Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 5
Learn to Question Post 3: Reflections on Just War Theory
I think the belief that war is not morally wrong if the cause, actions during, and outcome of war are just is appropriate for our world today. In my opinion citizens should always be able to have a say in whether or not they want to participate in war efforts, no matter if the reasons are just or not. Considering that many in the military are killed during war, I believe participation should be left for individuals to decide as their lives are on the line. If members of societies are forced to engage there is a possibility of them dying for a cause they don’t even believe in, which doesn’t make much sense. With this however also comes the risk of a smaller or incomplete army, lessening the likelihood of success. If completely necessary, I think a smaller scale draft could be understood but it should be left for extreme cases. Fighting in a war (as your existence is at risk) and refusing to fight for something your morals go against both require courage, which is necessary because of the negative social response in which one would be met with if they went against the set societal expectations. People could have various reasons for a desire to not engage in war, that being religion, morals, injury, economic stability, and more. From what I have seen there is a belief that if one opposes war then they do not care for their country, but this is often not the case. In the article Between Peace and War, Philosopher Bertrand Russell who refused to fight states that he is "tortured by patriotism" and that the strongest emotion he feels is love for his country. This goes to show how refusers can still have a deep sense of patriotism and care for their nation, maybe even more so than willing fighters since they believe their country is above the reason for war and should not entertain the situation. I think this also relates to who should be targeted during times of war, as not everyone might support the faults of their nation. It is unjust and undeserving for people to die if they themselves objectively did nothing wrong. Selective killing of only the proven guilty is obviously more acceptable, efficient, effective, and reasonable than unproportional acts such as bombing a random enemy hospital for example. I agree with McMahan’s idea that reassuring soldiers who act permissibly in an unjust war is a bad idea because actions should not be separated from the reason behind the actions. Even if honorable conduct is displayed, soldiers are ultimately contributing to the destruction and death of countries for an unjust reason. On a different note, in the reading Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum, the point that the ethics of the Just War Theory “aim to retain a plausible moral framework for war” makes me wonder if there could be a set of rules that should be followed by everyone for every war. I think that there is no one right answer and that having one strict program for everyone to abide by in war wouldn't work because it truly depends on the specifics and would be too broad to apply to every instance. All in all though, despite one side eventually having to be named the victor and the other the defeated, I believe no one wins in war even if it is necessary at times.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 5
Learn To Question Post 3: Reflections on Just War Theory
The action of going to war is morally wrong. The definition itself, is the act of going into an armed conflict against an opposing force. This action usually involves large scale violence and is caused by a number of factors that are physical, mental, or ideological. The Just War theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. It essentially centers around a set of mutually agreed rules of combat between two culturally similar enemies. In a way war is wrong because it involves killing the lives of many people, both soldiers and civilians. There are countless examples of war in history: World War II, American Civil War, Vietnam War, etc. Society is molded in a way so unique that it is inherently impossible to have everyone agree on one topic at the same time. I believe that the consequentialism model is more realistic for the modern world. The idea that societies are so unique contradict the intrinsic model of solely thinking war is morally wrong. Since humans have their own social identity; their own beliefs, war cannot be thought of as solely wrong because of such implicit factors surrounding each individual war. One of the most notorious types of war are wars fought in self defense, most commonly thought of as the most justifiable war. It is these types of wars that prompt a nation to defend their people, thus making the action justifiable. In some ways, I understand that the art of self defense contradicts this idea because they also result in killing lives as a result of defending themselves. That is why Just War Theory provides somewhat of a bridge between both ways of thinking: intrinsicism and consequentialism. In the Encyclopedia of Philosophy on ‘Just War Theory’ Excerpt 1, Jus Ad Bellum, brings to the table the moral aggression of going against an opposing side while considering the just cause for committing an action in war. The idea that the desired end should be proportional to the means used further supports this. The principle itself is useful for providing guidelines for reviewing morality going into war. It is the same idea as providing international rules for committing a war crime. Though both ideas may not completely be adhered to, it provides a structure to execute actions in war. On the other hand, Just War Theory does not address the complexities of modern warfare. The traditional principle of the theory was developed for conflict between states. It does not address the rise of non-state actors like terrorist groups or revolutionaries as stated in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy on ‘Just War Theory’ Excerpt 2. Furthermore, the principle states that war can only be addressed by a legitimate authority. The problem is when that authority is questioned based on their own moral actions and choices. It then becomes a much bigger problem of looking at who is an authority and who is a perpetrator. Another topic to touch on is the decision of the individual themself. In times of war, it is citizens who choose to fight for their country. On one hand, there is a moral obligation to fight for your country. On the other hand, if the cause is unjust then fighting the war would be contributing to the negative cause itself. I think that the most courageous act of duty to your country is to consider your options. The act of not fighting in a way to defend your country may be seen as cowardice, but it is accepting that the cause of fighting is unjust that is truly courageous. There is a certain fear of social punishment, of exclusion when choosing not to fight. It is these factors that must be considered. In command economies or dictatorships, many young men are brought into the army not of their own accord, but their duty to protect their country. Regardless of one’s beliefs they are still dragged into a war. This once again correlates back to Just War Theory. There are so many factors to consider when looking at going to war then the action itself, making it complex to justify. War is a nuanced subject and it is extremely difficult to classify it one way or another. There are so many perspectives to be considered, moral beliefs to be judged, and defining actions to characterize it. In turn, theories like Just War Theory provide a basis for each nation to follow. Although these theories may not account for all factors of war, it is a means of finding sense in the unknown. It is through this that we find purpose in ourselves, our actions, and our history.
Boston, Massachusetts , US
Posts: 5
Just War Theory and World War I
The morality of war has long divided philosophers and citizens. Is it just inherently wrong or can it be justified under the right circumstances. The intrinsist stance is that war is morally wrong because it entails killing, destruction, and the breakdown of human solidarity. The consequentialist stance on the other hand states that war is justified if it results in a greater good, such as saving more innocent lives or freeing from tyranny. In today's world, where humanitarian crises and aggressions continue to threaten global peace, the consequentialist theory would seem more realistic. War to stop a genocide or defend a countyr being invaded as usually seen as necessary despite everyone dying on both sides. However, the danger of consequentialism is that it will excuse almost any level of violence as long as the outcome is a better world. Just war theory is a moral middle pathway between the two extremes. Its doctrine of jus ad bellum or the right to go to war sets strict conditions for a just cause, legitimate authority, war as the last resort, and proportionality. It recognized war as a moral evil but is realistic enough to know it will happen. During World War I, many Europeans switched from anti war protest to patriotic soldiers, especially after the neutral nation of Belgium was invaded. Even the initially anti-war German Social Democratic Party declared that “the horror of hostile invasion threatens us… now we must think of the millions of our fellow countrymen"(Between Peace and War Reading). Their moral priority quickly changed from peace to defense, a case of jus ad bellum thinking, where the moral priority became to defend instead of seeing it as a fight for the ruling class's benefit. If a nation does wage war for unwarranted reasons, should citizens refuse to fight? History shows that doing so takes courage as although you remained safe, in the case of WWI, you would be jailed, excluded from society, and seen as a traitor. Betrand Russel defended the conscientious objectors of WWI saying that "the conscientious objector does not believe that violence can cure violence… he still feels 'solidarity' with the people who are called 'enemies'" (Between Peace and War Reading). In Russels view moral courage meant opposing the dehumanization of the enemy and preserving compassion amid collective hatred. Whether fighting or not fighting takes more courage is a personal opinion many will disagree on, and it is very dependent on the circumstances and repercussions for making either choice. If all citizens followed only personal morality, national defense could crumble as a result, and a healthy democracy must balance autonomy and civic responsibility to keep the nation safe without becoming authoritarian. Philosopher Jeff McMahan goes against the comforting belief that soldiers who fight honorably in unjust wars still act morally well, instead arguing 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." (Between Peace and War Reading). His argument is that moral integrity cannot be separated from the justice of the cause. A soldier may follow the jus in bello rules: avoiding unnecessary suffering, protecting civilians, and respecting prisoners but if the war itself is unjust, then even honorable behavior cannot fully justify involvement. Ultimately, war reveals both the weakness and power of human ethics. The intrinsicist reminds us that war shatters lives and ideals, while the consequentialist reminds us that doing nothing can cause even greater evil to happen. Just War Theory tries to hold both views in tension, acknowledging that while war is never good, sometimes it may be a necessity. For the soldier however, decisions of morality are not about whether to start a war but about whether participating in the fighting itself is right, and if blind obedience is truly what is best for society or if democracy would be destroyed by everyone simply doing what they think is best.
BOSTON, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 7
Response
I believe that war is not always wrong and that the use of large scale organized violence can sometimes be justified. The consequentialism model is more realistic for the modern world. I do think that war should be a last resort in some cases if diplomatic solutions aren’t working. In Just War Theory it says” War should always be a last resort.” I think war is justified when you are acting in defense of your country, you are stepping in to protect allies, and you are trying to prevent more bad from happening, like stepping in to stop the Holocaust. Those are, in my opinion, the only justifiable reasons for war. War shouldn’t be used to settle small problems like border feuds. The Intrinsicism model isn’t applicable because in the real world, there will always be war. After all, countries are accustomed to settling their disputes through fighting, and sometimes it is necessary to resort to force. It also goes back to the question of whether or not people are inherently violent. I agree with the intrinsicism model that war is bad, but it is sometimes needed. I do believe that there are lots of wars that were not justified. If a nation wages a war for unjust reasons, I think that people should refuse to participate. For example, if your country invaded a smaller country for no reason, the people of that country should refuse to fight in that war. However, if your country is engaged in a justified war for its safety, I think people should help out even if that help isn’t directly fighting. An exception to this would be if your religion is against war, then I think you should be exempt from participation. If you are a believer of the intrinsicism model and your country is fighting for self defense, I think you should help out and support the war. If everyone acted according to their own moral compass, countries wouldn’t have an army to defend themselves because most people know that killing people is wrong. It is not realistic for a country not to have a means to protect itself. People put aside their moral compass to help their country. I sort of agree with Jeff McMahan’s statement because if a country wages an unjust war, sometimes people don’t have a choice whether they fight in it or not, and the consequences of not fighting could be very severe. Either way, it takes lots of courage to serve and not serve your country. I think the soldiers who willingly participate in an unjust war aren’t necessarily bad people, because sometimes people join the military to help pay for school, as an example, and don’t have a choice. Soldiers can act morally in an unjust war, but these moral decisions are overshadowed by the fact that the war is unnecessary and immoral. In conclusion, war is a very confusing time that has lasting impacts on the nations involved, which is why nations need to try to work situations out diplomatically instead of going right to war; however, some fighting is justified, even with all the destruction it causes.
Boston, Massachusettes, US
Posts: 5
In the event a nation engages in an unjust war, I think that it is not only morally correct for citizens to refuse to participate in the war effort, but it is in fact a moral obligation. Unfortunately, life is rarely so simple. Often, civilians and soldiers alike are misled about the nature of a war, and the true scale and depravity of the conflict is hidden. Still, it should be every citizen's responsibility to thoroughly examine every claim their government makes, especially during wartime, before committing to supporting it. Any person who does, then, choose to resist the jingoism and mass hysteria brought upon by war, especially in the event that this war is one of aggression or is otherwise unjustified, should be celebrated. Because of things like the pressures of social conformity, it can be extremely difficult to move against the masses to protest or refuse to serve in a war that you disagree with. Conscientious objectors have been ridiculed throughout history, and according to the article “Between War and Peace,” they even “were imprisoned for refusing to fight,” alongside the existing social pressures. For these reasons, I think it is extremely courageous to resist war, especially wars with mandated drafts. I don’t know that I would argue that it is inherently cowardly to fight in an unjust war, as there are many reasons normal, everyday people could end up in these wars. For instance, propaganda can be very persuasive at convincing people that their war is justified, such as the belief that war will be an “adventure.” There’s also the matter of the draft; it takes a lot of courage to break the law and refuse the draft, and many may reason that it would be preferable to go to war for a few years rather than carry the social stigma of being a draft dodger forever, as well as the legal stigma of being a felon. I also think that it is right that every citizen in a nation should choose to follow their own moral compass. A government should be a representation of the will of the people, and not force its will upon the people. Therefore, if a government makes a decision that the people disagree with, the people have the right to protest and refuse to comply with that decision. This is how a healthy democracy should work. As society gets more and more polarized, however, this ideal gets further and further from reality. I would argue, however, that a big cause for that polarization is the government going against the will of the people. I think most people would agree that there are big issues with the way the United States government is being run nowadays, but everyone has a different idea of how to fix those problems. To return to the overarching question, if a government is not acting in accordance with the majority of people’s moral compass, it ought to be criticized and voted out if possible. Good democracies also allow people in the minority, whose morality may be different, to have their opinions heard loud and clear. After all, nothing good comes from an echo chamber, and governments should be strong enough to not crumble to some people acting in accordance with some fringe beliefs. A government should be able to withstand its citizens acting in accordance with their own moral and ethical beliefs, because if it can’t, that means that it is acting immorally in the eyes of its people and should correct its course.
Brighton, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 4
LTQ Post 3: Just War Theory and World War I
War is not only wrong if occurring for the correct reasons. The most realistic way to view it is the consequentialism model. Reasons such as an attack on a country's civilians and freedoms or an event or group of people that pose a risk to the freedom of one's country are strong reasons to go to war. This is because events and people with bad intent can lead to further and worse damages to a country and its people. Just War Theory makes sense as a bridge between ideas as it compromises based on certain circumstances. If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, I think citizens should have the option to fight. But sometimes figuring out if reasons for war are just is hard because opinion and bias have significant weight in people's views. If reasons for war are just and a country's freedom is at risk, forcing people's hand into war is sometimes necessary. If people don’t fight for their country, their country is at risk of attack. I disagree with McMahan’s ideas as I believe that many of these soldiers came to war against their will and were forced into it. I believe even in an unjust war if a soldier had been forced to go to war or even highly encouraged, the soldier's actions should be praised or at least protected. These people travel a thousand plus miles to go fight in a war that they didn’t ask for against people whose goal is to try to kill them. If bravery like that gets condemned then I wouldn’t understand. These soldiers can come back from war physically, mentally, and emotionally scarred, with PTSD, lost limbs, ect… I’ve had relatives that have gone off and fought in war and deployed in battle and to me it is nothing but bravery, strength, and courage. Fighting to the death especially when you don’t inherently want to can leave a person with severe scars physically and mentally and if soldiers are immediately condemned after they come back it could be extremely detrimental to their recovery. Every citizen can’t always just resort to their own moral compass in times of war. This can lead to large divides and conflict at a time where a country and its people are so vulnerable. When some people truly want to fight and defend their country and others resist, flee, and protest; it causes turmoil, political issues and physical conflict when unneeded. There will always be some sort of conflict internally within a country when in war. There will almost never be a situation where everyone agrees and everyone wants to go along with it. But many wars are fought to save us from what’s possible in the future. It’ts like climate change, a lot of the things we do to save our environment will not affect us right now in any positive ways, but the future generations will be at risk if the actions aren’t taken early enough. Just like war where current consequences are sometimes necessary to prevent later, far worse consequences.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 5
LTQ III
That war be necessarily grouped into the moral discussion is yet another tendency for us to categorize what may not be readily categorized. By its nature, war itself is a complex discussion. Like any other abstract concept or -ism, the fight to categorize it amidst our weight constructs of morally good or morally evil is often in vain; that is, war is a much more broad and complex topic than we can evaluate at face value. Irrefutable, we should concede, are the mechanisms of self defense that nations may aptly and with correct measure apply in times of uncertainty to suffice as morally good (or if the pacifist must extend, morally neutral). Indeed, in common and modern law, if an individual seeks to cause some damage to another, it is only justifiable with “self-defense” For our purpose, we may scale conflict on the individual level to those between nations -- in which case, we may claim war to be good only in times wherein the aggressor is already in imminent danger. That, of course, lends to further discussion of what we classify as “imminent danger.” It could suffice to claim that if the military forces or civilians of a nation are inappropriately and intentionally put at life-or-death risk by the governors of another nation, then we may classify that as grounds for retaliation. I feel that the intrincisim model and the consequentialism model are both inappropriate models to qualify international conflict. Both fail to address the causes of the war and the extenuating circumstances that may involve a nation at danger. An intrincisim model fails to recognize nations at imminent risk, and the consequentialist model is inherently blind to the causes of the war. For our study of war, Just War Theory offers a more contentious model that I feel could be more applicable in times of war -- however, it still lends to great interpretation. In a way, a nation seeking to conduct a large-scale massacre of another can still be found justifiable through the many loopholes in Just War Theory.
In my opinion, it’s hard to say whether it requires more bravery to engage in war or subvert war. In a way, you have to consider that there’s a sense of physical bravery -- a bravery to engage in acts that might be detrimental to your physical life, but there’s also a psychological or ideological bravery to NOT subvert your morals. In a way, we all definitely think that we could feasibly never join a war effort. But at the same time, you have to consider that we live in a different scenario then the people in WW1; I believe people during that period in the western hemisphere were more willing to give their lives for a war effort. According to the Between Peace & War reading, with the following quote from Artifex, we can see that people were often viewed negatively as being a conscientious objector: “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.” We must remember that conscientious objectors also experience societal pressures like the ones we’ve discussed. In the case of WWI, mass movements were manifest in how quickly people allied in nationalist movements. To veer off from this ideology that you would die for your country in a short-lived war was seen as disgraceful and ‘unmanly’. That allows the ingroup to appeal to the outgroup’s fundamental values (in this case, the ingroup is the homogenate of people who side with the country party). I think that means conscientious objectors have to choose between societal interpretation of their values coming at a challenge to their own values.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 5
I believe that war is not always wrong. It can be morally justified although it can involve mass killing and suffering. If peaceful methods are unavailable, I believe that it can be necessary to use controlled force to protect or fight against injustice. If a country is being invaded for example, I see war as essential for protecting uninvolved civilians. When the motivations for war include power or expansion, that is when I see war as unjust. The consequentialism model is more realistic for the modern world. The intrinsicism model fails to account for the fact that evil is still present in the world. Modern history shows that some issues need action in order to prevent even greater harm. The consequentialism model acknowledges that although war results in violence, it stops the consequences of doing nothing. If a country refuses to do anything about a dictator committing mass atrocities, this would be an acceptable time to wage war. Just War Theory does act as a bridge between intrinsicism and consequentialism because it balances principles with necessity. Jus Ad Bellum provides the blueprint for an ethical war. This includes saying that it should be fought for a reason such as protecting civilians or defense, it should be declared by legitimate authority, and it should be used as a last resort. If all nations decided to apply these rules, there would not be wars as a result of greed or revenge. Before WW1, many Europeans were against militarism and wanted peace. However, when the war began, justifications for fighting in the war as keeping their loved ones safe and standing up for their country arose. A quote from Between Peace and War, “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” shows how people who were originally against war felt convinced to fight in it because they thought that there was no other choice. This reading shows that a time when a war is just is when it is fought in order to protect innocent people or stop a greater evil rather than a war that is fought simply for a nation’s greed or revenge. An example of this would be how most people agree that fighting against Nazi Germany was necessary rather than unjust even though large amounts of violence was required. I believe that Just War Theory is a good way to look at the ethical reasons for a war. It does not glorify war or say that people shouldn’t fight in it. It forces people to wonder if war can sometimes be necessary and a last resort. In conclusion, war should not be celebrated, but it should be seen as something that is sometimes unavoidable if peaceful options are truly exhausted. There are methods to justify it, but the violence that comes with it is always something to consider when asking the question.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 4
LTQ III
The majority of the time, wars are unnecessary. I believe that there is always another way to resolve issues other than violence and negatively impacting numerous innocent people who did not wish for war. The only times when I see that it is justified are if it's purely out of defense. I do not expect nations to bear the violence and destruction of another country simply because there were other ways that the issues could be resolved. Some may argue that not going to war just pushes back the inevitable and decides to fight it out sooner rather than later. In “The Principles of Jus in Bello,” describe the term Jus post bellum is described, which states that after the war, “ compensatory claims should be tempered by the principles of discrimination and proportionality and, controversially, the need to rehabilitate or re-educate an aggressor should also be considered.” This means that justice after war should focus not just on prevention or repayment but also on fairness and peace that will last in the long term. People might look at this and say that a war is necessary to happen sooner rather than later to create a peace that will last longer than the war itself. The consequential model is more closely related to the modern world and how leaders justify their war-based decisions. Even though I think that war is unnecessary, if it were to break out, I would align myself more with this model because it means that they are getting closer to ending the war. With the intrinsic model, it feels unproductive and prolongs the inevitable. And I do think that war itself is unavoidable because of the philosophy behind evangelism and the human instinct to spread one's own beliefs and values. People are so eager to spread these ideas and values that they would fight for them. This raises a bigger question: whether I still think war is morally wrong if it is caused by human instinct. Is everything the subconscious does moral if that defines what we see as moral? People have different views on what is necessary and what is not, making it impossible to pinpoint precisely which philosophical idea is morally just over the other. The creation of international war laws was put in place to protect these philosophical ideas. They support the same ideas of fairness and restraint and exist to limit the brutality of war and ensure that human rights are protected even during conflict. It is our responsibility as humans to preserve natural human rights, and the striving to uphold them is the most moral thing we can do, even in times of war.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 5
The use of a large-scale, organized violence war can most definitely be justified under certain circumstances. I feel like in no case should war be the first solution to a problem. Nations usually try to come to an agreement before any actual acts of violence. It is only until there is no other solution where war then begins. During war, Just War Theory's main purpose is to try to protect all innocent civilians' lives while going to war for a justifiable reason. If you are going to a war knowing you could kill and cause a lot of destruction and violence, you must be getting something good out of it. Jus Ad Bellum has two morality models applied for war and I think in the modern world consequentialism should be applied. There are too many problems going on in the world where if it came down to it, I would rather consider the outcome of an action, even if it means doing something cruel. A quote I found very interesting from the text Between Peace and War was, “The horror of hostile invasion threatens us. Today it is not for us to decide for or against war; rather we must decide which means are necessary for the defense of our country.” This goes to show how people need to have the mindset of doing whatever is best for the country. It shouldn't matter anymore about war or peace or whether an action is good or bad, but it should matter that the country is coming together to stand up for something. That's why in cases like the Holocaust, people saw the cruelness of Nazi Germany and decided to go to war against them. It wasn’t because they wanted innocent people to die, or go to war, or cause all of this violence, but it was because they knew if they were successful, it would've been for a good cause and for the better of the country. I feel like in America, people are already comfortable with causing destruction for their cause or to try and prove their point. We can see how protests start to turn violent or into yelling at each other to prove their point. To connect back to 2020 with the protests for BLM and January 6, people were doing actions morally wrong, causing destruction, spreading hate, and in return they did not get out as much as the problems they caused. In war however, with much bigger stakes, people will unify and come together to do what's best for the country. Another quote from the text says, “The Kaiser recognized no parties; there it was in black and white; all factions were to be united; everybody spoke one language; everybody defended one mother: Germany.” Thousands of German people protested to show their support for war. In this case they want to make an attempt to better their country, while being united while doing it. War and the violence that comes with it, are justified in certain cases as long as it brings a country together to fight for a big change.
Reflections On Just War Theory
In my opinion, the idea that all war and fighting is morally wrong, but I think that is unfair to many groups. Fighting and uprising has always been a way for different groups to protest and battle against oppression, and this type of fighting is just in my eyes. With the world that we live in now, it is important to carry with you a consequentialist view. Looking at conflicts in today’s world, is it not right for Ukraine to return fire against Russia, who has been fighting for land and oppressing the Ukrainian people? I think that there are too many wars about too many different ideas for us to dismiss them all as immoral. I think the core ideas of the Just War Theory are very important in war, but only as concepts. I think these ideas support the consequentialist view, but when they are actually put into action in a war, they seldom work. They stand in for actual laws, proving to be much more flexible and circumstantial. Its very hard to set up a system that is supposed to decide how people behave, yet have those laws become obsolete under specific circumstances. If you view these laws as more of a bridge, as suggested, it become much more clear and understandable instead of having them framed as laws. These rules, at the most basic level, create a clear understanding of what is morally right and wrong in war. But as you dig deeper and look into the more complex issues of war, you see that there are justifications for many acts. This logic combines both sides of the argument and forces you to see morality of war from two different viewpoints, so as to allow for people to form their own ideas about how moral war can be. I believe that if a nation goes to war for unjust reasons, there should be an choice for people to fight. Forcing a person to go against their beliefs is unjust in itself, and this forced cooperation can lead to bigger problems. In our own history, we can see the problems that arise from trying to force citizens to go to war. There are many ethics concerns with forcing people to fight in wars they don’t believe should be fought. I think that standing up for your beliefs takes a lot of courage, especially when wars come around and there is more nationalism and pride within your country going around. By sticking to your beliefs and refusing to go against your morals, you are demonstrating a strong sense of identity against the overwhelming pressure of nationalism and groupthink. However, if you do fight in a war that you don't believe should be fought, I don’t think you are a coward. It is important to acknowledge how hard it is to go against a majority, and being a dissenter in a crowd of supporters takes more courage than most people really have. Morals are different for every person, and the moral compass that everyone carries reflects different views. I disagree with the point that Jeff McMahan makes with his statement. I think that for many people, fighting in war is not a choice, and to hold them accountable for the fighting that happens during wartime is unfair. I believe that the soldiers who have limited options in what they are allowed to do, and because of that commit violence, are not to be held responsible. If a soldier goes out of their way to commit violence against an enemy, that is a different story. But like the rest of the rules surrounding morality in war, this is all circumstantial.
Boston , Massachusetts , US
Posts: 5
I believe that if a nation wages war for unjust reasons, the citizens should refuse to participate in the war effort. I think that since the war is unjust, citizens should come to realize that they shouldn’t be engaging in such wrongs, but instead fighting against it. As we see in class, many people refuse to participate in war because of their religious beliefs. These people are called Conscientious Objectors. Conscientious Objectors refuse to fight in war, or sometimes engage in any military service based on religious beliefs or moral objections. Conscientious Objectors do this because they have this belief system that killing is wrong. I think that it is cowardice to fight in a war you believe is morally wrong. I believe that it is because being in a position where you can not fight for something that you think is wrong, but doing it anyway because of others, is being a coward of your own personal beliefs.
