learntoquestion ltq discussions

War itself is something that stems heavily from human’s innate desire for violence rather than civil discussions. Why? I believe it's also easier for people to jump right into violence after they are wronged. For many people, there's a phrase I found personally interesting connecting it to a lot of wars that have happened throughout the past years and the people who wage them is, “If a man can’t speak with his mouth, he will use his fists to talk”. This intrinsic wrongness of war is often overshadowed by the narratives that seek to justify it, framing conflict as a necessary evil or a means to an end. These narratives can be powerful, swaying public opinion and garnering support for military action. However, they often obscure the human cost of war—lives lost, families shattered, and communities destroyed. Each conflict brings with it a cycle of suffering that can linger for generations, leaving deep psychological scars on those involved, whether combatants or civilians. Moreover, the ease with which societies slip into war raises questions about the very foundations of human nature. Is this propensity for violence an inherent part of our makeup, or is it shaped by cultural, political, and historical contexts? While some argue that aggression is a biological instinct, others contend that it is a learned behavior, cultivated through societal norms and structures that prioritize strength and dominance over dialogue and diplomacy. War itself is always inherently wrong, it's something that is never necessary to evolve into. Where no matter how needed or inherently justified it is, it is always an evil, never a good. It’s however difficult to decide on whether either intrinsicism or consequentialism are more “right” in their own way as both of them do end up fitting and also contradicting views of war depending on one's place during the war. One can easily side with an intrinsicism model if they were to say at a position of a bystander or watcher of the war. Having that privilege to believe that wars are never morally right and thus should never adhere to it. However on the other side of the spectrum of consequentialism, from this viewpoint, war can be justified if it leads to a greater good—such as the protection of human rights, the prevention of genocide, or the establishment of peace after conflict. One who could follow this mindset could be soldiers or commanders in charge of the people sent on the battlefield who need to decide at a split second on what the best course of action is at a very limited interval of time. However I do not believe that the Just War Theory of jus ad bellum can act as a bridge between these two ideas because intrinsicism is such a rigid mindset that one cannot really breach upon the barrier of their belief that war itself, no matter the cause or reason can be right. Where the lack of information or identification of the enemy does not qualify as a reason to kill indiscriminately. (The Principles of Jus in Bello). Where in a world where what is qualified as just and not just can easily be swayed. There is never a right definition of what constitutes as just or not. One action can be seen as a just cause by one and unjust by another.

If there is one fact of human life, it is that our history is steeped in blood. From our very beginnings, humans have waged wars and engaged in conflicts for different motives. Violence is natural because nature itself is violent. However, our tendency for conflict has since been scaled up from a tribal level to a global level, heightening the consequences. Spears and swords turned to rifles which turned into poison gas and nuclear bombs. So, as civilizations evolved, rules of war developed in hopes of minimizing the damage and preserving human life.

Nevertheless, with rules of morality come contradictions, and acceptable behavior before, during, and after war has long been a topic of discussion. The fact is that war itself is traumatizing and horrible, so finding morality among murder is a difficult task.

Jus Ad Bellum principles dictate that just cause is needed for a nation to declare war, but definitions of “just cause” are vague and often up to the interpretation of whatever the reigning global power is at that moment. For example, in the Encyclopedia of Just War Theory, self defense is an acceptable reason to initiate conflict, but when countries warp the definition of “self defense,” sometimes striking preemptively with the argument of preventing future conflict, everything becomes objective. Additionally, power means privilege, so world powers such as the United States or Britain are able to get away with their bloody histories of slavery, colonization, and imperialism.

When such a thing happens that a government goes to war for an unjust cause, it is likewise morally expected that the people rebel from this idea through protests or refusal to fight. While this is a pretty picture to paint, it is rarely realistically achieved. The goal of a nation is to accumulate and keep power over its territories, so when its security is threatened by an enemy, internal conflicts are deemed unacceptable. Social psychology emphasizes the importance of “us” vs. “them” mentality in human functions. As Eric Hoffer notes, having a “devil” or an enemy to rally against is essential for a mass movement. During wartime, governments need their subjects to focus on defeating one thing (ideally the enemy nation). When the public is motivated to fight against that object, they will participate and contribute to the war effort, which makes a big difference in that country’s odds in the conflict.

As such, it would be incredibly hard for people to simply rebel against their government, especially considering that if the government has decided to forego rules intending to preserve human life and fight an unjust war, their motives for power and domination would probably outweigh the wishes of their people. Any dissenters would face social and possible governmental pressure to support the war effort, and could face ostracization and legal consequences for their inaction. The idea of “patriotism” is a concept created by nations to intensify feelings of allegiance with the country and drive individuals to act on behalf of the country. Rebels are often labeled as “unpatriotic” and looked down upon by society.

For example, the Vietnam war was infamous for its destruction and the unnecessary involvement of countries like the U.S. Regardless of whether civilians wanted to fight or not, a draft was issued, conscripting all able-bodied men from around the country to fight. Unless you were contributing to the war in some other way (or just rich), you had to go and fight. Many men attempted to escape America to avoid Vietnam, and those who were caught were imprisoned or pleaded insanity and locked in mental institutions. It was only when the movement to stop the war became almost nation-wide that the government was forced to call back the troops, and that was after decades of fighting.

At the end of the day, war is about power, and the sacrifices a country will make for power. War is the cost that a nation deems acceptable for their goals and ambitions. War is about competition, as our biology entails. For countries facing war, morality is a secondary requirement to the need for survival: to exert dominance and create security within their nation. Nevertheless, we must still fight for our moral values even in the face of seemingly insurmountable challenges if we ever hope to make progress.

Just War Theory gives us a framework to understand warfare's moral impacts on soldiers and the justification of war itself: The theory of intrinsic in violence and conflict states that war is fundamentally wrong. On the other hand, the consequentialism model permits war if the outcomes are just. I believe that the Just War Theory is restrictive of humans and forces us to take two philosophical positions. In the real world, international conflict goes much deeper than the intrinsic idea of being morally wrong at all times or in the consequentialism model of being a just reaction to conflict. War can be a cause of many factors, which are also detrimental where war is wrong or just.

For example, the use of large-scale as a way of organized violence should not be justified as there is a means to solve conflict diplomatically. However, war as a revolution can be justified as it is a reaction to actions started by another nation. Specifically, the American reaction to the English occupation of the United States prior to the Declaration of Independence is justified because it is a reaction to the violence imposed by another nation.

According to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Just War Theory, jus ad bellum outlines criteria such as, just cause, legitimate authority, right intention, probability of success, and proportionality of violence. The criteria outline how war should not be waged and allow for the justification of war. I also believe it is important that jus ad bellum acknowledges that while war is inherently destructive, there are circumstances such as self-defense or the protection of human rights, where the use of force may be warranted.

Jus ad bellum, aligns more closely with the perspective of consequentialists. The theory recognizes that the outcomes of war can sometimes lead to greater moral goods, such as the liberation of oppressed peoples or the freedom of land. However, the theory also belives in unchecked militarism, by asserting that the theory applies when there is “legitimate authority”.

Citizen participation in unjust wars is unwarranted if nation initiates war for unjust reasons. I believe that it is the responsibility of the citizens to asses the conflict at hand and decide whether to support it. Most citizens excluding nations under authoritarian control, have the right to identify with their government’s choices. To refuse participation in a morally unjust war it can be seen as an act of high moral value while continuing to comply with a war may be viewed as contributing a role in wrongdoing.

As philosopher Jeff McMahan writes, “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 believe McMahan’s challenge what honor and morality mean in the context of warfare. In war, justice can be skewed, as soldiers often are doing as their told. McMahan suggests that people need to be held accountable in warfare to prevent wrongdoing. I connected the lack of justice in war to Abu Ghraib prison, an Army detention center for captured Iraqis from 2003 to 2006 during the Iraq War. At the prison members of the United States Army and CIA committed a series of human rights violations including weekly tortures, murders, and vile living conditions. After the mistreatment at the prison was realsed to media sources, the United States condemned the acts of violence and sought to punish a few high-ranking officials at the prison. However, nearly 20 after the United States war in Iraq, justice for many of the detainees tortured in Abu Ghraib was never given.

I agree with McMahan's assertion that soldiers fighting in unjust wars cannot simply rely on the notion that they are acting honorably if their cause is flawed. While the jus in bellum provides guidelines for ethical behavior on the battlefield—such as proportionality and distinction between combatants and non-combatants—it does not justify the moral implications of the war itself. Soldiers may act honorably according to these rules, but their actions are still embedded in the context of a potentially unjust cause.

When a nation wages war for unjust reasons, I believe that the citizens should not participate in the fighting or even support the country; however, this is harder said than done. For example, even if the war is unjust, many countries will twist how it started to make it seem like the fighting is just. They do this in many ways like saying the fighting is in self-defense. This causes many civilians to support an unjust war because they have been manipulated by the people tasked with protecting them into believing that it is just. Nevertheless, I think it takes significantly more courage to choose not to fight in an unjust war than to fight in it because in these scenarios most of the time you are going to be seen as the villain or someone trying to destroy your nation since you are not supporting your nation. Furthermore, when you choose not to fight and follow your morals, you are most likely going to be one of the only people who decide not to fight or support the war effort since in times of war nationalism takes over the populous, and they all band together to help win, even if the war is unjust. Additionally, if each citizen were to act upon their moral compass, I think it would be almost impossible to war because deep down every human and selfish. This selfishness and inward thinking would cause people to never willingly go to war on their own accord without some level of influence from an outside party, the government, or other citizens because they wouldn’t want to risk their lives. This idea of selfishness is summed up in a quote from Between War and Peace which says “Only a few men refused to fight. They declared themselves conscientious objectors—people who refuse to serve in or aid the military for religious or moral reasons. A British man who called himself “Artifex” expressed his views of their stand in a letter that appeared in the Manchester Guardian: I think that to be a real conscientious objector a man must be, consciously or unconsciously, an extreme individualist with little sense of the solidarity of mankind and of our membership one of another.” This shows that many at the time believed that those who decided not to fight in World War I were extreme individualists who didn’t believe in joining a group. This distinction was made to anger the people because, instead of highlighting the real reason why people do not want to fight in war, Governments twisted it into saying they were selfish. Despite these challenges, I don’t think this is a realistic problem that nations face because during times of war, even if it’s unjust nations, pump out propaganda and the citizens band together to protect themselves in their country from destruction. In the end, I believe it takes courage to both risk your life fighting on the battlefield to protect your nation and to go against the grain deciding not to fight in unjust wars.