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:

War has always raised difficult and awkward questions about right or wrong. Can violence ever truly be justified, or is that our way of excusing moral failure? Just War Theory is the start of this discussion. The theory creates a structure for the question of when and how war should and can be fought. There are two perspectives in this discussion, intrinsicism, which says war is always wrong no matter what, and consequentialism, which says war can be justified if only it leads to a good outcome. So what does that mean if war leads to bad outcomes? Just War Theory recognizes that war is tragic, but that does not mean it is always immoral; there can be factors which make war necessary in order to prevent greater harm.

The Encyclopedia of Philosophy Just War Theory-Jus In Bello and Jus Post Bellum explains that war can only be justified if it meets a certain criteria. It states that war is only ok if the reasons for going to war outweigh the harms that war will cause. This idea shows that Just War Theory is a middle ground for those who fully believe in war and those who fully do not. It does not exactly excuse violence, but it does admit that there are some cases where war might seem unavoidable, where it may be necessary in order to defend and protect the lives of innocents. An example of this could be if a country is being invaded, war could be defended, or ok if it is to protect people and restore peace to the country. There needs to be no interior intentions to war.

Even when war begins, how it is fought matters, the weapons used matter, and the amount of force used matters. In jus in bello, it emphasized that soldiers must follow moral rules even in war. They must try their best to avoid harming civilians and even treat prisoners as well as they can. In the reading, it says that we need to stop comforting and telling soldiers that it is okay to fight in an unfair war as long as they behave well and act honorably. I agree with some of this because being honorable does not erase the fact that fighting for an unjust cause still contributes to wrongdoing. Some soldiers may believe they are serving their nation, but if the war is unjust, it becomes very complicated to excuse their actions. But at the same time, I feel for the soldiers who are called by their nation to fight; some have no choice but to fight, to ignore their morals. I recognize that this eats up at many.

With that said, it is not easy to expect every soldier or citizen to follow their morals, or to ignore what they are told to do. As many who refuse to fight or are viewed as cowards by society, there are real risks to denying the government, to standing up against the governing. But individuals do have the ability to challenge their leaders and act accordingly to their morals. But this, of course, can be difficult to do, especially when you are the only one who wants to challenge said leader. As history has shown, when people challenge their leaders or question order, terrible things happen to them.

Lastly, Just War Theory helps us to think about the moral limits within war, which was a difficult discussion. It does not exactly glorify violence or say that war is good or even ok, but it does allow for there to be a middle ground when the discussion is brought up, whether war is morally ok. The theory reminds people that justice in war is not about who wins, but it is about the intentions behind the fighting, the choices made during war, and whether people tried their best to protect the innocent as hard as they could.

Humans have waged war on each other for centuries, whether on hostile foreigners or hostile members of the same community. For this reason, the brutal mass slaughter of up to millions has been normalized by today’s society. We read our history textbooks and recite numbers robotically of the number of casualties, or list with enthusiasm the production of mass weapons our country is currently in the works of.

This normalization, however, fails to address one key question: Is the act of war just in and of itself? Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word “just” as “acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good (righteous)”, with a subdefinition of “being what is merited (deserved)”. For reference, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “war” as “a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations/a period of such armed conflict”.

Let’s break this down. To start, the subdefinition of just is interesting to analyze. Being what is deserved. Does anyone ever deserve to be attacked with “armed hostile conflict?” To me, this emphasizes the difference between intrinsicism and consequentialism. Intrinsicists would answer “no” in any situation while consequentialists might say "unnecessary violence is wrong but this one person/thing deserves it”. In jus ad bellum, it is stated that a war is just when it possesses just cause — the convention enumerates that this pertains to “self-defense against physical aggression”, “probable acts of aggression”, “an oppressive government”, or “another external threat”. If these are the reasons that war is declared, then it automatically means that one side is committing acts of aggression/doing something morally incorrect towards another.

Is retaliation and committing hostile acts against this aggression deserved? To me, this is where principles of jus in bello come in. If the manner in which the war is conducted is proportional to the original aggression, then I believe this is just (simply by definition, not by my morals). It seems hypocritical that if one side commits certain acts towards another, that the other side has no right to retaliate. If this were to happen, then it would essentially mean that one side deserves to be attacked because of a certain identifier, while the other side does not because they do not possess that identifier. In my morals, this is wrong.

Today, while many may state themselves as intrinsicists, unfortunately, the consequentialism model is more realistic. There are leaders existent today that view war as an essential method of their nation’s survival, success, and prosperity. A key example of this way of thinking in the 20th century is Vladimir Putin. He believes that war against the Ukrainian state is the only way to reunite Ukraine with Russia and “punish” them for their behavior towards Russians, which he believes is the best outcome of the war. I believe wholeheartedly that war is not the most productive solution to this. The Russia-Ukraine conflict has come at an immense cost to both nations and the world as a whole. However, it is simply unrealistic for the intrinsicism model to come to fruition today. If each side in a war is so closed-minded that it believes war is deserved on those who don’t agree, consequentialism is the only way of thinking about war the world will ever see.

While the Just War Theory may be seen as an attempt to bridge the gap between these two theories, I actually believe that it drives them even further apart. The introduction to the theory states that “the three aspects are by no means mutually exclusive, but they offer a set of moral guidelines for waging war that are neither unrestricted nor too restrictive”. Although these theories attempt to make the act of waging war as just — morally righteous — as possible, they, at the end of the day, do not denounce war. They merely denounce certain acts in war or reasons for committing war. An intrinsicist might dislike the principles of the Just War Theory because it could be making excuses for committing atrocities, while a consequentialist may live by the Just War Theory because it provides reasoning and a sense of acceptability for an act of war. Until less wars are committed in the world, which would appease the intrinsicists, and the wars that are committed are just, which would appease the consequentialists, I believe that war will be a commonplace part of our society.

The consequentalism model is much more realistic than the intrinsicism one, even though this reality is deeply depressing. In a perfect world, diplomacy triumphs over violence and war is never viewed as the solution. However, we are nowhere near that perfect world, and thus the intrinsicism model fails to recognize the reality of global conflicts. International law and the Just War Theory thus tend to follow the consequentialism model. In drafting and enforcing laws, state parties have found it impossible to 100% apply the intrinsic theory. Some wars are seen by the majority of the international community as necessary to establishing peace, such as the Allies’ response to Germany’s genocide. If these countries had not stepped in, Germany may have never stopped its Nazi violence. However, other examples of war throughout history are not viewed in the same way. By the 1970s, the US’ violence in Vietnam was seen by most American citizens as an overexertion of brutal force, but in the decade before, many Americans were onboard with the war, influenced by American nationalism and anti-Communist propaganda. In these more conflicting examples of war and jus in bello, the philosophies of intrinsicism versus consequentialism are put in the spotlight. Oftentimes, it seems, nations make justifications for their own actions in war but speak strongly against war crimes committed by other countries. I think this is another reason why consequentialism is more accepted by the international community. The consequentialism model leaves more wiggle room for nations to abuse their power and allies.

Despite the emphasis on abiding by jus in bello, war crimes continue. In my opinion, this is because the laws are far too vague, and manipulation of the laws and exertion of force in the name of power or democracy or religion is common. In the institutions that govern peace, such as the UN, NATO, and the ICC, the West tends to have superiority. In the last 50 years of American history, we’ve seen a strenuous relationship between the US and these international institutions. America has repeatedly left certain UN agencies with the claim that they don’t honor the American value of individualism or that the state parties involved are not our allies. This has led to a lot of criticism from the international community. Why can the US refuse to join UNESCO agencies and the ICC, and allow war crimes to happen by our allies, but still pride ourselves on the values of freedom, peace, and democracy? It is because we abuse the consequentialist philosophy. We tend to ignore war crimes when they’re committed by us or our allies. This is not just true of America, but many other countries in the world—countries that continue the death penalty and torture, block humanitarian aid, hide its soldiers behind citizens, and support their allied countries when they commit the same crimes.

War is not in all cases morally wrong because the situation of each war determines whether the cause is just or unjust. The consequentialism model is more realistic for the modern world because some countries are more powerful than others, and those powerful countries will take advantage of others weaknesses. It is absolutely essential that once in war all methods of warfare remain proportional. The only way that violence in a war can be justified is if any form of violence used is proportional to the opponents (jus in bello). Although it is almost unrealistic to eliminate the practice of war all together, it is important that Jus Ad Bellum and Jus in Bello are applied. In my opinion, the only permissible reason for war is for the purpose of self defense. It is important to defend your country to prevent the attacks from becoming out of hand. It is a hard distinction to make to decide if self defense is permissible and if an attack can be anticipated. There is a lot of gray area within these rules that it becomes harder and harder to determine if war is permissible. It is important to remember that all wars are circumstantial and that all of the specific factors of the country's resources, means of self defense, and government be taken into consideration before waging a war. The Just War Theory does act as more of a defense for why war is waged and what happens once it does, but nothing can justify the deaths and violence that occurs during the war itself. It does give reason and justification to why war must happen but it also does not completely prevent unjust practices in the war to occur, causing it to not be fully justifiable.

If the origins of the war come from unjust reasons it becomes much harder to justify fighting in the war and gives more space for people to become conscientious objectors. If everyone in the country is a conscientious objector it becomes almost impossible for the war to actually be fought. If it is the case that everyone in the country is a conscientious objector it gives reason for the country to reflect on the reasons of the war and if it should really have been waged in the first place. A war cannot be successful if they have no one to fight or if the morale of the soldiers is so low that they have no willingness to fight. If that is the case it also violates Just War Theory because they now know that success is not probable and therefore, must end the war. It takes courage to become a conscientious objector but it also takes a different kind of courage to fight in the war, especially if you do not believe in the cause. Putting yourself directly in harm's way to defend the citizens of your country is admirable and must be admired. The courage it takes to go against the social norm and prepare yourself to face the criticism that comes with going against the majority.

If soldiers follow their own moral compass, knowing that they are defending the people of their country their acts can be seen as courageous and rooted in helping the greater good. It also does not fall directly on the fault of the soldier if they have received a direct order from a superior that goes against their own moral compass because disobeying an order can in some places be punishable by death. Each soldier has their own scenario and own reasons for either fighting or not fighting in the war. It is not necessarily fair that all soldiers be held responsible for the unjust conditions or reasons regarding the war. People will strive to protect themselves and their families at all costs which can cause people to obey direct orders, even if they do not fully agree. If soldiers strive to follow the guidelines of Jus in Bello, it will cause most to act permissibly and hold on to their own moral values, while fighting in war.

Just War theory is used in many different ways to justify the reason a war should be brought on or to justify the outcome of a war. There are many different views of this theory including self defense when attack is brought on by another force, having war to claim peace between two different parties, all other options have been used and war is the last resort, or the government making it their call to start a war, and soldiers are made to fight. These reasons of Just War can be a say in if war is wrong and that if a war fits under one of these categories, it is alright for it to start and happen. Both models, intrinsicism as well as consequentialism have strengths and weaknesses when it comes to proving if a war is morally wrong or not. Intrinsicism states that a war is morally wrong no matter the circumstance, and this really emphasizes the idea that humans shouldn’t suffer without a just reason. This model does have its cons though, by not allowing war to happen even if it has many good reasons to. Consequentialism takes into play the Just War theories and thinks about what the outcome of the war might be before actually saying no and not allowing the war to happen. Most of the time, if the war situation fits under a category of Just War, people will think that it is alright to start it and the outcome will be positive in the end. With this in mind though, it’s hard to predict what the main outcome of a war will be as wars are very aggressive and unpredictable and it can go in so many different ways in the end. When you think of wars in modern times, there are so many new challenges that are brought into play because of all the other global conflicts going on. I feel as though intrinsicism would be a better model to use because of all the problems going on in the world right now, it would be better to not have a war happen in the first place then try to decipher whether it would be a Just War or not. I believe the permissible reasons for war including Jus Ad Bellum can act as a bridge between the two philosophical ideas of war which include pacifism and realism. By changing the point of view on pacifism, Jus Ad Bellum argues that although the end result may be sad and innocent people may be killed, war is definitely necessary no matter the circumstances. Similar to that point, realism is seen as a different, less brutal war tactic where there is a limit on how much force is used. Based on the excerpt from Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Jus Ad Bellum is described as a way to prove that when following the moral if war is just or not, there are many different ways of how the outcome of a war could result in and in the society we live in right now, almost all wars should follow this moral to follow decent humanity.

I think war should almost never happen. To me, it feels crazy that people would think that killing other people would be the right way to go about things. In an ideal world, we would always be able to actually talk and figure things out, but I understand that this is not an ideal world. I think organized violence is only justified if it is in defense. I feel like nobody should be attacking another nation without having been attacked first. That killing of people just feels so unnecessary. In a similar idea, I would say that the intrinsicism model would be the correct model to use in war. If something is a morally wrong thing to do, then it shouldn’t be done, no matter what the context is. I think the Just War theory combines the two models because It does have some to do about how it can make sense to go to war, but it also has some to do about regulating what is done in war. I think citizens should have the right to resist or refuse participating in war if a nation goes to war for an unjust reason. If the was is concerning things that you don’t believe in, I don’t think it is fair to send someone to war and create a high possibility of their death or injury. I think that goes against the basics of humanity, and the fact that people are forced into battle for something larger than them speaks to the problem with war and large violence. Of course, in the realistic view of the world that we live in today, that isn’t really possible to fully sustain because you just need an army to have protection for your nation. I think it does take courage to not go out and fight, but I do believe that it takes much more courage to actually go out and fight, because you are putting everything on the line for your nation. I think thats why it is so interesting that people get sent out against their will. It must really take a lot of courage to go do something like that, when you really are putting everything on the line. So many go out and die fighting for a cause that they may or may not believe in. I think some of them understand what they are doing, but I think it is important to understand the brainwashing and propaganda that goes on around the world to get people to fight in wars. Some people that act dishonorably in war don’t understand what they are doing, so I think people need to be educated on what is honorable and not honorable in war. That is why I just think anything that reduces warfare or any violence is the best option. I don’t think that being consequentialist and looking at future possibilities it the right way because I think that it disregards the ruining and destruction of human life, etc, that takes place in the actions that come from those decisions.

No matter what, war will always be wrong and should be the last resort, but with the world we live in, we can’t expect two different idealistic countries to agree on the same thing, which is tragic. With presidents governing countries, they have built-in egos that can never allow them to come to an agreement. I’m sure there are good leaders in small countries, but with big powerhouse countries, no leader can ever be truly good or fair. Though there are wars where they are fought for self-defense, human rights, or stopping genocide which I believe that war is 100% necessary compared to wars fought over power and revenge. War is just such a complicated topic and has many layers, and no right answer. Violence can lead to “peace’ as some may call it, but at the cost of casualties and many innocent deaths, so take that with what you will. I’m going to be honest and we don’t live in a fairytale land with peace and rainbows. We live in a very complicated world with different ideologies, and I’m not saying I have the right one, but the obvious answer everybody will agree with is the Intrinsicism model, that yeah, war is always morally wrong, no matter the reason but I live in the real world and I believe your actions have consequences no matter what and its sad that casualties will have to happen but the Consequentialism model does fit the modern world we live in today that war can be justified if the outcome is good, like “ending tyranny” or “liberate countries to prevent mass suffering” The US could claim that they’re doing it for the greater good but who really knows what their actual intentions are.

The Just War Theory agrees with the intrinsicist ideology that war is usually wrong and should only happen rarely, but it also includes consequentialist ideas by allowing war if certain conditions make it morally justifiable. That's what makes war so complicated, because there is no right answer and no answer anybody can agree on. It states that ending a war to create peace should include peace terms should be fair and not cruel, punishment should target leaders, not citizens, rights and order must be restored, and rebuilding. But even after all of this, how long could it last until somebody else rises to power and tears down the rules built? War is an inevitable thing.

Jus ad Bellum lists strict conditions that have to be met before starting a war, including just cause, right intention, legitimate authority, last resort, proportionality, and probability of success. It shows that war is not automatically evil but must be justified, which bridges both consequentialism and intrinsicism models. So, Just War Theory acts as a moral middle ground. War is not always wrong, but it must meet strict ethical standards to be right. I’ll restate it, war should never be necessary and should always be the last resort because countries don’t take into consideration the possible millions of casualties and lives that have to be paid for it. Life is sacred and should be valued, but leaders don’t care for human life and will play war like it's a chess game and send soldiers down to do their dirty work.

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?
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?

If a war arises that is supported by unjust reasons there should absolutely be choice for who participates in the war. In general I think that war should not just be a choice made by the government but a choice for the people to decide if they want to volunteer. No one should be forced to participate in a war if they disagree with the cause just the same as if they cannot fight for religious reasons. I think it takes courage to refuse to participate in war and to go into battle, both are different kinds of courage but each should be respected as an individual's personal choice. There is no measurement for courage but it should be allowed for each person to make the decisions for themselves and to be respected and not ridiculed by either side for their decision. I think oftentimes the idea of which choice is more courageous comes from either side as propaganda trying to convince individuals to refuse or enlist in the military. Each side wants people to agree so therefore leaders will obviously congratulate those who enlist/go to war, while non-supporters of the war will congratulate those that resist. But this begs the question of if everyone decided to simply not participate. worse? In certain situations that would seem to be the case because at some point we need a strong defense. But maybe if wars were conducted with more information to the public on the specifics of why they are fighting the war and what would happen if people did not fight truthfully more people might willingly participate. What is wrong with this “education” strategy is that propaganda also exists and makes it easier for people to be involved when they see convincing propaganda all throughout their media. Additionally each soldier has at least some kind of responsibility in their decisions as they are now in charge of possibly taking lives from the enemy and this can lead to the confusion between orders and war crimes. In wars that have little to no rules, like guerrilla warfare, the gruesome nature of combat can be hard to measure what is the soldiers decision and what is the decision of their superiors. Also nuclear warfare has a great impact and can be argued that after the effects are understood it is everyone's individual choice and responsibility for what is to happen. Finally, McMahan’s idea that you should not be allowed to reassure soldiers that their actions are permissible even if the what is not just or that they are being honorable is an important distinction because if we were to make soldiers believe that atrocities they might commit are a just way of war, psychological problems could arise. There is also simply no way to fully act morally in war because it is my thought that killing is simply not moral unless it is an act of immediate defense, such as someone directly trying to kill you. How can soldiers look at another crowd and fire first while looking into the eyes of another human, I simply cannot understand.

In my opinion, war is the worst thing that happens in our world, and it is always wrong. However, in defense of a nation’s own civilians, there are cases where war is able to be justified. There is no reason that war should even take place. The elite class of different nations is most typically the one to ignite conflicts, yet it is the poor who usually have to fight such conflicts out. The benefits of winning a war don't help the poor, and the poor are obviously harmed if they lose a war; it is a lose-lose situation. War, whether it is able to be justified or not, ultimately always reveals a society’s social injustice.

With that said, to survive in a world where war exists, I nevertheless believe that a consequentialistic view is the most realistic model in our world. While the intrinsicism model is theoretically ideal, it doesn’t take into account real-world situations. To quote the article, Between Peace and War, “Social Democracy has done everything in its power to fight this disastrous development and has worked to the very last minute to uphold peace by organizing powerful demonstrations in all countries.... Our efforts have been in vain…Now we must think of the millions of our fellow countrymen who are drawn into this disaster through no fault of their own. It is they who will suffer the most from the horrors of war” (Facing History and Ourselves, n.d.).

Relating this quote to a real-world current situation, intrinsicism says that you should never bomb a hospital. It is obviously immoral to bomb a hospital. However, if the enemy group is aware of this strict law, they could easily take advantage and hide inside a hospital and launch attacks from inside such as happened in the Israel-Hamas conflict. Hamas uses hiding in hospitals and other places where war should not take place as a tactical strategy. Hamas understands that if Israel attacks them while hiding in a hospital, they will be put in a negative spotlight for the world to see.

So if Hamas is about to launch a devastating missile towards Israel’s civilians from inside a hospital, is it okay for Israel to attack them before the attack is carried out? Intrinsicism says that Israel should never attack them, even when they are using a hospital as a shield. Hamas could technically build its base there and repeatedly fire missiles with no consequence under the intrinsicism model. Alternatively, the consequentialism model would say that a defensive attack at even a hospital, attacking hundreds of civilians but also neutralizing the threat for thousands of others, is permitted. The quote from the article between Peace and War supports this hypothesis.

Consequentialism and intrinsicism clearly have their flaws. The rules are too loose, and nations can make up justification if they want to and fabricate numbers. To bring it back to the Middle East conflict as a real-time example, Israel has carried out many attacks where they aim for Hamas members but also hit innocent civilians at the same time. Consequentialism allows for the possibility that a high number of civilians can be murdered with justification. While consequentialism is a tragedy, as long as war exists, with a responsible government, consequentialism is a more realistic model to ultimately and in reality preserve social justice.

Since both consequentialism and intrinsicism have flaws, I believe that Just War Theory acts as a bridge between these two concepts, offering principles that compensate for their flaws. Just War Theory, specifically jus ad bellum, offers a moral basis for war by listing criteria that, if met, allow the option to go to war and transcend immorality. For example, a symptom of consequentialism is killing too many civilians, but Just War Theory morally resolves this. In the article from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it says, “the second principle of just conduct is that any offensive action should remain strictly proportional to the objective desired. Jus in Bello requires… [minimizing] destruction and casualties” (Mosely 2). Some of the other conditions of jus ad bellum that form a basis of morality, even if having to decide to go to war, include: good intentions, violence must be proportional, and for a just cause. Just War Theory ultimately takes into account real life situations, upholding the moral foundation of intrinsicism while recognizing the reality of consequentialism.

Works cited:

• “Between Peace and War Facing History & Ourselves, updated 2 Aug. 2016, www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/between-pea...

• Moseley, Alexander. “Just War Theory.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by James Fieser and Bradley Dowden, 2004,

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10kdQB2XnXA3U-bbM_...

Ever since history was recorded there was always some record of fights between opposing people. This is why it is rooted in our beings. War is such a difficult topic of discussion as it is difficult to comprehend all of the details. War is so large that we can miss the impacts it has on every individual. I believe that violence can be justified in certain situations for example if you are being attacked and are defending yourself. That is justifiable as it could result in more casualties on your side if you don’t fight back. Despite this, there is the counterargument that no matter what violence on this level is never acceptable. I feel encouraged to lean this way as in Between Peace and War it is discussed how “the conscientious objector does not believe that violence can cure violence". This stuck with me as I had to really think, will violence really make things better or does it just create more tension and hate between the opposers? My answer to this question was it will cause more hate and tension as once people act more violently towards your people or “one of us” it creates a strong us vs. them mentality even if you don’t realize it has happened. Despite these thoughts, the consequentialism model for war is more realistic for modern war because that is how we base our wars on today and it is difficult to change people's mindsets.

Whether war is justifiable or not is all based on opinion. Just like the rules of war, it is up to interpretation whether someone has broken the laws of war or not. Similarly, many arguments can be made for both for and against war and I believe it is up to the individual whether they believe violence can be solved with more violence or not. The other argument is who the violence is directed at. In Principles of Jus In Bello it is discussed who is a civilian and who is not. This again highlights how much interpretation is included in war and who is really to blame for certain things. It is difficult, however, to have these opinions when the leader of your nation makes all of the decisions which leaves little room for your own thoughts. While you can think your own opinions it is difficult to express these publicly if they disagree with what your leader has decided.

It takes immense courage to go against the majority and choose your own morals. This takes great strength so if someone does decide to not fight I would think they have thought about it long and hard as it is not an easy decision. In addition, I feel that we cannot blame people for choosing not to fight due to religious or moral obligations; however, if they are getting out of war just to get out of it that is just incorrect. While these conscientious objectors don’t have to physically fight I do still think it is important that they help in some way even if it is really small. No matter what it is still important to show even a little support for your nation. In addition, if we set the norm that anyone can choose to not fight it creates less unity and distrust in our nation.