learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by krausz on October 15, 2025 07:37

The concept of war has always been something elusive to me. Of course, I’ve learned about different wars in school, systematically, seeing how each factor eventually contributes to war, and then once it has begun, how it plays out. But, it is hard to connect these processes to real people who fought and died and planned. I have never been in a war, and I have never experienced what it is like. Logically, I wonder that if a nation or other group of people seeks something from or seeks to change something about another group of people, which seem to be most often the catalysts for war, why must they then resort to violence? Really, most often war is headed by some authority figure or group who enlists their followers or citizens to fight for them. Often, then it is not the choice of the people to be enlisted or involved, and if the war is unjust, how responsible are they for their actions in war, and is it brave to resist enlistment?

First, what defines a just or unjust war? The Encyclopedia of Philosophy outlines that war must “be… a last resort, …declared by proper authority… having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used”. However, as in anything, these guidelines can never be enforced during or in preparation for war, as somebody is not always looking over and making sure everybody is doing the right thing. Thus, it is easy to begin an unjust war, and many wars in history have been very unjust. Any of these guidelines could be twisted and a potential war could be sold to the populace just because of what a leader says. So, if the citizens of a nation have been persuaded to take a certain stance on a war because of some means or another, are they the ones responsible for their actions in war, such as killing people? The Encyclopedia once again outlines that by enlistment in an army, one acknowledges that they give up their right to not be a target; still, do they gain a right to target? Who even is a justifiable target? These are other questions and show the ever branching nature of war philosophy and law. There are no absolutely correct answers, but here is my stance: the government or whatever other authority in place, whether it be led by civilians or not, decides a group of people’s decision to go to war. As a result, many people absolutely want to go to war and to fight for whatever their cause is. If the cause is just, i.e., if they are fighting against oppressors to protect a vulnerable group of people, as long as they fight with reasonable proportions and chance of success, they as a whole are justified in war. However, regardless of the validity of the war as a whole, each person’s individual actions may be just or unjust, and it should be acknowledged that many people could be going to war against their will or otherwise have been coerced to. It is not cowardly to refuse to go to war, really, no matter how just it is, as you are putting your whole life on the line. In the same vein of reasoning, even if you are committing war crimes, to go to war at all is noble, even if twisted.

The most compelling idea in my peer’s response is that it becomes difficult to define when a war is just, particularly as the citizens of a nation where decisions have already been made. They express the idea that a small group of people in power makes decisions with dire consequences, compelling the entire nation to become involved. I agree with this since war often necessitates quick decisions and no referendum was ever held to decide whether or not to participate in war. I share similar views in my post when it comes to limiting the responsibility of combatants in the justification of war itself while still holding them accountable for their actions in war.

I appreciate the use of direct quotations from the sources and the change in tone between matters of fact and those of personal opinion. I would suggest that my peer address some of the questions they pose more in depth or organize ideas in a way that answers the questions they pose. I noticed a series of rhetorical questions towards the middle of the second paragraph, and wish there were more direct claims and answers. I do like, however, the idea that there are “no absolutely correct answers,” which was acknowledged here.

Originally posted by kdj729 on October 14, 2025 22:19

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.

I really liked this person’s response as it was clear in their point, showing both the pros and cons of Jus Ad Bellum, explaining the complexity in deciding whether war is “good” or “bad.” I found this person’s explanation of Jus Ad Bellum very compelling, their idea that Just War Theory is where intrinsicists and consequentialists can find common ground. This idea was interesting because it proposed Jus Ad Bellum in a different way than I originally interpreted it, to instead be an option for someone who can’t decide if they lean with intrinsicist or consequentialist views. I had originally viewed Jus Ad Bellum as more consequentialist, but I see this person’s point of it being both. We also shared the same point in agreeing that fighting a war you don’t believe in is not cowardice since your life is on the line. However, I don’t agree that refusing to be a conformist in terms of war takes more courage than fighting in a war, regardless of your opinion on its morality. I think the question is also complicated since one person could deal with implications due to their rejection of war, but they also could be getting themself out of harm's way while not helping defend their country. It’s difficult to determine who is using more bravery. Overall, great insights, a few mechanical/grammatical errors, but overall a well thought out and organized reflection.

Originally posted by pinkrose2 on October 15, 2025 07:28

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.

I read pinkrose2 and I agree with their idea, but I think they are speaking too broad in saying that if you are getting pulled into the war, then its justified and thus consequentialist ideas are invoked. The writer then goes onto state the facts of why the two models -consequentialism and intrinsicism-. I also agree with their last blurb stating that the reason people sympathize so much with Gaza is because Israel is taking on the consequentialist model. As this model is seen more and more by various countries, like pinkrose2 said the lines become blurred on what is justifiable to do.

I disagree with their second paragraph stating that since you are a part of your country you should feel the need to stand behind their wars. I think this all ties back to who decides what wars their countries enter. Although the government does decide this, the people should ultimately have the last decision and shouldn’t be kept secret, as I feel a more honest society will allow people to fight for a cause that they truly stand for than having a society who opposes their government. The last point I want to make is how pinkrose2 ties it back into psychological thinking we learned about earlier in the year, as she relates the citizens possibly being against the nation/government supporting the us vs. them theory.

Although war causes extreme grief, displacement and misfortune there are certain contextual situations where war is justified. Nazi's and their movement of brutal nationalism, persecuting Jewish people and savage philosophy caused a zeitgeist of atrocious violence that is still being talked about today. Their nationalism being so strong and their hatred toward anybody that isn't their own and certain groups especially isn't something you have a chat about, that level of hate speech can only be wiped out through organized violence such as war. If being a Nazi didn't become such a taboo thing to say or let alone be, we'd have folks nowadays gladly prancing around practicing hate speech claiming it was their "right". As aforementioned before in certain contextual situations war is justified but with that ideology there is a slippery slope. Even though the slippery slope of moral justification in war is apparent and an ideology like consequentialism can be extremely difficult to navigate, it is more realistic in the modern world. The war model of intrinsicism that rebukes all forms of war and instead choosing a pacifist path is very naive unfortunately in this world. There will always be situations where war/violence is needed. Slavery in America wasn’t ended through peaceful talks; it was instead abolished through the bloodiest American war. A point needs to be made through violence and the way people think and unfair systems will not always be able to be ended through conversations. Therefore, consequentialism as a philosophy is far more realistic in the real world as there are a plethora of examples where violence even extreme and organized, is needed to cause changes in the world. There needs to be a base minimum morality involved in war and in the article Jus Ad Bellum there were, “early records of collective fighting indicate that some moral considerations were used by warriors to limit the outbreak or to rein in the potential devastation of warfare.” There was always a base line of morals within war since olden times and the creations of groups like NATO and acts like the Genveva convention are further movements that don’t limit the action of war but instead the brutality of it. The combination of consequentialism and intrinsicism with the large presence of morality but still allowing war permits violence therefore the chance of change is authorized. No matter what violence and war will be something that ends up being in the power of the one who is superior. This luxury of choosing to commit violence and having your own morals is only given to the ones in the position of privilege causing a slippery slope, for example the students writing the responses to this question have the entitlement of simply viewing war and then making their own opinions. In most situations the ones who have bloodshed enacted onto them are often the true victims of war causing a problematic dilemma, no war = no victims but no war in a place filled with constant exploitation and change that can only happen through actions is unfortunately always needed.

Originally posted by pink on October 14, 2025 09:02

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.

I definitely agree with this distinction between motives for war and conduct during war, especially the statement that just conduct does not make the war just. Rather, it’s a matter of personal accountability among each person rather than as a group. This seems to be the consensus among many others that Jus in Bello is more about individual accountability, which is important to have and distinguish from the characteristics of Jus Ad Bellum. I also like that they detached Just War Theory from morality, as there is a lot of gray area that doesn’t establish a “good” and “bad” side. Rather, it is about adequate, more thoughtful and orderly proceedings. I am curious as to specific reasons and examples to why people resisting the war creates issues, other than the actions the government takes to repress it. I feel like these examples of government repression speak more to issues with the government than issues with not partaking in the war effort, and how that actually impacts the war. I don’t agree with the point that intrinsicism ignores terrorism and genocide; rather, they may try to take a different approach to these issues. I would like to hear which side they prefer, though. I would also like to hear more about what flaws they find in Just War Theory, as I know they said it is not a “perfect solution”.

Originally posted by PurpleGiraffe87 on October 16, 2025 00:06

I think that war is ultimately a tool, whether it be morally right or wrong. We have nuclear weapons for example, but we often don’t use them and that’s how war should be used in an ideal scenario, where other alternatives are utilized before ultimately going to war. However, intrinsicism and consequentialism both paint very extreme models of the uses of war and broader conflict, but a consequentialist method of thinking is more realistic for the war that we live in. For example, if everyone in the world had an intrinsicist thinking, then it would leave the door for someone to abuse it eventually. We can make an example of the early stages of WWII before Germany invaded Poland, who took over parts of ethnic Germanic towns in Czechoslovakia with basically no resistance from the allies. This is one example of how intrinsicism doesn’t work, but there are also even bigger wrongs with consequentialism, especially seen in the statement of “Winners tell history.” But just war theory is an adjustment to both of them, with the reason for self defense, but the con of this is that self defense is often used as a reason for attacks without reason, so that must be defined properly, which is addressed in Excerpt 1, “but unless ‘aggression’ is defined, this proscription is open-ended.”

Citizens should be able to refuse to participate in the war effort. Not everyone has the same background or experiences with their nation, so therefore their idea of being a patriot is always different. Whether or not it’s courageous or not to fight for your country, it’s the collective definition of what patriotism and courage is. However, if we take the state of the US right now, I think it would be seen as cowardice to fight in a war that you believe is morally wrong. Although the Army and the military have enticing benefits, the average American would most likely not enlist. Because it’s normalized that people aren’t enlisted or mandated to, this makes the ladder true. However, there’s also a consequence for ultimately the individualistic thinking of society when it comes to fighting for your nation. Historically, wars have been fought on the ground and if there’s no one willing to fight, then the war effort dies. These consequences very much determine the state at which your country is at war, adaptation and adjustment is needed for the survival of a nation during a war.

I agree with McMahan’s idea and it ties back to our first lesson of dissonance, with soldiers fighting “justly” in a morally unjust war. The rules of war could definitely assist for moral assistance in soldiers, however it doesn’t change the purpose of the war entirely. This can be seen in the US’s involvement in the Middle East, and this can be seen with the emergence of PTSD from soldiers who’ve involved themselves in combat in the region. You can act “morally” and “honorably” that you want, but it’ll ultimately never change the fact that you’re fighting for the wrong reasons.

I agree with PurpleGiraffe87's belief that consequentialism applies far better to the modern world than intrincisism. We should always be considering the outcome of war and whether or not it would benefit us. I specifically like the use of Poland in WWII as an example of flawed intrinsicist thinking because had literally any of the Allies stepped in, war could have been prevented, yet that's not what happened since the Allies believed that it was simply wrong to step in. Our world today needs a focus on damage control, which, as PurpleGiraffe87 acknowledged, is still difficult knowing how much of a slippery slope consequentialism can be. Next comes Just War Theory, which is supposed to solve the problem of picking a side, yet it actually creates even more confusion. Self defense is just another slippery slope because one could always argue self defense before anything even happened, or they could "over-defend" and add to the violence.

I also agree with PurpleGiraffe87's point that no one should absolutely have to participate in war when obliged to. Oftentimes, even if someone is patriotic and does support their nation, many of those people are still not willing to die for that cause, which is entirely reasonable. I never thought of the fact that war would actually die out if people didn't want to fight, and yeah, that's very true and can be applied to many wars, like US efforts in Iraq, which ended not because we won, but because people didn't care to fight for a cause they didn't agree with.

Originally posted by onlyshallow on October 15, 2025 21:29

In a time so diverse and developed as ours, war is inevitable; a vast amount of contrasting views and ideologies means that people, parties, and nations are bound to clash with each other, and innovations in strategy and weaponry make it so these people, parties, and nations have the agency to rectify their disagreements through war. The inevitability of war means that it is not productive to examine it through an intrinsic lens, as it will always be found to be wrong and unjust, so we should instead take a consequentialist approach and do our best to ensure that wars are as well-fought and ethical as they can be, and to prevent unjust ones. Jus ad bellum can still be applied in this consequentialist framework to ensure that wars end up resulting in a just outcome and do not end up being pointless or causing excessive suffering.

If a person is conscripted to fight in a war they believe to be unjust, they have multiple options available to them. They should have the right to conscientiously object if they so choose, because people should have the right to retain their pacifist or anti-war beliefs, and if a significant enough group of people choose to object, it should prompt the nation to reconsider their participation in the war, as a nation’s goal should be to better the lives of its subjects. If one instead chooses to fight in that war while still believing it to be unjust, they need worry only about their personal conduct, because the ideas of jus ad bellum have influenced the policies of modern international courts, and regardless of if the top exponents of the war (high-ranking generals or government officials) are found to have gone against these policies and waged an unjust war, one cannot be prosecuted if their individual behavior does not violate any laws.

McMahan’s idea that fighting in an unjust war is impermissibile is an understandable and a respectable one, but is one that places the burden on the single soldier and not on the state responsible for engaging in the war. Why should such a vast endeavor as war not be analyzed at a macro level? To blame the soldier is to absolve the state; if the war is truly unjust, it will be found so by institutions like the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, and an appropriate punishment will be meted out to the guilty parties, while an appropriate reparation will be given to those who were wronged. Obviously, punishment exists to deter crime, but war is inevitable and more complex than any one crime. The onus of justifying war should be on a nation’s government, not its subjects.

The most compelling idea in this post is the idea that war should be viewed through the consequentialist lens, and that the intrinsicism model is an unproductive outlook on war, as it is too black and white for a concept that has so much gray area. In my own response, I argued the opposite- that the consequentialist model is too subjective and therefore a weak model to base moralities of war on. Although I agree with my peer on the basis that war is inevitable and can be justified situationally, I disagree with the idea that the laws of war should more heavily incorporate the consequentialism model over intrinsicism model. I would say that the consequentialist lens is a better outlook for life as a whole, but when applied specifically to war, it’s too up-in-the-air about what’s right and what’s wrong, allowing for a multitude of injustices to be justified. It’s easy to twist, and the leeway it provides people to commit wrongdoings (for the wrong reason) and later chalking them up to the most likeable justification for said wrongdoing is ultimately a loophole and a flaw. With an intrinsic model, however, the outline for what’s right and what’s wrong is more clear cut, preventing immoral actions in warfare and war in general. I do agree with my peer in the sense that sometimes there is no choice but to make the negative action for a more positive outcome, so there must be certain exceptions placed, such as self-defense.

Originally posted by Kitkat on October 14, 2025 21:37

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?

LTQ #3: Peer Response

The most compelling idea in my peer’s post is that fighting in a war that a person knows is morally wrong takes less courage than going against the war itself. I actually touched upon this point in my own LTQ, where I expressed an opinion that opposes this idea. Initially, I believed that it takes more courage to conform to something that you know is terribly wrong, but does happen more frequently. However, hearing the explanation and analysis of my peer’s point of view, my opinion has changed, and I now agree that joining in a war that goes against a person’s morals does take less courage than going against war entirely. I was able to alter my opinion, because this post had me applying this logic to real world-situations.

Right now, I am thinking about bullying. If I have a friend that is the mediator and the catalyst of bullying, and I join in, knowing that it’s wrong I am conforming to the pressures of my friend, therefore it takes so much more strength to against something and not succumb to the peer pressure. Again, connecting back to their post, I respected the idea of tying this idea to social conformity, passively acting, and then how either actions stem from courage and/or cowardice.

My views on this topic are relatively similar to this person’s post, even though we commented on different aspects of this topic, but the content was clear and understandable. On the other hand, the question at the beginning was very captivating and enticing, as a reader. It had me reflect on my views on what war is, and what the possible justifications of war could be, as someone who has never participated in a war before.