle, it could possibly be deemed simply wrong or right, but when describing the motivations and actions of a participant in a war, the situation is often too deep and complex to be pinned to one word and view. For example, a side could join the war for a just reason, commit a number of atrocities during the fight, then be reasonable upon ending the war. There are too many conflicting factors to simply state that they are “bad” or “good,” and therefore all factors must be considered, which makes the intrinsicism model the best fit.

I do however think that the Just War Theory and the permissible reasons for war do act as a bridge between the two philosophies. While I do think that the intrinsicism model is the best fit for the modern world, I think that in order to get a full picture and interpretation of a war, you need to use both models to accurately consider the situation. The Just War Theory acts as a representation of this bridge as it dives deep into a number of different scenarios, and when discussing a topic, it considers the different approaches and how it could be interpreted or misinterpreted.

Overall, I think that war, while terrible, is a necessary evil. I think that in many situations, it could definitely have been avoided and sorted out in a way that didn't lead to the deaths and depletion of resources that typically arise from war. However, sometimes alternate methods are exhausted to the point that war is the only effective solution left, and that is when I feel it is needed. However, because of this necessity, I think that we need to put strict limitations on wars in order to avoid the atrocities that they often entail, and I think that the Just War Theory and our existing laws for war are making a start at this.

I don’t think that war is always wrong since there can be some cases where violence is necessary, but I also don’t think it should be a first resort. I think that the only time it can be justified is when it is in defense of a nation or group of people attacking another nation or group of people, or when it is used to protect the civilians of a nation or group. I don’t think that we can fully believe just the intrinsicism model or the consequential model, while instead I think we should believe a mixture of both models. War is always morally wrong since it causes the loss of lives, but sometimes it is needed as a last resort option. In addition to this, I think that the permissible reasons for war in the Just War Theory leaves too many factors up to debate since these reasons can vary from situation to situation, which is mentioned in excerpt 1 of Jus Ad Bellum as they say that the “inherent problem with both ethical models is that they become either vague or restrictive when it comes to war.” Having all of these reasons that can vary from situation to situation makes it a little bit pointless because it doesn’t defeat any discussions about the cause of the war, which would happen even if there were no permissible reasons for war in the first place.

I think that the participation of citizens in unjust war efforts should be up to the citizens themselves since they are usually forced to participate in the efforts if the reasons for waging the war are just. In Between Peace and War, the article mentions how the people who are drawn into war without a choice are the ones who suffer the most from the war, and I agree with this since they are risking their lives without being able to control whether or not they want to or if they even agree with the war efforts. No matter if the reasons for the war are seen as just or unjust, I think that the citizens of the warring nations should be able to decide whether or not they want to support the war, rather than them being forced to do it just because they live in the nation. With this being said, I also think that it takes courage to not fight in defense of your nation or to not fight in a war you think is morally wrong since you have to go against the leading belief of fighting for your country. This connects to the conformity that we have talked about in unity 1, and not fighting for the nation would be an example of going against the group conformity of fighting for the nation no matter what you think of the war, and that takes true courage. I also feel like it demonstrates courage since it shows that the citizen is fine with taking any punishments that come with not fighting for the nation, as it could cause them to be exiled or seen as a traitor or public enemy to the nation.

I don’t fully agree with McMahan’s idea since I don’t think there is fully a way for soldiers to act honorably in war since that is also subjective to each person. Some soldiers in the war have no choice but to fight in the war since that is their job and sometimes the repercussions are worse than just following the orders, while in other cases it is easier for the soldier to not participate in the war effort if they don’t agree with it. I think the rules of the war semi assist the soldiers in acting morally as the rules show the set of morals that should never be crossed, but also the soldiers can always go against these rules if they are following the orders of their leader and they tell them to do so.