learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by bunnyenthusiast123 on October 15, 2025 07:45

War and violence as a whole are morally wrong and deplorable acts; however there can be understanding as to why it happens and sometimes the outcome can be for the greater good. You should not start violent conflict without just cause ever and I do think people resort to violence far too quickly. In a case like WWII I think the violence against the Nazi’s was justified as they were already committing violent acts against innocent people. Generally I think the intrinsicism model is more realistic for the modern world as war is morally wrong and honestly will not solve our current issues in a productive way without unnecessary bloodshed. However there are certainly situations where the outcome is better than not having fought but that still does not make war morally right. Just War Theory does connect those two models in some forms but I believe it aligns much more with a consequentialist model as war is mostly permissible due to cause and not morality.

If a nation wages war for unjust reasons I do think it is extremely important to be critical of the cause and dissent if it goes against your morals but you have to have an argument for why and actively fight against the war. People don't think critically enough about their own opinions or view things as they can be quiet about it but that's not true. I think it's courage but you need to speak out. It is difficult finding realistic and unbiased facts about war and conflict. If we all act in accordance with our own morals then of course some people will go to war if they find the cause just but I do think that if most people follow their morals there will not be enough support to fight an unjust war. Soldiers can act morally in times of war even if the cause is unjust because it is survival of the fittest but that also means not using senseless violence when it is unnecessary. The rules of war create general grounds in what violence is acceptable but it does not outline what is not acceptable clearly enough. Using the outline of Just War Theory from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy I do think it is clear that the rules are not comprehensive or clear enough to show acceptable moral standards. Acts committed in war are often immoral and unacceptable but when clear rules are not defined it allows too much space to justify one's actions. Of course some people will feel cognitive dissonance by their acts in war but I do think a lot of people do not have a strong moral ground to stand on or justify their actions by saying they fought for their nation while knowing their horrific acts can not be traced back to them.

We shared similar beliefs regarding the fact that violence can be necessary to make a point and can achieve a greater cause. However what surprised me was the fact that we shared the opinion that in today's day and age the intrinsic model makes more political sense given the amount of unnecessary bloodshed war brings. The writer highlighted the fact that modern conflicts tend to stem from systemic problems, in most cases they are too complex to solve with warfare. They also pointed out a point that I had not emphasized in my own personal response, being the fact that it is important we as a society are all incredibly critical of war. It is important to have many different types of minds thinking through and actively processing the atrocities that surround them. This is to avoid groupthink and maintain individuality to not succumb to the opinions of the majority. The response also raised a question for me, how could we shape international law to be clear enough to the point where unnecessary violence does not occur? I had not thought about the details of this point until reading and understanding this response. Overall, the response was formulated well and helped me think deeper about this topic.

Originally posted by flower123 on October 15, 2025 07:45

The question of if war is always wrong, is one of much depth. After reflecting on the two moral identities, both intrinsicism and consequentialism, I concluded that I am more intrinsic. Consequentialism is the ideology that war is a necessary expression and has purpose (such as revenge), on the other hand, intrinsicism is the idea that war is bad end of story. I identify more with the intrinsic idea because of modern warfare. Now that there has been construction of nuclear weapons and atomic bombs, regardless of attempts at mandation, they exist and are a threat. My perspective is that there is no action that has equal value of harm as nuclear weapons, and if they are now always a factor in war, all war should never be permitted. The amount of destruction they cause too easily is simply concerning and never necessary. If war was less modern and soldiers still fought with swords on a battlefield, there would be significantly less death (especially death to civilians) and significantly less damage done to buildings, etc. That type of war is a different story and if it was the reality, I would identify as more consequentialist leaning. I understand the concept that self defense and revenge can be necessary, and that emotional expression (even of extreme negative emotions) is vital to the functionality of human nature. However, in today's day and age, with the advanced weaponry and technology available there is no avoiding mass destruction. War is a ridiculously destructive and wasteful expression and even when mandates are attempted, we can never ensure the weaponry isn't used so long as it exists.

If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, participation in the war effort gets more complicated. I would like to start by stating I think these situations are avoidable if there is a responsible government that represents its people. Although not every single individual is going to agree with every single one of the government's opinions/actions, going to war needs a reason that is beyond justifiable. Any citizen of that warring country should at least be able to acknowledge the reasons their government chose to wage the war, they should be extreme enough where it at least makes logistical sense. Otherwise, the war should not have been waged. Given my viewpoint on this question, I think it can be morally wrong to fight in the war but also a partial duty for the safety of others more vulnerable and unable to fight defensively. As well as, we should also recognize the difference between fighting in the war as a soldier who was already deployed, and a willing participant. There is a significant difference between making a decision and an active effort, and fighting because it is your job and livelihood. All in all, I think war is too complex to have a black and white opinion, however we as a society need to keep thinking about the evolution of violence and the different impacts a world war could have no in comparison to the already atrocities that have occurred.

Overall, I think this post is very well put together, and I get a firm understanding of how this person feels about war. They answered the questions efficiently, while also providing reasoning for their opinions. Something I noticed we disagreed on was whether war was necessary in some cases. They mentioned that war should NEVER be accepted under any circumstance, which I think makes sense, but I don't believe is rational. Something I did agree on, however, is that it is complicated to decide if participation in war should be a must. I think people are entitled to their own opinions and should have the right to choose what they want to do, but at the same time, not fighting for the nation they live in can be seen as dishonorable. I also agree with the idea that people that are more built or “made” for war should have some sort of moral obligation to protect people who can’t protect themselves. This makes a lot of sense because if someone who was very strong and could mentally handle the attacks of war doesn’t go to war, it is almost selfish of them to do so, as there are children and pregnant mothers who can’t fight for themselves. With all that said, this post demonstrates a well stated response to these questions, however, the only thing they could be missing is a quote or connection to one of the articles given in class.

Originally posted by sunnydays on October 14, 2025 22:38

I think that Just War Theory is an incredibly important way of managing conflict. War is the absolute worst way of solving problems, so I think it's really good that we have a rule mandating that we must try all over avenues before resorting to war. I do think that civilians should refuse to fight if they believe the war cause is unjust, but to a point. In the article Between Peace and War, the leaders of the German Social Democratic Party released a statement after war was declared saying that "[t]oday 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." I think this statement holds a lot of truth because, on the one hand, yes, people should stick to their morals. But on the other hand, the government won't just not fight the war because of dissenters, and we need to make sure there are enough people fighting to defend our country from getting defeated or taken over by something even worse. Additionally, we have to make sure that the people fighting the war are fighting for a good reason, not just because they enjoy fighting and brutal killing.

In the explanation of jus post bellum, the author states that a "defeated army and indeed the civilian body from which the army stems should thus be prepared to subject itself to the imposition of rules and forms of punishments, humiliations, and retributions that it would not otherwise agree to." This is important to remember because it reminds us why sometimes it is necessary to fight for a cause we don't believe in. However, fear is also a very strong and not necessarily good motivator. We have to strike a balance between fighting to protect our country and fighting out of fear other countries will hurt us first.

Because of this, I don't think it's cowardly to fight for an unjust cause or to not fight because you believe a cause is unjust. Fighting for an unjust cause to protect your country is a completely fair reason, as long as you aren't doing so out of a conviction that all other countries are inferior to your own and deserve whatever you do to them. Similarly, not fighting is brave because you're standing up for what you believe, even when others tell you you're wrong. Like we saw last unit, we need dissenters in our society to keep us true to our own beliefs and keep us from falling into an echo chamber of groupthink.

Finally, I do think soldiers can act morally and honorably in wartime even if the cause they fight for is unjust. The Things They Carried is a great example of this because the soldiers in that book have no connection to the war they're fighting; they got drafted and dropped into Vietnam, and now they're just trying to make decisions that will let them sleep at night and wake up the next day. And besides, even if it's impossible to be morally correct fighting in an unjust war, telling the soldiers that won't help any; it will just encourage cruelty and make an already brutal scenario even worse. It's crucial that people do their best to stay true to their morals no matter what their situation is, because even that little bit of trying to do good can make the world a little bit better.

While I do agree that war is bad, like most people probably would, I don’t think that it is always the worst way to solve a problem. For instance, I think fighting in a war is better than continuous and never-ending oppression. The quote that you used is very good, and I think that it is a good example of how war isn't always the worst way to solve problems, especially a problem like national safety and the defense of a country. I would like to hear more about what the quote from the article about jus post bellum means to you. Personally, I feel like the humiliation ritual that the article deems as necessary for those who have lost a war is wrong, and there are better ways to make them realize the harm they might've caused. I like how you include the idea of dissenters and how you tie in the impact of fighting for an unjust cause. I agree that fighting in an unjust war doesn’t make you a coward. Your distinction between positive nationalism, which can include simply pride and instinct to protect your country, and ultra nationalism, which can bring about views of supremacy and cognitive dissonance when it comes to violence inflicted on a group, is vital for us to understand why war happens. Overall, I enjoyed your viewpoints and really like your organization of ideas in your writing.

Originally posted by DiaryoftheSillyKid on October 14, 2025 18:05

Over the course of world history, the definition of “War” has changed drastically and has become way more complex to define. Earlier wars, such as the Revolutionary War in the United States, exemplified our basic definition of war: two sides fighting against one another for their own interests and needs. I believe that war can be necessary only if the cause is just. I believe in this consequentialist model because I think people should have the right to challenge a higher authority, only when they are being oppressed or their values are not being considered on a national level. For example, I believe that the Revolutionary War was a just war because the Americans fought for their freedom from the British when they were imposing unreasonable taxes on them. I believe that the consequentialism model is better in a model world where people are being oppressed and killed for their beliefs. I feel like the Just War Theory, specifically jus ad bellum, is the criterion and the thing that determines whether a war is just or not, and is a bridge between consequentialism and intrinsicism. This theory connects pacifism and realism, where pacifists reject all war and realists see war as necessary sometimes to progress the world. It also sets moral boundaries, and rulers make sure they have the right intentions, proper authority, and a reasonable chance for success, so they can start a war. In today’s society, it is more common to believe in intrinsicism than consequentialism because, in history, war has often been negative and has had negative effects like mass depopulation and destabilization of nations. Consequentialists see these things as steps in the right direction rather than major setbacks.

If a nation waged war on purpose, knowing its reasons were unjust, I do not think there would be a war to begin with. I believe wars only start because a higher authority has an idea that they think is “just” or will better their own nation. Hitler was a terrible person without doubt, but he is just another authority with power who expressed his extreme nationalism in one way or another. On another note, if a nation happens to wage a war for unjust reasons, I feel the citizens have a right to refuse their participation in the war. In the case where their nation is the one being attacked, however, I feel like there is an obligation to participate. Citizens of a free nation should have the ability to fight for their own beliefs, as well as be restrained from putting themselves in danger for a cause they do not even agree with. As well as this, I think it takes more courage not to fight in defense because there is often an unwritten narrative that everyone should fight for their nation, regardless of cause. For example, during WWI, teenagers were being sent out to war. Sometimes, not even knowing what they were fighting for, essentially risking their lives for a reason they were unsure is just or not. In Between Peace and War, an article explaining how some people refuse war for countless reasons, Philosopher Bertrand Russell states, “Almost everywhere, conscientious objectors were imprisoned for refusing to fight,” and how he was no exception as well. Conscientious Objectors are people who refuse to serve in the military for religious or moral purposes. I think that it is unfair because these people, during the Austro-Hungarian war, are being forced against their morals by bigger authorities, basically restricting them from their natural human rights. With all that said, this leaves me to think about the nature of global conflict and the tension between national interest and individual choice. How should international law and modern military adapt to better protect the rights of conscientious objectors while making sure their nation can engage in a just war?

Overall, this is an excellent response as I can easily follow your thought process on the role war plays on humans and how we adapt to it. I agree with you that consequentialism is the more effective model. I appreciated your observation that "Consequentialists see things as steps in the right direction rather than major setbacks." Intrinsism feels unproductive and is just a way to withhold the inevitable. It's human nature for people to fight for their beliefs, as you mentioned with the Revolutionary War. We would not have made progress in having our own nation if those settlers had not taken action with a consequentialist mindset. I also agree with your perspective on civilians being able to refuse to participate in war, primarily if it is waged for an unjust reason. It doesnt make you any less patriotic if you don't risk your life for your country. You are allowed to critique your country in the hope that it will improve. People should strive to improve their country, and if they believe that going to war will only harm it, I see no reason why they should participate in it. Thank you for the great discussion post.

Originally posted by Seven_Gill on October 14, 2025 23:07

War in history has been controversial in regard to its necessity and validity. Many people may point to the Second World War as an example of how war is important, and can be used to eventually gain peace. However, others may point to the destruction caused by the Vietnam War, which garnered much controversy and pushback from U.S. citizens. Overall, it can be argued that the circumstances in which war is waged is an important determining factor in whether or not participation is even worth it. In the context of WWII, the United States intervened for several reasons: the fact that the United States needed to keep its representation of freedom and democracy (which the axis powers were working against), to stop the spread of the axis powers, and to punish Germany for breaking the Treaty of Versailles. Another controversial aspect of WWII is Just War Theory, and if it’s ok to utilize immense force in order to eliminate a threat. Many people cite the usage of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima as a reason for Just War Theory’s invalidity, as it had largely decimated innocents, but was succesful in ending the war. This particular event needs to be treated with nuance, as it could definitely be said that neither side (Japan and the United States) were right in their actions. The thing that is brought up the most in regards to the atomic bomb is how it can be considered a warcrime, as it has decimated hundreds of thousands of innocents (including women, children, hospitals, etc.), with the final death toll being over 140,000 people. Was the U.S. in the right for this attack? Most argue that they were not, however this highlights the importance of warcrimes in war, and how they reflect on the country. The reasoning that the United States had for the attack was to end the war as soon as possible (as well as retaliate for the bombing of Pearl Harbor), and they meant to do this through deadly force. Additionally, the Japanese were especially ruthless during the Second World War. The Rape/Massacre of Nanking was arguably one of the most deplorable examples of how one nation can exert power over another. The entirety of the Nanking province was destroyed indiscriminately (regardless of whether they were hospitals or orphanages), with women being dragged out into the street (regardless of age) to be sexually assaulted, killed, kidnapped, etc. Even the generals of these Japanese armies had so thoroughly dehumanized their Chinese enemies that they had set up contests to see who could behead more Chinese people, with them eventually losing count. All this to say that this is the representation of Japan that many saw as the war progressed, with their actions and crimes of war being comparable to the infamous Holocaust. It’s only natural that the United States (the at-the-time beacon of democracy for the world) would step in to end the Japanese once and for all, regardless of the destruction it may bring. When in war, the army represents the country, and when the army rapes, pillages, and murders innocents, than that reflects very poorly on the country. Unfortunately, the same can be said with the Vietnam War, as the United States armies demonstrated a level of incompetence that reflected very poorly on our previously strong global reputation. Overall, Just War Theory is good in theory, but the circumstances of war are ever changing, and the winners may not always follow this ethical criteria for war.

The most compelling idea in my opinion, was that the morality of war depends almost entirely on its context, especially the cause of entering into it and the conduct within it. The comparison of WWII and the Vietnam war described very well how public perception varies according to whether a war is viewed as a necessary war or an unjust war. I agree that these considerations carry much weight; war cannot be absolutely judged without considering intent, atrocities, and consequences. I also liked the discussion of the atomic bomb with the question of whether the end of a war ever justifies annihilating civilians on such a massive scale? While I understand the desperation to end WWII, I still believe in some moral responsibilities remaining, even in total war. This is an example where I find Just War Theory to be valuable, even if it is not always put into practice it should still be used as a moral standard. To strengthen this most I think its stance on Just War Theory should be a little clearer, occasionally it is supported but consistently it is argued that real war makes it impossible to adhere to. Declaring whether it is or is not a realistic blueprint would make the argument easier to follow, overall though I think this post connected a difficult and complicated moral question to history very well.

Originally posted by lordofthenumbers on October 15, 2025 07:38

I personally believe that war is more often then not, wrong. There are points in time and in history where war was obviously needed, but even looking at it with nuance, I think that people shouldn't be allowed to command others in battle. They are knowingly being sent to their death, or to kill others, which leaves consequences that will appear in their daily lives, throughout their daily working experiences. The model of consequentialism, despite its technically utilitarian view, is much less realistic considering that our society has no way of truly being able to define what is actually "just cause". This is why jus ad bellum is necessary, even though even that has to be interpreted even further. Specifically, according to the article explaining this, jus ad bellum has to be agreed upon by both sides to an extent, which is difficult considering cultural differences. Who gets to define what is "just"? That definition usually is defined by more powerful nations, which distorts this view much more.

For citizens, fighting in a war that they don't believe in is in a way, less courageous than deciding to abstain from it. That doesn't mean deciding to fight in a war that they don't believe in is entirely their fault. There are outside influences, propaganda, nationalism, and that pressure is difficult, if not impossible, to avoid. This doesn't absolutely absolve the soldier of their cowardice, but it does allow for a bit more leniency before casting your judgements onto them.

There are many consequences if people only act according to their own moral compasses, including, but not limited to the actions of people that don't feel sympathy or don't think beyond their situation when acting or killing in a war. Additionally, that sort of excessive individualism hurts the overall nation's social climate. The more active voices begin to grow angry with each other, and there begins stronger social tensions back inside the country. A weakened central power weakens the outside war effort, which makes defense its own kind of difficult. These consequences are unable to be held by nations, especially those at war. Some wars have to be fought, and so if they aren't, at times there's risk of even more killings in war in all different kinds of places.

I disagree with McMahan's idea, because I think there are more things to consider. There is always nuance in regards to war, different situations, sort of utilitarian ideas in order to “save more people”. The soldiers have a necessity to follow their leaders, to try and help defend their own people when they’re around, when they can be saved. Their morals is what keeps the overall consequences of the war from extending too far, from hurting civilians and people that are just overall more vulnerable than others. It doesn’t mean that their actions are completely okay, their actions in an unjust war can cause more injustice, but it limits that injustice to an extent. The rules in war make sure that people’s cruelty or their own thoughts can’t hurt people too much, in the end.

In my peer’s post, the main point being made is that war is morally wrong regardless of the need to command others to go into battle. They also make the importance of jus ad bellum in balancing the justification of war while also considering the points that still need to be considered. These points include outside influence, propaganda, nationalism, and overall societal pressure. In some ways these factors do not absolve the soldier of their cowardice, however it does explain to some extent the reason for their actions. There is also a sense of excessive individualism that harms nations and a growth of angry voices that particularly fuel the drive for war. A similar point is made in another classmates, such as bunnyenthusiast123, that points out the lack of critical thinking within nations and individuals. However, the contradicting point that bunnyenthusiast123 makes is that if people act to their own moral accord, wars will be fought regardless of acting on their own conscience. When I compare this to my own post I agree with the purpose of jus ad bellum and the intrinsic model. In some ways the implicit factors that soldiers are faced with ultimately need to be addressed however they do not absolve them from the wrongness of their actions in a moral sense. What I feel could improve this peer’s post would be expanding on the significance of one’s own moral accord and defining if that action is unjust or not. Towards the end of the post, the peer makes the point that one’s moral actions do not justify their actions. This goes against the hypothetical that if that person was under defense for another soldier, the action may be considered more just. War is completely nuanced which makes it hard to define the moral rightness of a soldier’s actions in the moment.