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 tremendous negative effects including trauma that can last generations. However, the intrinsic perspective that war is always wrong is very restrictive and impractical for any society. Similarly, the other extreme, which is consequentialism, leaves very undefined boundaries in a sort of utilitarian “if the outcome is just” perspective. It is impossible to gauge how valuable an outcome is and using ends to justify means is always a slippery slope. The ultimate goal of war should be to produce a just, stable, and peaceful outcome, and certain means, like the use of nuclear weapons, are not conducive to such a result. Jus ad bellum poses requirements for constituting a just war, but as the reading points out, there are many flaws. The one that stood out to me was situations where a revolutionary group might have a just cause, but not “proper authority” or “reasonable chance of success.” This presents a flaw in Jus Ad Bellum since there is no provision for a group of people under severe oppression and even physical danger. This leads them to rely on an outside force to fight a war for them, similar to what happened when the U.S. intervened in Afghanistan (whether the war was just or not). Years ago, it was a common principle in western philosophy that a government is indebted to its people and should be required to protect their rights or else face rebellion. In modern warfare, it is difficult to imagine, especially in more developed countries, that an armed militia would do anything but be steamrolled by the national military. This also calls into question whether a revolutionary group could be justified given popular support within their nation. Both routes are flawed in this case since one is too rigid to allow progress in an authoritarian government and the other allows for mass movements to create new ones.

If nations wage war for unjust reasons, the citizens of a free country have a responsibility to dissent. Under threat of violence or loss of personal rights, it is justifiable to go along with war efforts as a civilian. Often it is only the most privileged ones who have a real option in these cases. Going to war under any circumstance is not cowardice since it involves great personal risk and sacrifice regardless of opinion. A nation that is severely divided internally is weak even if its military spending or technical capacity is high, so it is very difficult if each citizen acts on their own accord. It is definitely easy if each citizen in the world acts on the unified principles of jus ad bellum, but that is impossible. There is a lot of gray area in determining things like just cause, especially when it comes to anticipating attack and intervening in foreign wars. Defining a foreign government’s intentions and whether they are “oppressive” or not depends heavily on local biases. During the Cold War, any population that sought economic relief through communism was seen as a threat and enemy of the United States. The governments they established were all deemed oppressive, so the United States often installed other governments or practiced economically imperialist policies without regard for popular support or internal consequences. Soviet forces acted in a similar manner on the other side. Generally, average citizens can’t be held responsible for defining these difficult questions of whether their country’s war is justified or not. When soldiers are drafted, they are even less responsible for the justification of the entire war.

McMahan’s claim has meaning even though it is flawed. “Permissible” is a very strong word to use since it suggests a sort of responsibility or even punishment for fighting an unjust war. Jus in bello is far more important to hold people accountable for since even though soldiers aren’t making the decisions all the time, they are the agents (like the Milgram experiment). Applying Jus Ad Bellum to combatants is problematic since it requires them to discern gray areas and overcome the propaganda of their own government. While these people do have a civil responsibility to stand against leaders who partake in unjust wars, once the leader is in place and has made the decision they can’t be punished for these wars. This is not to say, however, that there is no individual responsibility for participating in atrocities in a “just manner” and voluntarily joining these wars.

“War Never Changes” (Fallout). This quote comes from the Fallout franchise, a popular videogame series set in a post apocalyptic America. The simplicity of this quote summarizes why war is never justified. As the game explains, tactics and weapons within war change decade to decade, yet the same fundamental outcomes of war stay the same: destruction, violence, and human suffering. As exemplified within the series, various countries lean towards the consequentialist model causing total war. Therefore the people who claim that a consequentialist model is more realistic for the modern world, must be okay with saying nuking countries is okay to do. And in current events people are saying these exact words as the norm in war becomes bombing hospitals, schools, and civilians in order to gain a militaristic advantage. On the contrary the other model compared to the consequentialist, the intrinsics model, requires countries to be pacifist, in which I fear can lead to a utopia. In utopias socialism becomes the norm and communism will evidently follow. These outcomes are similar to the phrase “damned if you do, damned if you don’t. If the globe takes on the consequentialist model, then that means total war, and if the globe takes on the intrinsic model that means poverty for all. Even if there is a mix of two it will still lead to human suffering, because a country who threatens to attack someone else, if they do or don’t, that other country might attack due to the sheer anticipation. This philosophy is studied in the Encyclopedia and Philosophy of ‘Just War Theory’ which says, "Initiating acts of aggression is unjust and gives a group a just cause to defend itself. But unless “aggression” is defined, this proscription is rather open-ended.” As the paragraph continues to define aggression as being either threats, violation of territory, or anything of such. It all starts to look like countries are begging to enter wars. Although jus ad bellum acts as a bridge between the two philosophies providing a middle ground for moral consideration and necessity, though as stated in the paragraph certain laws to help countries justify war and pacifism, it still ultimately concludes in human suffering.

Is the fear of suffering a good enough reason for citizens to then refuse to participate in war? In order to answer that question, people should first look at why their nation is waging war. A notable example of an unjust war in American history can be seen in the Vietnam and Korean War. Many people feel that America had no business fighting in those countries, and better yet lied to the American public about the casualties of the war. Additionally, America had the audacity to draft for the Vietnam war; citizens should have the right in order to fight a war for which they feel necessary. If it's not for the peoples interest then for whom. Those people who refuse to fight are also known as “conscientious objectors-people who refuse to serve in or aid the military for religious or moral reasons” (Between Peace and War) are more courageous as they are usually standing against the patriotism of the people. Again as seen in the Vietnam war if you didn’t fight you were seen as unmanly and cowardly, but in the aftermath of the war those who didn’t fight were alive. The consequences for citizens acting on their morals could be imprisonment by the country in which they would jail you, shame you, or make you work, no matter still ruining your life during the war and after. In all, the consequences suffered from not entering the war could be seen just as torturous as entering it, creating certainty in suffering if a country enters war. Thus, the countries limit your power to abide by your moral compass and instead inject the words “War Never Changes”.

Learn to Question Post 3: Reflections on Just War Theory

The question on if war can ever be morally justified is complicated because war always involves suffering, death and destruction but also there are moments in history where if nothing is done it might have allowed even worse violence to spread. The Just War Theory tries to give rules that help decide when a war can be justified and how it should be dealt with. It is not a perfect solution but it helps create a middle ground that is in between the belief that war is always wrong and the belief that war is okay if it has a good outcome.

The idea that claims war is always wrong is called intrinsicism. It categorizes any kind of organized violence as morally wrong. On the other hand the idea of consequentialism is focused more on the results. Consequentialism is the idea that war can be justified if it results in a better outcome in the end but both ideas have flaws. Intriscim ignores real threats like terroism or genocide while consequatism can be dangerous because leaders could say that the ‘end result’ is worth the violence. The Just War Theory is a happy medium. According to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “war is permissible only if it is declared for a just cause, such as defense against aggression, and authorized by a legitimate authority.” This shows how the theory tries to balance reality and morality by saying violence should only happen under certain conditions of jus ad bellum.

When citizens or soldiers find themselves in a war that doesn’t meet those conditions it creates harder questions to answer. If a government goes to war for unjust reasons should citizens be able to refuse to participate? It is brave to resist fighting if you believe the cause is wrong but at the same time if every citizen acted only to benefit themselves and what they think is right, nations would probably not be able to work together in times of crisis because this conflict makes fire a moral challenge. For example, during the Vietnam war many men tried to avoid fighting because they thought that it was unjust and this resulted in them ‘punished’ by going to jail, being exiled, and even being publicly criticized just because of their views. This shows that moral courage is not just about what you believe but being able to willing to stand by your ideas and face the consequences.

Even within a war that is considered unjust, soldiers can still act morally by following the rules of jus in bello which focuses on how war is fought. These rules include not targeting civilians and keeping violence proportional to the goals of war. Acting with honor helps keep some sense of humanity even in horrible situations. Jeff McMahan argues 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 agree with him but doing the right thing on the battlefield doesn't make an unjust war suddenly right. On the other hand I think that these rules help soldiers keep their morals when they don’t have control over why the war started.

In conclusion, Just War Theory does not make war good, but gives a way for people to think of it more responsibly. It reminds us that even though war is filled with destruction sometimes it is necessary to prevent something worse. By setting rules for how and when wars happen it creates a middle ground between idealism and realism helping people and nations make more ethical choices when in times of conflict.

The idea of war being morally justified lies in long debate amongst divided philosophers and political leaders. While intrinsicists are under the belief that war is always morally wrong, consequentialists argue that war is justifiable should it lead to a greater good. In today's world, which nations face terrorism, genocide, and oppression, the questions of the justification of violence is to be raised in times like this. War is not always wrong. It can be argued that violence is immoral, however history and our environment makes it difficult. At times, the use of large-scale violence that is organized becomes the sole way to prevent greater harm. The Just War Theory helps explain the balance as it recognizes that under certain conditions, fighting can be a necessity in a moral sense. Additionally, the idea of intrinsicism sounds pure, but doesn’t sustain within our reality. If a country gets invaded or the territory and lives of the innocent are being destroyed, it feels wrong being a bystander and not taking part. On the other hand, consequentialism makes more sense in the world today. Through this, killing and destruction shouldn’t be considered “good” in a sense, but war can sometimes be the less immoral action as opposed to allowing such injustices to continue. As the World Wars caused lots of suffering, it also in turn stopped Nazi Germany and the Holocaust to which fighting seemed as a necessity. Just War Theory serves as a bridge between these two views. War is accepted as a terrible thing, but it also expands the moral rules that lie for when and how war can be executed. As stated in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “The rules of just conduct within war fall under the two broad principles of discrimination and proportionality.” These such principles signify that there are moral boundaries even in war to which innocent civilians shouldn’t be targeted. Additionally it states that the amount of use must not be in excess to what’s needed to achieve a just goal. By this, it keeps the focus solely on justice, and not revenge or establishment of dominance. Jus ad bellum defines when resorting to war is acceptable morally. In order to go to war, a country must have a just cause, such as an act of self-defense or the protection of others from experiencing atrocities, and war must be the last resort. It is explained by Philosopher Michael Walzer that “the onus is on the government to identify the combatants,” which means that even in fighting, there isn’t a loss in moral responsibility which sounds right. By having rules about how and why such forces fight further keeps nations accountable for their actions and reminds us that war isn’t that easy to justify. All wars are tragic, however not all wars are wrong. Sometimes the choice to not fight permits injustice to go unchallenged and roam free. Just War Theory doesn’t erase the moral weight that is accompanied by war, but it aids us in facing it. It is a reminder that defending our peace can require further action, while peace is always the goal.

War has historically been a controversial topic amongst people, and still is today in modern day society, begging the question of whether war is justifiable under certain circumstances or is always ethically and morally wrong. Just War Theory, a series of principles created by Catholic theologists, is the universal outline determining what type of wars and what reasons for wars are considered just. Under Just War Theory, there are three divisions: jus ad bellum (justice going into war), jus in bello (justice in the conduct of war), and jus post bellum (justice after the war). In order to constitute a just reason for declaring war, it must be included in one of the six conditions: just cause, right authority, right intention, last resort, realistic chance of success, and proportionality; in order to constitute for just combat in the midst of war, there must be discrimination between those fighting and civilians (just targets) and proportionality with the weapons and/or force being used and the outcome of the war. After war, rules and treaties must be set in place to restore peace and stability. However, the downside of Just War Theory is the subjectivity of it, and the vast interpretations of it that allows nations to constitute any war as just, just by searching for the best loophole within the theory.

Outlining Just War Theory are the morality models, intrinsicism (stating that a bad action in itself is morally wrong regardless of reasoning or outcome) and consequentialism (a bad action can be justified if the outcome is worth it). In regards to war, the consequentialist model allows for certain situations to be justified despite how large-scale the destruction is; personal opinions and reasoning can take advantage of the consequentialist model and twist the depravity of an action. In “Just War Theory - Jus Ad Bellum”, it states that “the lack of a strict ethical framework means that the principles themselves are open to broad interpretations” (Encyclopedia of Philosophy). The intrinsicism model, on the other hand, is not a subjective model- it’s black or white, good or bad, right or wrong. It prevents peoples’ ability to go to lengths to give grounds for a war that otherwise would not be just. Although it doesn’t account for the instances in which one does something bad in war for a good reason, it doesn’t permit the irreversible wrongdoings committed in war. Because during wars, there are so many things at cost, including human lives, there cannot be situational right and wrongs. The consequentialist model is a strong morality model for life in general, for it takes into consideration the necessity to do things that would normally be considered wrong for a good cause, but in the specificity of war, it provides a too-slippery slope for people in nations to do bad things and justify it with weak reasoning.

Wars can be justified circumstantially, especially when it comes down to cases involving self-defense or oppressive authority, but the guidelines for what is considered “just” cannot be subjective. There must be a clear outline for which causes for war are legitimately fair, and which causes are pulling at strings, finding the flaws in Just War Theory that allows a war to constitute as quote-on-quote “just.”

I do not believe that war is always wrong and firmly believe that organized violence on a larger scale can be justified. War is sometimes a necessary evil, especially when faced with a bully-like power, preying on third world, small countries. One key modern day example includes the war in Ukraine against Russia. I believe that the consequentialism model is more realistic for the current world that we live in. For example, the case of the terrorists and the hospital. I believe it would be more justified and also better for a country to let the whole hospital burn into dust rather than let the terrorists intrude, saving the lives of the innocent in the hospital but potentially causing external harm. Although this can be argued strictly with numbers, we can justify this more by discussing the detriment of the opposite, intrinsicist model. Yet contained in some small settings, it is more likely to lead to larger political injustices, and, as we have discussed in class recently with Sultan Abdul Hamid and the Ottoman Turks, can cause greater susceptibility to genocides and other forms of mass destruction. Just War Theory does act as a bridge between these 2 ideas. Jus ad bellum preaches ideas of good intentions, just cause, and legit authority regarding war and if/when to wage war. Despite this, it does acknowledge how war can cause moral disturbance and conflicts and must be very well run under these ethical conditions, which seems sometimes unachievable. In this, we see the justification of both the consequentialist and intrinsicist models

I believe that if a nation wages war for unjust reasons, its citizens should be able to refuse to participate. Although what may be just or unjust is argumentative and varies from person to person, there are certain morals and standards that a country and its citizens must follow and appreciate. Truthfully, especially in the case of a person under rule of extreme nationalist powers like the Austro-Hungarians or Ottomans, it shows more will-power and strength by refusing rather than battling physically hard in war. To build on that again, like we have discussed with social conformity, betraying personal ethics to participate in something that is morally wrong shows weakness and has internal consequences. In summary, it takes more courage to not fight in defense of your nation. Yet, while understanding and appreciating this, it is also important to understand the consequences it can have if all people in a country act solely according to one’s moral compass. Even a modern power like the U.S. could be out of an abundance of soldiers and, in return, power. There must be some order and discipline in order to keep a country working in unison. Despite this, nations, and the consequences they endure as a result of waging unjust ware, are realistic. I do agree with McMahan’s idea because acting permissibly includes acting morally and justifiably, while not participating in any unnecessary and harmful injustices that truly may have no effect on the outcome of war. War has its limitations, and groups have come together, like the UN, to set its guidelines. In the case of the United States Military, as a citizen, you can’t kill someone unless it is deemed out of self defense and being a threat on your life. This idea should be and is generally applied to the battlefield, again, some things are deemed necessary evils. But, this does not give you the right to bomb a remote village or kill any citizen in sight. In this, we see how jus in bello can assist soldiers to act morally, abiding by these rules. Yet, this should not be the only determining factor, as we should still be able to make the correct judgement morally.

When we think of war today, we often think of corruption- war profiteering, exploitation of the lower classes, unnecessary damage to civilians, and ulterior motives. However, this does not represent war as a whole- there are certain cases in which war is a necessity. But what are these cases?

When approaching the topic of war, there are two main ideas- the intrinsicism model is consequentialist. Both present very opposing views of war, and so the task at hand is finding a happy medium. When thinking about it from a modern day viewpoint, the idea of what a just outcome for a war would be feels very distorted and leans away from actually just, mainly due to the reasons listed above and more. This in turn should require a more intrinsic leaning approach. There also needs to be a certain thoroughness when making the decision to engage in war. When dealing with such large powers as countries it’s difficult to keep them in check, hence why it is important to have outside perspectives. Jus Ad Bellum highlights that war should be a “last resort”. In my mind, that means that damage would be done regardless of if the war happened, possibly even more if not. A lot of it is about starting off on the defense- as stated from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “initiation of physical force is wrong and may be justly resisted”. If it is simply a mainly one-sided attack that is not a war, that is just a massacre. However, that does not mean other outlets should not be sought out first; the thoroughness for before a war is essential.

Now, when looking at Just War Theory, there are two different sectors: reasons for the war, conduct for war, and how to approach aftermath. Reasoning for starting a war feel more consequentialist, being very set on “intention of war” and “chance of success”, not exactly setting any clear boundaries on where these fall, though it does establish there is a right and wrong with a call for “just cause”. It is also important to clarify that Jus in Bello seems to clarify these more intrinsic aspects, such as rules on not attacking civilians.

If a war is waged for unjust reasons, it is completely acceptable not to participate in the war. There definitely a point to be made on the patriotism in freely critiquing your country, because you have higher hopes for your nation. An argument can also be made that if the idea of standing against unjust war efforts being honorable became more commonplace, each side would in turn lose some of their power and cause less damage. When discussing whether it is courageous or cowardly to stand against the war, and courageous or cowardly to join it, we are discussing two very different forms of courage and cowardice. Both cowardice and courage may play a part in the decision to stay out of a war, but either way they are active, which in my opinion is more honorable then passively joining the war effort, whether that is done with courage or cowardice. It is passive because your are letting the crowd decide for you- going back to our many discussions on social conformity theory. Standing against the war effort was also much more of a risk than it is today.

When actually on the battlefield, it is important to distinguish between the commanders and the soldiers. While people can become lost in their actions due to the general craze of a battlefield environment, their behavior can also tie back to the observations made with the Milgram experiment- once given orders, people become less attached to their actions and the responsibility of it. This means these commanders giving the orders should definitely be held to a higher standard. However, soldiers are not exempt from punishment; not just to make up for their actions, but also as a reminder that they are still responsible for their actions. There are also other factors that come into play, of course, such as if they are being pressured to do these things with threat of violence or something similar. It is also important to keep in mind the strong grip mob mentality can have on the conscience, which philosopher Bertrand Russell described by saying, “the whole state is in a state of collective excitement” (in reference to national mobilization during World War 1). There are also certain actions that cannot possibly be brushed off as “being lost in the craze”. This is mainly actions that have been highlighted by the Geneva Conventions, such as torture and rape. Theses actions also cannot be written off as permissible simply because they are fighting in a just war- if they are trying to claim to be the more “just” side, why would that stop at the battle line?

War is sadly an unavoidable fact of life and must be treated as such. Even though war creates problems that may go on to persist for years, it is the only way we have to resist oppression and fight for our values. The intrinsic belief that war is always wrong is certainly justified, however it dulls down the complex issues that war brings with it into simple terms of good and bad. In reality, war is far more complicated, and there isn’t always a way to argue that all our problems can be solved without it. That being said, we also have to consider how we define war and how we justify waging it. That’s where Just War Theory comes into play. While yes a consequentialist point of view is for the most part a necessity in modern war, we also need Just War Theory to justify consequentialist actions. This is where things become sketchy, since as Excerpt 1: Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum establishes, many people have different interpretations of topics like revenge, how many resources are appropriate, and they even debate how much danger one needs to be in to declare war. That document explains that this problem comes from the fact that, “when enemies differ greatly because of different religious beliefs, race, or language…war conventions are rarely applied”. While it’s hard to pick a side as either intrinsicist or consequentialist, Jus Ad Bellum hopes to act as a sort of mediator between the two. Jus Ad Bellum explores exactly when it is appropriate to wage war and includes intrinsic ideas like that citizens should never be attacked, while also acknowledging the consequential belief that everything can be justified. For someone that can’t fully commit to being against war or trying to justify everything, Jus Ad Bellum is a solid place to start.

The problem with Jus Ad Bellum is that it looks more at the rights of an individual nation to wage war, ignoring the opinions of individuals who are against war. This would mostly materialize in the form of conscientious objectors, who for one reason or another refuse to go to war. Religion is usually the driving factor that keeps conscientious objectors from war, however many people also object for simpler ideas that they are unwilling to harm others, especially when it is of no gain to themselves. This brings up another serious question: what about the people who are against war but can’t bring themselves to stand up against it? People should always feel obligated to act as they want to, but there’s a variety of constant pressures socially and physically that bring them to go against their own ideas. It’s not necessarily cowardice to fight for what you don’t believe in because we have to consider that even agreeing to put your life on the line, regardless of the reason, is certainly an act of courage. Despite this, it’s more accurate to say that refusing to fight against your beliefs is far more courageous than not because it tells everyone around you that you’re not a conformist. For context, many objectors were persecuted and looked down upon for doing so, and still refusing while knowing about those dire consequences takes real bravery and an extremely strong sense of self.

War is an extremely complicated idea, but the simplicity of it is that, realistically, war is inevitable, and sometimes necessary. In my opinion, it is naive to believe that war can be avoided in all circumstances, even if the war is morally wrong. Therefore, the consequentialism model is more realistic for the modern world. Since the Just War Theory basically takes the idea of intrinsicism “war is morally wrong” and adds a “but” to the statement, it is a bridge between intrinsicism and consequentialism. Just War Theory is still based on the idea that most war is morally wrong, however there are some certain circumstances that may give groups the right to start wars. For example, people can recognize that war is morally wrong, however if their country is being attacked war may be their last resort, which is not exactly claiming that war is morally correct, but it is arguing that war is not morally wrong if the outcome is just.

Citizens who live their lives entirely on morals should refuse to participate in a war that their nation wages for unjust reasons, but consequently citizens should not be morally required to refuse to participate in war. Not taking part in the war effort can cause the person harm and can take more courage than not to fight, because it may go against the norm of their society. Being a Conscientious Objector is not easy. People must have a right to decide what they think is best for themselves and then make a decision, because it is unrealistic to believe that most people should put other people, especially strangers, needs before their own. A good analogy for this is that on an airplane if people need to put on oxygen masks they are directed to put their own on as first priority and anyone else around them as later priority. Basically citizens should have the right to put themselves first. That being said, if enough people in a nation refuse to participate in an unjust war a positive consequence could be that the nation would struggle in the war and their unjust acts would hopefully slow or stop. Although with the complexities of war, this could lead to a counterattack from the opposing side that leads to intense harm for the nation and the people, even those fighting to stop the war.

I agree with Jeff McMahan 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,” however, soldiers can act more honorably by participating in the acts that are permissible during war, while doing no other acts. That being said, they must still recognize their own responsibility. Soldiers can act morally well, but that does not mean that what they are doing is morally good. For example, if a soldier gives humane treatment to the wounded and captured they are acting honorably, but they are also fighting for a greater unjust cause. Realistically, this act of human decency may not matter by the time the actual war is played out. Additionally a main principle of jus in bello as stated in “The Principles of Just in Bello” is that it applies to “those who voluntarily enter the boxing ring,” but is a draft really a voluntary act subjecting people to have to choose if they must work for or against their nation? Overall the rules of jus in bello do compel the soldiers to act morally, but the greater cause may not require them to, so the decision is left to the individuals themselves.

War is not always wrong and the usage of it can be extremely beneficial but also negative. While many of us go into this class seeing war as nothing but a negative attribute of taking, keeping, and fortifying land, fighting over resources, and killing innocent lives, war can serve to be a mediator and prevent death from continuing to spread on. In our history, there are many instances where sitting aside and not attacking or attacking back can cause mass casualties and create matters that are far worse than that of fighting in a war and coming to a resolution. In our current political climate, seeing war as a mediator and a method to prevent mass casualties might seem futile, but in many instances, it proves true. The idea that war can work requires that both sides fight fairly. Excerpt one details how soldiers are taught the ethics of war like we are taught English and mathematics in school. There are rules that we have established to be unruly and to be a war crime and these attributes of war are the reason we see our 21st century wars to be laced with danger and an increased death toll rather than a resolution. We are able to live in a country that is far from war despite being entangled in it to the point where many feel like there is no need to worry about war in another country. War is a difficult topic and it is one that requires a lot of thought to justify.

When looking at both the intrinsic and consequentialist models we are pushed to a side: the belief that war is morally wrong and never right, and the idea that war can be justified if there is a great enough reason or the outcome is good enough to wage a war. If we pretend that the world is a perfect yet complex society, maybe the intrinsic model would work, but in our society, the worst case scenario that larger countries would conquer smaller countries showcases why there is a need for the consequentialist model. There are many caveats to these ideas like fighting only with non-violence and morality within individuals but choosing a side can result in a fixed mindset where we believe that something is inherently and completely right or wrong.

The Just War Theory bridges the gap between the two ideas and provides a way to see war as a concept that relies on circumstance. Just War Theory creates this alternative where an individual can take what they believe from either perspective and make their own informed decisions about war without fully agreeing with a side. The consequentialist model creates this one sided image where it is only beneficial for the side that we are biased towards and interlinks itself with the us vs them idea. Following this idea, we can identify issues facing a system where we believe a war is just because of our party affiliation. In this, one side may deem it acceptable but the other may see it as violent and extreme. Deciding that war is entirely wrong or completely acceptable requires a perfect world where we can either not fight in wars at all or fight fairly. We do not live in a perfect world.

Learn to Question Post 3

War is wrong morally, but in some cases it can be justified, specifically when a group of people are being oppressed by the government, rise up and start this war. Also, those who are brought into the war unwillingly can be justified, because they are fighting for themselves and their survival. However, if people are waging wars out of selfish content, or at attempts to suppress minority groups then it’s unjust and cannot be supported morally. The consequentialism model is more realistic than the intrinsicism model. With that being said, in today's world, from my perspective of the wars that have occurred, leaders have leaned toward consequentialism, as a more effective way to end the war than acting with intrinsicism. The War theory, particularly the permissible reasons for war, does act like a bridge for these two philosophical ideals, but still heavily leans toward consequentialism. The first excerpt in Just War Theory, dives into how both models are flawed, due to their vagueness and restrictiveness as means of coming together. This article mentioned the idea of defeating the Germans through bombing civilian centers that was deemed necessary militaristically. The idea of military necessity is quite interesting, but it’s important that we find where to draw the line at what's necessary and what’s outright greed. I understand that certain measures have to be taken in order to secure victory, but I do believe that we must leave civilians and their homes, places of refuge and shelter alone because it truly digs us deeper into a hole. This reminds me of the Israel-Palestine conflict right now. Part of the reason why so many people are sympathizing with Gaza right now is because Israel has bombed hospitals, which is wrong on all levels. These are places where children and families lean on to ensure that their health is being taken care of. And now in time of war, they don’t have any access to that.

If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, citizens may have the choice to refuse, but ultimately shouldn’t refuse to participate in it. Since they are a part of their nation, they must fight the battle to demonstrate their profound nationalism. Although no one should be forced to fight a battle that they don’t agree with, it’s important to stand behind your country. “... yet despite the emphasis on abiding by war’s conventions, war crimes continue - genocidal campaigns have been waged by mutually hating peoples, leaders have waged total war on ethnic groups within or without their borders, and individual soldiers or guerilla bands have committed atrocious murderous or humiliating acts on their enemy” (Just War Theory Excerpt 1). In this case, this us vs. them complex is what should be prevalent, even if we don’t agree entirely with our nation, we must still fight with our nation. Again, this us. Vs. them is definitely strengthened by the mutual hatred for the specific out-group. Conversely, in today’s society, people would like to believe that they align more with pacifistic ideals, but realistically their actions would align more with realism, which is a sad, but an unfortunate truth. I think morally, pacifism is more enticing, and is what we would wish to live out in a perfect world, instead we are stuck with living out realism due to the wickedness and corruption lingering in our world.

It takes more courage to fight in a war that you think is morally wrong than to not fight at all. It’s almost paradoxical in a way that you want to win something that you most definitely know is wrong. On one end it demonstrates the fight and drive to keep your nation alive, but then raises the question of how deeply entrenched you are, where morality is blurred? How easily tied or blinded are we by the fight? Does this represent how easily tangled we can get in war? The consequences of each citizen acting only according to their own moral compass when a nation is at war, leads to lack of unity and overall internal division. It sparks the idea that everyone is for themselves, rather than a fight for all. It raises questions regarding a sense of self. Would someone with a high sense of self fight in a war that they know is morally wrong, or would they fight because they feel it’s their civic duty to defend their country? Where do they draw the line between nationalism and morality? Acting on a moral compass means it’s a free for all, and puts the nation in even greater risk of defeat.