learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by Pistachio on October 21, 2024 10:01

War as a concept, a battle and death between the populaces of two nations for the sake of ensuring their nations victory and goals, is inherently morally incorrect. However at face value, or in the view of the intrinsicism model, war is bad, when thrusted into reality, the commencement of war is more justifiable. No country wants a war due to the great expenses in money, lives, and time; however, sometimes a country is forced in such a position in which, for the sake of the better for its people, it needs to wage war. This follows the idea of the consequentialism model, that war is not morally wrong if the outcome is just. With several revolutions and uprisings, with the Haitians for example, no person deserves to be oppressed and so many people support what the Haitians did in order to secure their liberty and rights. However what the Haitians did, had resulted in much conflict, similar to what a war would cause. So surely if the Haitians actions were justified, then so could the actions of wars? In a perfect world, conflict between people would not exist, however a perfect world is but an illusion. People are divided, the fact that the world and its continents are divided into countries and borders are set to prove this. As a population, humanity is not truly unified although no matter how much it tries to be. It contains individual leaders and groups which govern within their own inner circle, while tolerating everyone outside of it. Not everyone will agree, and so disagreements and eventually conflicts will arise. Humans are fundamentally selfish creatures, they seek self-preservation and leaders of countries seek the self-preservation of their own government because it keeps them in power and safe. Conflicts will arise and humans are stubborn and so making compromises are not always possible, with some groups being just too fundamentally different in thinking. War is morally wrong, but yet it is necessary for some disputes to be decided and for the better of the world. These two ideologies, intrinsicism and consequentialism, can not simply be seen as one side vs. another side of the argument, they are 2 components of one and Just War Theory is an excellent way to see how these two ideologies bridge. Just War theory acknowledges that war is bad, intrinsicism, yet knows that war sometimes must happen for the greater good, consequentialism, and it outlines what scenarios in which war is justifiable. However once again, as amazing as Just War Theory is, it only has power if everyone abides by it. Although many countries do support the ideas and will follow it, the world is not unified, not everyone will follow these golden rules and so unjust wars will happen in order to better an individual or the country as a whole, disregarding the well being of others. In an unjust war, many civilians choose to abstain, however is this the right decision? A nation is meant to be a unification of a group, and so in theory it should be the overall cohesion of ideas of the populace. If individuals feel as though their country is fighting in a war that is unjust, and does not align with their beliefs, their nation has failed in representing them properly. Nonetheless, it is foolish to simply abstain from war. One's nation is practically everything, it is where they and their family lives, where they have a job, and where all their worldly possessions reside. Losing the war means potentially losing those things and that is simply too much of a risk just to follow one's moral compass. As seen in the article, In Between War and Peace (Facing History and Ourselves), “As world leaders were choosing sides, a few individuals and groups in almost every nation had been trying desperately to stop the momentum toward war…Then the news came that Germany had declared war. Almost instantly, the demonstrations came to a halt” Priorities are essential, and although it does take a lot of courage to put these things on the line in order to abide by a moral compass, as illustrated by the article, standing by one's morals is never more valuable than everything else one holds dear.

I agree with the idea that even though war as a concept can be easily written off as completely immoral, there are times where it is the only option to protect a nation. We have seen such cases in history time and time again where nations have been forced into war due to the aggression of another nation. In those cases, the targeted nations weren’t given the option or the time to make negotiations with the others. Their only option was to fight or else they’d risk losing everything. It’s hard to call self-defense immoral. Things would be much simpler if conflict and differences didn’t exist but unfortunately that is not a reality we live in. There’s a point that you made in your post saying “Nonetheless, it is foolish to simply abstain from war” in response to the question “Is choosing to abstain from a war you believe is unjust the right choice?”. While I agree with everything else that was said going up to that point, I respectfully disagree with that part. I personally don’t think it should be held against someone. At least the way I see it, the way you can lose everything when you’re not fighting in an active war is the same way you can lose everything by participating in the war anyways. I also feel like it would be really difficult to fight in a war you didn’t want to be a part of in the first place and we’ve seen what that fear and disconnection has done to people who were forced to fight in the past. War is extremely complex though, so I also completely understand your opinion. Overall I think this was an incredibly well written post and I love the ideas you came up with.

Originally posted by clock.on.the.wall on October 21, 2024 17:24

While war can occasionally be justified, the wars we see in our world almost never are. People are not perfect—almost everyone prioritizes themselves, puts themselves first; the nature of humans is such that you want things for yourself and, if you are given enough power, can wage war to get them. Does that make you inherently evil? I don’t think acting in your own self-interest makes you a fundamentally bad person, but it depends a lot on the extent of the actions and the reasons for causing them. Decisions should always be made with the context of the situation—moral models alone cannot be the sole basis for making choices, especially ones as important as those made in war. They can, however, be a useful guide on which to base one's decisions. In our world, the consequentialism model is more realistic than intrinsicism. It is easier to commit an act of war first and justify it later than to never result to war in the first place. Diplomacy can be difficult and, a lot of times, war seems to those in power like an easier alternative—one that skips the hassle of compromise and often leads to a quicker end where one country gets a say and the other has their decision made for them. Using consequentialism gives countries a shortcut intrinsicism does not allow for, but, like the first excerpt we read explains, it is “an open-ended model, highly vulnerable to pressing military or political needs to adhere to any code of conduct in war” (Jus Ad Bellum) Even if a war is “just,” soldiers can still act unjustly using consequentialism, and vice versa, and the model leaves too much up to interpretation. Just War Theory bridges the gap between the too-strict intrinsicism & not-strict-enough consequentialism, laying out a framework for which actions, specifically, are justifiable in war and which ones are not. It, like the two moral models, is not perfect and should similarly not be used as the sole basis for decision making, but can act as a useful guide for both leaders and soldiers in a time of war.

War is, ultimately, decided and controlled by those in power. After all, it is not the soldiers themselves who decide who and when to fight. Soldiers are responsible—and should act as such—for their individual actions, but not for the war itself. Citizens can, however, speak out against the war if they feel it is wrong; they can protest and refuse to fight. It takes courage not to fight in defense of one’s nation & to stand against what everyone else is doing, but it is also not necessarily cowardly to fight in a war you believe is morally wrong. Sometimes, people do not have the power or privilege to avoid war. Sometimes, people are forced to fight. Sometimes, there are consequences for not fighting. If you, per se, believe war is morally wrong, acting according to your own moral compass and refusing to fight means that you may put yourself at risk of punishment, but ignoring your morals and going to war anyway puts you at an equal, if not greater, risk. As Jus In Bello says, soldiers are viable targets, but civilians are not. Thus, joining the army makes you a target that enemies are likely to attack (although armies do sometimes attack civilians, it is less common than attacking soldiers and comes with its own consequences). It is hard, but nonetheless vital, that citizens act according to their own moral compass when a nation is at war. People are more than a cog in the machine of war; their voices deserve to be heard and their thoughts & lives to be respected. As we have seen from history, we know what happens when people are coerced into doing and believing everything for the good of the state. Love of one’s country turns sour, opposition is suppressed, the state militarizes, the government becomes authoritarian, nationalism grows exponentially, and the leaders turn to fascism. Dissent is a positive feedback loop. The more people vocally oppose a war, the more likely it is that others will join in. This prevents fascism from taking root and ensures that the state is held accountable for its actions. No one is perfect, not even world leaders, and it is important to remember that and treat them as such. In the end, everyone is responsible for their actions, whether or not they are done in a time of war and whether or not they are just.

When reading this post I was compelled by the argument that citizens, including everyone, not just soldiers, should also follow moral compasses during the war. I agree with this argument–I feel that when one fails to speak up about the unjustness of what is occurring in war, it allows the government to commit acts such as genocides, often occurring when citizens do not resist unjust actions that a state has committed. One should try to hold a strong sense of self in times of war–where groupthink and mob mentality can be as prevalent as it can be. This is a sentiment that I noted in several other posts, with many, such as bookshelf and nonchalant dreadhead, who argued similar sentiments but varied on the amount of fault one has if they continue to fight even when forced to.

Overall, clock.on.the.wall and I agreed on our points. I also argued that war is not justified almost all of the time, that consequentialism is more realistic for our world than intrinsicism, the fact that soldiers can be unjust in just wars and vice versa, and so on. This made me consider if we have similar views on this due to our similar upbringing in 2020s Boston Latin School. I’d imagine that a BLS student in the 1950s had different views, with society coming out of World War II then and being entrenched in anti-communist groupthink. I feel that it is important when noting how one responds to the world around them as it helps one see their own privileges and biases that are reflected in our views

Originally posted by bookshelf on October 21, 2024 17:49

War will always be wrong, as it is often motivated by reasons other than justice, such as religion, money, or nationalism. If war was truly a last resort, there historically would only be a handful of wars. This is especially prevalent in the modern-day, where many countries hold high military prowess and have access to weapons of mass destruction. All other peace-making efforts should be used before a war is ever considered, and there should be a global effort to prioritize peace-making corporations.

Additionally, the interconnectedness of the globe plays an important factor in geo-politcal relations, as countries engaging in conflict can inflict serious harm upon each other by canceling trade deals. The impacts of a halt in imports and exports between countries can affect the citizens of the countries involved, and the citizens of allied countries. This was seen in 2021 and 2022, when the United States imposed sanctions on Russia as a result of their invasion of Ukraine, a diplomatic ally of the U.S.. Following this, gas prices increased dramatically in the United States, however this was a more peaceful and favorable option than violence against Russia. In the age of capitalism and the global economy, economic sanctions with the intention of regaining trust and diplomatic relations should be the alternative to going to war.

The intrinsicism model is more ideal, however that is very rarely considered by global powers and civilians alike. The consequentialism model is what has historically been used, and serves a more commonly accepted purpose. The vast majority of the population is interested in justice before peace. A few components of “jus ad bellum” act as a bridge between the two philosophical ideas, however some of them are insufficient in achieving global diplomacy and peace. Jus Ad Bellum employs the use of the consequentialism model, with an emphasis on justice and fairness. For example, in the case of a land invasion, a “counter-attack must not invoke a disproportionate response” (Encyclopedia of Philosophy). This allows for the country being invaded to not harm the invading country beyond what was done to them. However, this does not account for civilian lives lost on both sides, which should not be equal but as small as possible.

If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, ordinary citizens should refuse to participate in the war effort, unless they are drafted, which can not easily be fought. Every citizen of a free country has the option to resist in some way, whether it is through press, protest, or even simply partaking in boycotts. In the case of a military draft, citizens have fewer options to refuse participation. This was seen especially in the Vietnam War, in which young American men were placed into the military through a lottery system, depending on their birthday. One of the few ways to avoid being drafted was to enroll in college, something widely unavailable to working-class citizens. Additionally, some compliance with war efforts are legally required of citizens, through the form of taxes that fund military operations.

I think that the take that all war is inherently bad is a very black and white perspective with limited consideration for extenuating circumstances. Following the intrinsic model, with the idea that every war is morally wrong, does not take into account the wars fought in defense and retaliation. Now obviously war has horrific consequences, making it vital that common policies exist among nations to reason proportionality, so that the reaction to an offense is of equal consequence and not more so as to prevent a continuous cycle of violence. However, the intrinsic point of view is a privileged one, beneficial for someone who has never had to experience war or fight for their rights. While there are definitely other, more selfish factors that go into the decision of war, if the long term impact of a war is for the objective benefit of people then it is okay. I agree with your point that modern warfare is different from any other warfare we've seen thus far due to scientific progression being used to promote militaristic gain. Due to its unprecedented nature, the outcome of a modern war with technologies that can cause a new scale of destruction is going to be unpredictable and dangerous, making war even more undesirable. I respect the reflection and believe that it was well thought out and articulated, however I simply disagree with it with my own points.

Originally posted by fulton on October 21, 2024 15:10

I strongly disagree with McMahan’s view that soldiers should be held responsible for their actions in war. Each soldier has a different reason for being there, and very few, if any, want to kill another human. Many end up in the military because of circumstances they can not control like being drafted. Others enlist when they are young, hoping to protect their country, only to find themselves overwhelmed by the realities of combat.

If soldiers don't agree with what is going on, some may contend that they should just quit the military, but this is not an easy choice to make. Serving in the military is frequently the only way for many people to support their families, particularly during difficult economic times. The income that comes with serving in the military is essential because it offers a reliable source of income that many people depend on to pay for necessities like housing, food, and childcare.

The advantages of serving in the military can truly transform lives. Having access to healthcare coverage guarantees that military members and their families may receive medical attention, which is a big benefit. Furthermore, by assisting soldiers and their dependents in pursuing higher education, educational benefits can improve their quality of life and open doors to future employment prospects.

The pressure from superiors also makes things more complicated. When a commanding officer gives an order, even if it feels wrong, soldiers often feel they have to obey. There is a strong urge to follow orders to keep the unit together and avoid getting in trouble. This creates a tough situation where personal morals clash with the duty to follow commands. The need to fit in can play a large factor as well. Standing up to a large amount of people for something you believe in can be extremely scary, especially if it is going against what the majority thinks is right.

Soldiers go through extreme stress during battle, which might cloud their judgment. When presented with life-threatening choices, they may set aside their moral convictions in order to concentrate on surviving and finishing their goal. Their natural tendency to follow instructions takes precedence over their moral convictions during these stressful times, causing individuals to act in ways they might not have otherwise. Soldiers may find it challenging to uphold their moral principles in this demanding setting when the needs of the circumstance often take precedence above personal morality.

Holding soldiers solely responsible for their actions ignores the complex reasons behind their choices. It overlooks the pressures they face and the environment they are in. Instead of blaming individual soldiers, we need to look at the bigger picture, including military culture, societal expectations, and how warfare affects human behavior. By understanding these factors, we can have a more balanced view of accountability that takes into account all the challenges soldiers encounter in war.

I found this post's argument that many soldiers in war should not fully be held accountable for their actions to be very interesting. I agree with a lot of the points about how many soldiers don’t want to kill people or fight in wars but can't leave, mentioning the draft system and necessary benefits the military can provide. I touched on this topic a lot in my own response and also, along with the draft, mentioned the ROTC program as a way that many people find themselves enrolled in the armed forces as a way to pay for higher education.

This post also brings up the argument that many people feel pressure from their superiors to do things they wouldn't otherwise do. This is the same theory practiced in the Milgram experiment and, evidently, is a situation that most anyone would fold under. However with that being said I think that there should be some moral responsibility for soldiers who blindly follow orders, especially if they clash with their own moral conscience. To some extent if you find yourself serving in the military during a time of war your priority above all else should be to minimize atrocities performed both by the opposition forces and your own forces.

Originally posted by burritowizard on October 21, 2024 21:57

No it is not always morally wrong to engage in war because there are numerous justifiable circumstances that require organized violence on the indivdual and national level. It is unrealistic to state that war is unjust, morally wrong, or completely unecessary. That is not to say that war is necessarily a good thing but rather a necessary one. The belief that every conflict can be resolved peacfully and without physical conflict would only work under the ideal conditions that everyone thought and benefited from that way. This idea also assumes that with every conflict there is a possible and reasonable compromise which is not always the case. Even in situations where a resolution is found it is often not the entirety of the original requests. Unfulfilled requests and unsatisfied ambition only results in more dissent and domestic unrest. There are many valid reasons for war even if they don't seem just on the surface level. For example a nation going to war for the sake of economic benefit and gain may immediately seem unjust and evil. But consider the circumstance that the nation is extremely poor and is unable to provide basic human necessities such as adequate food, education, and health services. It would be cruel and priveledged to say economic gain is not a valid reason for war. Even if a war is fundamentally unjust it is the obligation of the citizens to take note of its malice, but it is not their obligation to oppose or refuse participation. Participation in the military can be very rewarding for military personal and their families in terms of benefits provided by the government. 39% of americans are unable to afford an unexpected expense of $400 dollars. This would mean that many Americans would not be able to afford their own funerals. The military covers many expenses like health care and funeral services. A person's participation in the military and/or a war for their country can be as simple as relieving economic burdens on their family members. This is one of various possible reasons that you are unable to deny a person or give judgement towards. That being said it is not cowardice to refuse to fight in a war that is not morally just. It is not just to ask your average citizen to particpate in war, it is not a decision for anyone but the indivdual to make. To take another humans life is not something that you can make an unwilling person do. Opposition to war maintains diversity of thought in a nation's decision- making. If every citizen was an extreme nationalist and gung-ho for war then that nations citizens would be extremely easy to take advantage of. Opposers of war keeps the public with an open mind preventing us from going into unjust and unecessary wars. Yes, even in war where it is chaotic and savage in nature and even when that war is unjust, there is a way for soldiers to act morally. This can only be done when every soldier from each nation is a willing participant of the war. Allowing another to die for a nation or cause that they believed in is an honorable death. Allowing for burials and the prevention of unecessary mutilated corpses and dehumanization is how you maintain morality.

It seems like this argument is a much more consequentialist view of war. Your point about waging war for economic reasons being a possible justification for war is interesting. How would this apply to economically stable countries like the United States or Russia waging war for resources or profit (like the Ukrainian War, with agricultural and oil resources at stake, for example)? Is there a threshold for when a country is deemed economically unstable enough to justify war? If so, what would that be? Should a nation be held responsible for the lives it sacrificed for its economic gain or would the ends, say, the ability to provide for its subjects, justify the means? I agree with your argument that some citizens may find that their only option, on account of lack of income, is to join the military. I think this is part of the reason why the military offers these benefits. To grow its fighting forces, a nation must find ways of making the possibility of death seem like a reasonable or logical option, and money is a common way to do this. (In a way, this echoes your argument about how some nations might deem war necessary in the face of economic instability!) Your point about citizens' freedom to make choices aligning with their own beliefs during wartime is a noble one, but I think many governments would disagree with you. When a country is at war, necessity lies in the ability to make efficient decisions. When lives are on the line, the fight is between a nation and an enemy, so a nation must present a unified front if they hope to win. By creating a mass movement of nationalism (or patriotism), citizens will be more likely to participate in the war effort, meaning more labor and resources for the country, driving up their odds of success. Because of this, individual morality cannot matter to the governments (although, to your point, it ideally should), if they hope to protect their country and support their citizens.

Originally posted by MookieTheGoat on October 21, 2024 21:13

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.

I think your idea I found most compelling was that if everyone acted according to their own moral compass, it would be almost impossible for a nation to go to war. You said this was because people are selfish and put themselves first, which I agree with to an extent, but I think there is also more at play. It depends a lot on the circumstances, but I don’t think I would consider not fighting inherently selfish. While some people who don't fight are definitely only doing it for themselves, I think a lot of people really wrestle with their decision because, if they don't go, someone else will have to fill their place, so they have to decide who to prioritize between themselves and another person. I think a lot of what goes into the process also includes that some people, no matter how much training they go through, could never picture themselves killing another person. I also thought it was interesting how you brought up that governments often use coercion to manipulate their people into taking part in a war. I agree that, if people actually knew what it was like to be at war or the real reason their country was fighting, they probably would not go. Most people only go because it is what everyone else is doing or because their country has spun a narrative in such a way that it seems like they are doing the right thing by going to war.

Originally posted by littleprincess26 on October 19, 2024 18:39

War is a very complex issue that has been widely debated. Can war be justified? It really depends because there are always a million circumstances and factors that influence it. There is no black and white answer to whether war is moral or not. Neither the intrinsic or consequentialist model is realistic for modern warfare considering the complexity of war. We don’t need to adhere to only one of these models because it doesn’t take into account all the people involved. The leaders who wage these wars should be viewed differently from soldiers. If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, I believe that citizens have every right to refuse to participate in the war effort. It is courageous to decide whether to not fight or to fight in a war you believe is morally wrong. By choosing not to fight, you are choosing to stay true to your morals despite possible social backlash. People may call you cowardly, trying to avoid war, not patriotic, etc. But it takes a lot of courage to decide not to follow your nation’s decision to fight a morally wrong war. There could be religious reasons for them to choose not to, such as conscientious objectors. When you choose to fight in a war that you believe to be morally wrong, it does take courage but it’s different. You are brave enough to put yourself in harm's way and even death but you are going against your morals. It should also be considered that there are people who end up as soldiers who do not have knowledge of what the war is even about and what they are fighting for. Sometimes they are doing immoral things because they are confused. Does this excuse immoral actions though? Again, it depends. Soldiers can act morally in war by saving people or being a nurse. However, if all citizens acted according to their own moral compass when a nation is at war, it could potentially cause more harm than good, it will make it harder to win the war when there is so much controversy. During war, Jus in Bello should always be followed even though it is difficult to ensure that everyone actually is. It gives a structure for those in war to follow and whether they follow it or not, is their own decision. “Jus in bello requires that the agents of war be held responsible for their actions”, meaning it is up to the people in war whether they want to follow it or not. In the end, I believe that soldier’s are partially responsible for their own actions but a lot of other factors should also be considered. Therefore, whether soldiers are responsible for immoral actions really depends case to case. Although Jus in Bello isn’t able to ensure that war is being fought perfectly ethically, it shows progress. Comparing modern warfare to wars from a long time ago, there have been many improvements that made it more ethical but there is still a lot of work to be done.

The main idea is that war is a complex and morally ambiguous issue, and whether it can be justified depends on numerous factors. The distinction between leaders who wage war and the soldiers who fight is crucial, as soldiers may not always be aware of or responsible for the moral implications of the war. Citizens have the right to refuse participation in unjust wars, which can be a courageous act of adhering to personal morals. While frameworks like Jus in Bello aim to regulate moral conduct in war, individual responsibility for actions in war varies and is context-dependent. I agree with all points brought up and I think that it's especially important to bring up the distinction between the courage it takes to fight and the courage it takes to refuse to fight. Morally defining actions in war will always be ambiguous because how can war like actions be considered just? Jus in bello does define what is just but the parameters are so broad and can be stretched to justify quite a lot of things. I agree that it gives structure in war but i think that structure isn't too stable. I also agree that soldiers should be responsible for their actions in war but it does depend on the situation. Sometimes they can commit war crimes that are ultimately a choice of brutality but other times they can be acting in a way that follows the most just route.

Originally posted by Fahrenheit on October 21, 2024 22:04

Even if a nation wages war for unjust reasons a citizen should be able to act in accordance with their own moral conscience. Whether a citizen choses to aid in the war efforts, or chooses not to participate, they should be able to do so without feeling any outside pressure. Especially in the wars of the early to mid-twentieth century such as WWI and WWII, there was a lot of shame in choosing to opt out of the war effort and conscientious objectors were ridiculed, being depicted as selfish, lazy, and effeminate. Many of these objectors had very reasonable reasons for not wanting to involve themselves in war whether it be that their religion believes in pacifism, or that they have a strong moral opposition to contributing to violence. The sentiment of being anti-conscientious objector, while still present today, has died down after WWII as people started to more so examine the morality of warfare. However, a lot of people today find themselves on the opposite side of the coin, being anti-military and believe that contributing to the military, especially as a soldier to be morally wrong. While this does make a lot of sense on paper, this type of black and white thinking can greatly hinder someone's understanding of warfare as a whole. There are a lot of situations in which a person is forced into becoming a soldier. Especially in the twentieth century it was very common for nations to hold drafts in the face of a potential threat. These people especially who were unwillingly chosen by a draft should not be morally looked down upon for participating in the war as there are really no other options for them. This also applies to those who live in countries with mandatory military service such as South Korea, Switzerland, and Finland. Furthermore this same logic can be applied to those who participate in military service for needed benefits. For example a lot of high schoolers apply to ROTC as a way of paying for college and getting a higher education. The principles of Jus in Bello state that “a nation fighting an unjust cause may still fight justly, or a nation fighting a just cause may be said to fight unjustly.” Citizens, even if they would agree that warfare as a whole is unjust, have a lot of reason to partake in warfare whether they were forced to or if they chose to, however no matter what reason that they chose to partake, they have to attempt to apply the rules of Jus in Bello. While, ideally, every citizen should be able to make their own, unhampered, decision on whether or not they chose to partake in warfare, in a lot of cases that's just not possible and in these cases all that these citizens can do is to try and act justly on the field of battle.

I agree that citizens have every right to choose not to partake in a war whether they believe it is unjust or even just. I also mentioned in my post how there are many reasons for someone to end up in war despite not wanting to be in it just like you said. I think it is interesting how you mentioned how the negative sentiment around anti-conscientious objectors have died down after people examined the morality of WWI and WWII. This is something I did not think about. War has changed a lot from the beginning of time to now. Now that the morality of wars are really being examined, it gives people more reason to not partake in such wars. I really liked how you also mentioned that people from around the world are under many circumstances such as financial issues that compels them to join a war that may be unjust and that this doesn’t make the soldier immoral. I also believe that no matter the reason for being in war, once someone is a soldier, they should do their best to follow Jus in Bello. Overall, war is such a complex topic that it is difficult to judge the people involved in it and I believe that we should be giving them some grace by considering all the factors that can affect their actions and decisions. But this does not mean that war crimes should be excused. It truly depends on the situation.

Originally posted by snr25 on October 21, 2024 20:05

War is always wrong because it inherently results in death and destruction of innocent lives. The harm outweighs any potential benefits, war tends to escalate beyond intentions. However, the consequentialist model acknowledges that in the modern world, war may be necessary in order to prevent greater harm. Peace and compromise cannot always be reached in the presence of terrorism and authoritarian regimes, violent action is necessary. Multiple nations are typically involved and their different motivations blur the lines of good and bad, war may be the only general consensus that they can reach that would benefit the majority. Nations participate in wars not because they believe wars are good, but because they believe securing peace or justice justifies the violence. The Just War Theory acts as a bridge between the two philosophical ideas by acknowledging the wrongness of war, emphasizing that violence should be a last resort and only be used in terms of fighting for justice or peace, reflecting the intrinsic belief. On the other hand, jus ad bellum allows for war to be justified if motives align with consequentialist views that war may be morally permissible if it leads to just outcomes.

Citizens should refuse to participate in the war effort because it would check the government in check. This refusal will protect their peace of mind and their country in the long run, they won't be contributing to unjustifiable harm and may even encourage their nation to seek a more peaceful solution. It takes more courage not to fight in defense of your nation because you’re putting yourself at risk for societal backlash. You will be labeled as “unpatriotic”, judged and even sent to jail for refusing to serve in a war. Refusing to fight reflects moral courage, you are committing to your morals and not blindly providing loyalty and service to your country when it goes against your beliefs. If each citizen acts only according to their own moral compass when a nation is at war, it would be unsustainable for a nation, it would lead to a severely weakened defense army. Many may refuse to fight, leaving the nation vulnerable to threats. There will be commitment to duty or coordination in an army, jeopardizing the well being of society which is unrealistic.

I agree with Jeff McMahans that soldiers shown;don't be reassured that their actions are permissible unjust because soldiers still have a moral responsibility to take accountability for their actions. Conducting oneself honorably in war doesn’t negate the injustice of the war itself. Soldiers can exhibit honor through their commitment to their sense of duty during wartime. By fighting, they are protecting civilians and displaying courage. However, if the greater cause they are fighting for is unjust, soldiers cannot act morally because their heroic acts do not change the nature of the conflict. They are complicit in the actions and consequences that will rise from the conflict. They cannot morally justify the destruction and trauma civilians and society will face, honorable conduct does not mitigate the overall immorality of contributing to such outcomes. Ultimately, actions speak louder than internal thoughts and integrity.

The most compelling argument in this post is the idea that people should refuse to fight in war in order to keep the government "in check." In my mind, one person standing up against a war would change nothing. Someone avoids the draft or refuses to fight? Throw them in jail, problem solved. But nobody actually WANTS to fight in war. If everybody refused, if everybody took a stand, the government would have no power, no soldiers, no war. This is how it is with so many events in history. If people resisted, if everybody had their own minds and stood up for what they believed in, so many issues would be solved. Although I disagreed with this idea on my own LTQ, there are so many valid arguments in this post. I've been finding it difficult to navigate through this unit, as there is no clean cut answer and so many viewpoints have pros and cons. It is important for me to see these different perspectives and accept the reality that war is not black and white.

This student did a great job of getting their point across. Even though the whole point of this unit is not knowing the "right answer," I can always appreciate it when someone takes a firm stand and makes an argument. Great work :)

Originally posted by MakeArtNotWar on October 21, 2024 20:43

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.

Post your response here. First off I just wanted to say that your writing here is awesome and I really enjoyed reading the response.

Originally posted by iris_crane on October 21, 2024 20:34

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.

I completely agree with you on the fact that war stems heavily from human’s desire for violence and I find that really interesting. I never actually thought about how almost normalized and how present violence is in our everyday lives. It made me think about different violent things in life that just fly over my head like watching boxing fights for entertainment, or playing video games like Call of Duty or Fortnite, and there are so much more too. I also agree that it isn't really taken into account the severity of war, a lot of the time it is the numbers of how many people died, but it is truly so much more than that. The effect of each person's death isn’t really talked about enough or even thought about, and I like the way you put it when you said it brings “a cycle of suffering that can linger for generations, leaving deep psychological scars on those involved, whether combatants or civilians”. My opinions about whether either intrinsicism or consequentialism is more right is similar to your ideas because like you mentioned, war will always be evil, but then again there are justifications for war in the event that it helps prevent/stop any future harm or future problems.

Originally posted by iadnosdoyb on October 21, 2024 22:38

I personally feel like war is never justified unless in defense against an aggressor. If we look at the origins of most wars, they almost always have something to do with either territory, resources, or discrimination, which I personally feel is not a good enough reason to take life away from others. Often times its with excessive force as well, all things that violate the 'just causes of war'. Like I mentioned earlier, I think the only justified case of war is when a power is fighting for their, territory, resources or rights. One of the biggest examples that came up in class is the case of the Haitian revolution. The Haitian people during this time were being enslaved and decided that they wanted to use force in order to correct this. In my eyes the Haitian people truly didn't have to much of a choice. They're freedoms were being stripped from them, they're rightful belongings as well. Ideally a diplomatic approach would be best but if we're just being honest, that's not always going to happen. With this in mind, it's almost like we have to accept that some wars are going to HAVE to happen, considering the circumstances which circles me back to the Haitian Revolution. The reason the Haitian Revolution is justified is because of the larger context of violence. We've seen all throughout history the lengths human beings can go to inflict violence, the evidence of this being the countless genocides that have happened throughout history and that are still happening today. Violence in large conflicts is almost inevitable so in order to defend yourself you have to meet violence with violence in order to protect your state and your people. The question of is war is justified or not is one that we are forced to answer yes to in my opinion. With such violent threats around you, when your backs against the wall, what are you meant to do? Are we to demonize self defense? Admittedly it's not right but we have to be realistic. War is not just, war should not happen, war is not justified, ideally. In such a violent world we can't deal with idealism. War unfortunately is sometimes necessary because they're are so many cases of aggressors in our global history. Time and time again we see countries do crazy things to other countries that sometimes feel completely senseless but we also see what happens when those countries don't fight back, or simply don't have the means to. Would said country be wrong if they tried to get a foreign and unwanted power out of their territory. In theory no, its their space. I feel it only gets complicated when violence gets involved but the blame should always be on the aggressor, NOT the one who is forced to make a decision.

Overall, I agree with your points almost entirely, as I also believe that while war is morally incorrect, in cases of defense, it is warranted and should be employed. However, there are still some questions which can be raised from this ideology, for example are preemptive strikes warranted? Should countries be allowed to attack first if the other threatens to act violently, and if so where is the line drawn? It is important to recognize that the subjects of war aren't black and white, and there are many caveats and exceptions we may be forced to create. For example, we may say that hypothetically if the Union saw how the southern states were beginning to secede, and decided upon an earlier military intervention, that this would be a just and allowable attack, which may have even prevented the war altogether. However, this line of reasoning may be used by the French for example to validate their aggression in the Haitian revolution. The point being that history is always written by the victor, and a "just cause of war" may only be "just" because the victor proclaims it as such. Revisiting the Civil War scenario, would it be "just" to claim the Confederacy's secession and then attack on the Union was for the protection of their own nation and culture? Of the Confederate sympathizers who still exist to this day, their is a common sentiment that the war was fueled from Northern aggression, in a hypothetical scenario where the Confederates had won, could the logic of the Haitian or American Revolution be used to validate the war's existence, and the Civil War be painted in a similar way as those two wars are painted today? The nature of war, where human lives are being put at stake, will always make it a gray subject area, but those who win wars can drive the narrative to their liking. What we deem as a "just war", may only be so because of the fact those are the wars which we won.

Originally posted by onecreamtwosugarslightice on October 22, 2024 13:50

While the premise of war is hard to justify, the way our society is constructed makes war almost impossible to avoid. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to resort to such violent and extreme measures just for people's needs/wants to be met, but we've constructed a society in which we need to garner attention and help through mass destruction and death. I personally do believe war is morally wrong and there is no way around that. To rationalize the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children is absurd regardless of the reason. Any problem can truly be solved by having a meaningful conversation with the other side and trying to come to a mutual understanding among each other. However, this is not something that is probable when it comes to conflict with global affairs. Most people in power thrive off the authority they hold and are stubborn in their own beliefs, making it difficult to talk anything out and actually have it get anywhere. This dismissal and blatant disregard for what people may want to happen is what, typically, results in war. When enough problems and conflicts have piled up to a point, people are going to want to do anything in their power to get what they want. War can be necessary, although it shouldn’t have to be. Unfortunately, sometimes there is no other solution to have needs met and people would rather die for a fair cause than die in a society they deem as unfair.

I don’t think the majority of people enjoy war. People don’t go to war just to go to war. People aren’t just willing to die for no reason. People go to war to have a means to an end, even if they aren’t alive to see that outcome. As much as I personally hate war, it is difficult to sit here and say that it isn’t ever necessary. Both the intrinsicism and consequentialism models have understandable points, but consequentialism is much more realistic given how things actually tend to pan out. I think intrinsicism is unrealistic and difficult to genuinely stand behind as much as I’d love to truly believe that war is morally wrong. I can’t emphasize enough that war is wrong, there’s no way around that, but it still can be the only way to come to a positive outcome for the next generation.

Once war is already waged, I think people should have the right to refuse to serve and it doesn't make them cowardly or disloyal to their nation/country. If someone doesn't feel passionately about what the war is towards or simply doesn't believe in the concept of war, who are we to point the finger at them for not wanting to die in war. People should be able to live out their lives in the way they seem fit and war shouldn’t be a determining factor in how we perceive them. On another note, I also don’t believe soldiers have to necessarily agree with the cause of war to fight in it. If there is already danger impending and war is already declared, it puts soldiers in a difficult situation to pick between fighting for their nation and sitting aside. Regardless of their beliefs, they’re going to be held accountable for their actions and they are aware of this. You can have such an intense love for your nation that even if it is in the wrong and you’re aware, you are still willing to sacrifice your life to protect that land. At the end of the day, it is their home. I view it as someone defending their mother even if she isn’t necessarily right. For example, if your mom orders something in a drive-thru and begins to argue with someone at the window, you’re probably going to back her up in the moment and maybe say something to her later when someone else isn't there. I think that’s how people might feel in an unjust war. They know what they’re doing isn’t necessarily right, but they’d rather defend that land they hold dear than turn their back on it. It is their own internal battle to fight, so trying to label them and insult them for making their own conscious decision is just a waste of time and an argument that doesn’t need to occur, in my opinion. They are still going to be tried for the actions they take anyways, so it is their own problem and conflict.

The last point I wanted to touch on was what is considered just in war itself. Something that stuck out to me in the second excerpt of Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum was the debate on whether killing a civilian can be justified in war. Initially I had strongly believed that only soldiers should be targeted in war, but then the idea that a civilian might have intel or information that could potentially be destructive or dangerous changed my mind. It reminded me of the ultimatum between saving one innocent person or saving the majority. This is a concept that pops up often in films and games, like Spider-Man or The Last of Us. In Spider-Man Across the Spider-verse, Miles is faced between saving his father, who was destined to die, or accepting that his father’s death was necessary for the universe to stay intact. In The Last of Us, Ellie is the only one immune to an infectious disease that has affected the majority of people, and in order to concoct a cure, Joel has to sacrifice her. Selfishness can get in the way of these though, because everyone’s life is valued by someone and obviously wouldn’t want to lose them but sometimes a life is the cost of the greater good.

Sorry to whoever reads this, I didn’t mean for it to be so long. :(

I really enjoyed reading your post because it has a very realist lens on the outlook of war. The idea that war is morally wrong, but in modern society it is almost inevitable for war to occur, is also aligned with some of my personal beliefs which I wrote about. This realist perspective is somewhat pessimistic but also offers a valid explanation to why war is almost unpreventable with how global politics and individual societies are constructed today. Your nuanced standpoint that while war is itself horrible, it can provide a period of prosperity for a future generation without negative impacts of war. Another great point was the analogy between one’s mother and their country which really explains why the term “mother country” has been coined in history. While soldiers are not necessarily the victims or direct perpetrators, soldiers fight for their mother country despite whether or not “her” cause is just or not. This actually changed my original thoughts about this part of the prompt and forced me to consider a deep loyalty to one’s country that may relate to several psychological and social theories that we have studied. Overall, I found reading this piece extremely enjoyable because of the simplicity and yet complex and in depth understanding of the topic. It was clear the thought and effort that was put into this piece and really made me reconsider my initial assertions about the morality of war.