learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by Nonchalant Dreadhead on October 21, 2024 18:32

I believe that war is justified if the cause is just, but what makes something just should be extremely strict. For example, in the past, some wars were definitely justified because people were fighting for their freedom, like the Haitian Revolution. That was justified because they were fighting for human rights and to not be enslaved, which is living like you are less than human, giving you a reason to fight a war, because there is no other way. I do not think war should ever be justified unless the outcome benefits the majority of the population, and the benefit is something that all humans deserve, like rights. After looking at whether people fit this criteria, then they should use the just war tradition, since these are also complicated to see if they are valid reasons to go into war.

For the present day, I think that the world should use a intrinsicism method for any type of wars. There are still definitely many people in the world now that are oppressed or being exploited in poor situations, but not enough to start a war to solve it. Every conflict currently could be solved without war, even if it is really complicated, and even if war is absolutely necessary, there is no way that innocent people should be killed. It is definitely possible to evacuate or get outside help to keep innocent people safe before fighting, and make conditions to not fight in the middle of innocent lives. Also, the reasons for war do contradict intrinsicism and consequentialist ideas because many of the conditions are very opinionated, so if a leader uses a just cause and says killing innocent lives is just, then it breaks intrinsicism ideas.

And for any war, I believe any citizen should have the option to opt out of any war, especially if they do not think the reason their country is going to war is just. Usually, wars are declared because different leaders are at conflict, and sometimes these conflicts do not affect the average person greatly. For example, in WWI, the German Social Democracy party “held a huge public meeting that ended with cries of Down with war!” There are many cases when people attempted to stop wars and refuse to participate because they thought it was unjust and morally wrong. These wars are waged by leaders and expected to be fought by regular citizens. If these citizens do not want to fight, they should have the option not to. Also because some people's morals and religion reject war completely. Deciding not to fight in a war is more courageous to me than fighting in a war you know is wrong because saying no to fighting, you are rejecting group think and acting on your own thoughts. It is very difficult to openly reject what the majority is thinking, so deciding to not fight in your country’s war is very courageous because of what others may think of you for your decision. Leaders of countries also manipulate citizens to fight in wars, saying it is very courageous, also like Germany in WWI when they released a public statement, discussing how it is completely necessary to do it.

Also fighting in a war you know is wrong is so much worse because you are actually killing people, just because your country’s leader said so. If your country is fighting for unjust reasons, there is no reason to actually fight for it, and even though your leader said so, it does not take away the fact that you took part in killing other lives. There are however consequences to everyone acting on their own moral compass because there will be less people to fight these wars. I honestly think that is a good consequence because if so many people believe that a war is wrong and there are not enough soldiers, then the war should not have been waged in the first place, and it also leads to less casualties in these fights.

I think that Nonchalant Dreadhead made a lot of good points in their post. However the most compelling ideas are that war can sometimes be justified for a just cause, but standards for what just means should be strict and that fighting in a war you know is unjust is wrong. I completely agree with both of these ideas. I think that while war can be justified, what makes it just needs to be laid out in clear text, especially because, as both Nonchalant Dreadhead and I mention, it really is up to the leader’s interpretation and morals for what is just. I also agree that war should only be used as a last resort and to fight for things like human rights. Additionally, fighting in a war you believe is unjust is wrong because it means you are ignoring your own morals and following the majority, as well as going along with something that is wrong. This first idea is something that I myself stated is something that I saw in a few other posts. But, there are also a lot of people who think the exact opposite, which is why I agree with both what I said and what Nonchalant Dreadhead said about wars being ok for the most extreme reasons. Overall, the post was insightful and included a lot of good points, however there are one or two things that they could improve on. There are a lot of run-on sentences that are kind of redundant, so they could cut those down a little. Also, several times they state something, but then slightly contradict it later, so if they made their ideas more streamlined that would be good too.

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 really like your style of writing! It is confident and clear, so this was nice to read.

I think it’s super interesting that you dove into the reflection by questioning if violence is an innate part of human behavior. The quote “If a man can’t speak with his mouth, he will use his fists to talk” popped out to me. I do agree that some people may resort to violence when wronged simply because it is easier than having a civil discussion, especially if the violence is of as grand a scale as a war. This question is one that I think about a lot, but I honestly don’t know if human violence is inevitable. After the discussions we’ve been having in class, I’m unfortunately moving to the pessimistic side.

I do agree that the inherent wrongness of war is overshadowed by the narratives that seek to justify it, and I think you worded it very well. When we read about the characteristics of a just war, it seems as though the readings look past the unfathomable horrors of war in an attempt to look at war from an outer perspective, determining what killings are justified and which person should be considered a target. It weirded me out. Your argument about how the intrinsicism model comes from a certain position of privilege changed my perspective, although I still cannot believe that any part of war is morally right. What a cool reflection!

Originally posted by redpanda on October 21, 2024 20:58

War is unavoidable due to the fact that there will always be conflict, there will always be opposing sides, and it has been revealed that humans in fact do enjoy violence. Of course war should be avoided at all costs but that also begs the question, when is it most appropriate to wage war. The problem with this is the complexities of the entire topic of war, as a result of the intrinsicism model and consequentialism model and other different aspects of war, and it also connects to jus ad bellum because of the criteria needed to be met in order to actually wage war. However, jus ad bellum doesn’t always ensure that the war that is being waged is for just reasons because there could always be those hidden ulterior motives. I believe that if a nation wages war for unjust reasons, citizens should morally refuse to participate in the war effort. It isn’t always easy to obey authority, and especially go against one’s nation due to ideas seen similar to Milgram’s obedience experiment, as well as group-think, conformity, etc. It takes lots of courage to be able to go against one's own nation because of that patriotic feeling, and not be shunned by society for not going along with the nation, but patriotism is really subjective and its criteria and meanings depend on the person. In the “Between Peace and War Reading”, it highlights and emphasizes how much nationalism can also fuel and encourage a war. In the statement published by the party leaders in Germany, it is said that “Today it is not for us to decide for or against war; rather we must decide which means are necessary for the defense of our country. Now we must think of the millions of our fellow countrymen who are drawn into this disaster through no fault of their own. It is they who will suffer the most from the horrors of war.…And this army of women and children will soon be joined by tens of thousands of wounded and crippled soldiers. To help all of them, to improve their fate, to erase their inestimable suffering—we consider this our urgent duty.” Through this almost manipulative statement, it urges citizens to want to be a part of the war effort because if not, they would be harming and doing wrong as they would be making the choice to allow their fellow citizens to suffer at the cost of their neglect. In doing so, this forced compliance then turns to tactics and things like cognitive dissonance because one could think that by participating in the war effort, they are saving and aiding their “fellow countrymen” despite their harm in participating in the large-scale, organized violence. For soldiers, they can also really resonate with the consequentialism model of hOow by killing or doing this one terrible thing, it’ll end the chain reaction of any bad things that will follow. I think this also ties into cognitive dissonance because for many people acting in the war, they are making excuses or reasons that make them feel better about themselves despite the fact that they still are doing bad things like killing.

Hey Redpanda, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your response and understanding your thoughts on the Just War Theory. There is little to nothing that I don't agree with. I definetly connected with your response and your ideas on nationalism/patriotism, as that is something I focused on when writing my own response. I feel as though the "consequences" of not being patriotic and not supporting ones country during war because one believes it unjust are extremely harsh, and don't allow for comfortability in our own identity as citizens. Furthermore, it seems that these people that are labelled "unpatriotic" tend to face more criticism and more hatred than people who are patriotic, as they have left the "groupthink" that you mentioned, and took it upon themselves to consider the morality of war. I personally believe this makes them brave and courageous. I really connected with your quote from the Between War and Peace reading, namely the lines "this army of women and children will soon be joined by tens of thousands of wounded and crippled soldiers" and "to erase their inestimable suffering-- we consider this our urgent duty". This quote left me with a depth of sadness after reading it, and causes one to reconsider the feelings they once had about patriotism/nationalism. When forcing a citizen to arm, support, and give their time to a war effort that may not be just, we manipulate their personal experience and put their lives at risk by having them become as much of an enemy to the opposing country as the soldiers actually fighting the war. Overall, I find that we agree on many of the topics, and I found your analysis to be very thorough. Great job!

Originally posted by 1984_lordoftheflies on October 21, 2024 17:43

The use of large-scale organized violence can occasionally be justified, but it rarely is. Looking at history, most wars are started when one nation/group wants to extend control over another, which is never a justified reason to war. On the other hand, victims trying to fight back against imperial aggressors is usually justified. Therefore, although I find myself subscribing to the intrinsicism model more, the consequentialism model is understandable. I think that killing people is morally wrong, doing it can be justified. We all do things that are wrong, sometimes that’s okay. I think that many countries have surpassed any justification for solving conflict with violence, and I can’t really see a future in which that would happen in the first place. Lots of international organizations like the UN or the European Union will stop conflicts from turning into total wars like World War I. Also, wars which use the consequentialism model as a defense usually involve a struggle for power. Because we have, for the most part, passed the era of settler colonialism and the empire as an idea, I don’t see how the consequentialism model will continue in the future, specifically for large and strong countries like the US, Canada, UK, etc. However, we still see patterns and ramifications of imperialism playing out in areas in the middle east and Africa. Conflict in places like Israel/Palestine or Russia/Ukraine can still be understood in a context of imperialism in history, but understanding the causes for these conflicts is different than excusing the violence with the consequentialism model. Public opinion seems to be shifting more and more towards the idea that violence is always wrong, so in conclusion, I think the consequentialism model still has a place in our world but intrinsicism is realistic for our future.

I agree with McMahan’s idea. If the war in of itself is unjust, the conduct with which you behave in war is not super important- you are committing a moral wrong either way. However, that doesn’t mean that Jus in Bello is useless as an idea; we still need to know what is too evil to allow in war. The principles of Jus in Bello include discrimination and proportionality. These are very important ideas to go into a war with, and they do inform soldiers as to how they should behave. I don’t think the ideas are completely helpful, though, because they raise a lot of questions with their answers. The text even admits this, asking, “On entering the army, the civilian loses the right to not be targeted, yet does it follow that all who bear uniform are legitimate targets, or are some more so than others - those who are presently fighting compared to those who are involved in supplies or administration, for instance?... what is the status of guerrilla fighters who use civilian camouflage in order to press their attacks or to hide?” and many other questions. I also question how the rules of discrimination apply to soldiers who are drafted involuntarily. Many countries still force citizens to join the military, like Korea. Of course, one could argue that there is always a choice, and you could go to jail instead of joining. The Jus in Bello principles are helpful but it’s really difficult to come up with any kind of code that applies to all situations.

For me, the more I try to find answers to these questions in myself, the more I arrive at the conclusion that the intrinsicism model is better than the consequentialism model. I believe that war is always wrong, on the principle that murder is wrong. I don’t think people deserve to die just because they are soldiers in a war. Many soldiers who are in war haven’t agreed to die for the cause, so how can it be justified? How do you draw a line between soldiers and civilians when deciding who it’s okay to kill? Even if soldiers are willing to die to support whatever cause they are fighting for, what about the impact of soldiers’ death on their families and friends? If we as a nation agree to move away from the death penalty, how can we logically also support war? It doesn’t really make sense. Overall, I think that Jus in Bello is helpful to a degree but also leaves us with a lot of questions.

I definitely agree that large-scale violence is rarely justified, that most wars are started when a nation wants to take control of another, and that victims fighting back against imperial aggressors, such as in a revolution, is justified. However, I disagree that total warfare like World War I wouldn’t happen again because, even though there’s now NATO and the European Union, which will do what they can to prevent total war, there are many more alliances, which are the main reason why WWI got to be the total war it’s now known to be today. If one country declares war on another, but one of them is in NATO or a similar alliance, the world knows that total war is quickly approaching. For being in war itself, I think that the consequentialism model is the most realistic for right now and the near future, but the intrinsicism model is what humans can aspire to. If one decides not to go to war but to go to prison instead, someone else will have to go in their place. There would be cognitive dissonance because the person is probably wondering if the person would’ve been hurt if they had simply gone. I believe that killing is wrong, but if a soldier is fighting in a war, especially if they signed up knowing that there would be killing, they renounce their rights not to be killed. I thought that all the questions embedded in the response were very thought-provoking, but I thought that there were two contradicting responses to the consequentialism versus intrinsicism question that could’ve been merged to form one.

Originally posted by aldoushuxley on October 18, 2024 08:51

Just War Theory should always be followed but a war can be just without being in line with all the requirements and you can have an unjust war while following all of the requirements. If a nation wages war and its citizens disagree with their reasons for going to war then they are well within their natural rights to refuse to participate. If they did not participate, their reasons for refusal are no longer in line with their beliefs- the war has already started, peace is not an option and someone intent to take the most peaceful approach would help their country to end it quicker. Conscientious objectors are for the most part intrinsicism, not looking at the bigger picture. I think that someone can act morally in an unjust war because at the end of the day their actions are still controlled by them. Fighting for something you don't believe in and not fighting because you don’t believe are different kinds of courage. Fighting in a war takes so much courage, a soldier is literally signing up for something that could lead to death or serious injury. It takes physical courage. Not fighting because you don't believe in the cause takes social courage. A conscientious objector is going to have to stand their ground against most of their country all while disrespecting the soldiers who are giving their lives so that they can sit at home whining about the war they aren't doing anything to end. In Germany those opposed to war stopped their demonstrations once the war started because ending it quickly is in line with their beliefs rather than opting out. “Down with war! Long live world peace and the brotherhood of the working class!” Over the next few days, there were more rallies for peace. Then the news came that Germany had declared war. Almost instantly, the demonstrations came to a halt, and party leaders issued the following statement:..” (Between War and Peace) Just because someone believes a solution to a problem should not be used doesn't mean that the solution doesn't solve it. End of the day once a war starts the most peaceful approach is ending it quicker. A soldier should be able to abide by their own moral compass. In a war that someone doesn't want to fight they absolutely should maintain the right to refuse a service. But it would slow the war down, the humane thing is to end the war with minimal damage which may mean an action that compromises the soldiers morals. It's a choice that the soldier has to make between present effect and future effect and what they value more. A combination of the intrinsicism model and the consequentialism model is the most realistic, leaning more towards the consequentialist. Very few people look at things in black and white, because it's just not a realistic thought process. Every decision has depth and reason, a seemingly unjust war to the people may have reasons for conflict that they don't know about. If you personally know a veteran or someone enlisted, your view on what is morally considered right and wrong and if outcome matters will change. People don't just put down their weapons mid war because someone protests it. How someone behaves in a war is based on how well they understand what they are fighting for, peace or resolution.

I do agree with your point in saying that war cannot be used as a means to solve a solution. There are many other non violent ways to solve a conflict other than to wage a war. For one I believe as world leaders to have the capability to be able to talk and converse and reach at least a consensus on what to do rather than send their people to a war over a conflict that was started within the government for example. The idea is really intriguing however, reading upon the points that you made on soldiers actually deciding if or if not they are to act morally or morally wrong in war. As I believe it also challenges conventional views about warfare and morality. Emphasizing more on the complexity of ethical decision-making especially, particularly when the stakes are so high, which I feel resonates with contemporary discussions about military ethics itself and what those on the front lines believe in.I do believe however that claiming that all conscientious objectors disrespect soldiers however, as it in a sense does generalize the term into one demeaning point. Where there could also be different reasons on why a person decides to criticize war, it could be a religious belief or a belief in general that they believe in.

Originally posted by Big Lenny on October 22, 2024 22:59

I believe that citizens should refuse to participate in the war effort if the war is waged for unjust reasons, or should at the very least have the right to refuse. One of the biggest motivating factors for people to join the draft is the fear of shame for refusing. After discussing it in class, my classmates and I wondered why being scared of the war has been considered such a taboo all over the world. How is it wrong to be scared of going to war? Governments and societies have played on this fear to pressure young men to go along with the draft without complaint. In The Things They Carried by Tim O’Brien, one character said that he only went to war in Vietnam because he was too much of a coward to stay. With this perspective coming from an actual veteran, it seems as though it is braver to resist participating in the war effort than to go along with the draft.

My tablemates and I were pondering what it really means to be a patriot, and if it is unpatriotic to resist joining the war. I believe that it isn’t necessary to ponder this at all. The idea of being a patriot has been manipulated throughout history to bring shame to those who do not obey the orders of a government. Most people who identify as patriots probably cannot define the word. Certain political extremist groups have taken patriotism and given it an entirely new meaning, with anyone who doesn’t align with their ideals being labeled as “un-American”. With this in mind, I find it most patriotic to fight for the values of one's country, which in my opinion is freedom, opportunity, and independence, all of which contrast with participating in unjust violence.

There is, however, the issue of too many people refusing to go to war in times of need. According to The National Network Opposing the Militarization of Youth, 71% of young people are ineligible to join the military. Apparently, only 29% of Gen Z are eligible for military service, and of those people, only 12.5% show any interest in the military. Despite this, if you can believe it, $905.5 billion was spent on the military in 2023. There are many mixed feelings among Americans about how much of taxpayer money goes into the Department of Defense.

I personally believe that war can never be morally right, even if it may be considered necessary to protect a country. I believe that a war can be justified if it was the last resort to protect a population or if it was waged out of self defense, but can absolutely never be moral, and that we are privileged to a certain extent to justify the brutality of war. In “Excerpt 2: Just War Theory-Jus In Bello and Jus Post Bellum (Encyclopedia of Philosophy)”, the idea of who is a target in war is discussed, including when it is morally right to kill a person if they are identified as a target. What I found disturbing about the article was how apathetic the subject was, debating the justification of killing civilians under some circumstance or other. One could say that violence and brutality is just a consequence and norm of war, even though it isn’t welcome in civilian life. This was made into a metaphor in a different reading, explaining that once a boxer enters the ring, they are accepting the possibility that they will be punched, even though that would not be morally acceptable outside of the ring. The only problem with this is that civilians are forced into the battlefield in every war, and that violence is never isolated to a controlled space. How can one justify each act of violence towards innocent people during war?

The most compelling idea was at the end of your post, saying that any act of violence towards civilians is unjustified. I completely agreed with this idea and discussed it in my own post myself. Another thing I wrote in my post was that war is always morally wrong, because killing is always morally wrong. You wrote that you think war can never be morally right, but it can be justified. I completely understand this and agree a lot. I don’t understand why we wonder if war or violence is moral; shouldn’t we all know violence can never be moral? The real question is how can it be justified.

You also said that you think it’s most patriotic to fight for the values of one’s country, and in America, that would be freedom and justice. I don’t know exactly how I feel about this, but I wonder about how useful the word ‘patriot’ is in the first place. Your definition makes some sense, but I feel it’s arbitrary what ‘values’ a country represents. You can say that freedom and justice are American values, but I could just as easily say that racism and inequality are American values. Also, take somebody in a country like Iran protesting against their oppressive government, trying to make things better. Is this considered unpatriotic, because they are going against the values of theocracy? Or is there nothing more patriotic than trying to improve their country? I don’t know the answer to these questions.

The most compelling idea was at the end of your post, saying that any act of violence towards civilians is unjustified. I completely agreed with this idea and discussed it in my own post myself. Another thing I wrote in my post was that war is always morally wrong, because killing is always morally wrong. You wrote that you think war can never be morally right, but it can be justified. I completely understand this and agree a lot. I don’t understand why we wonder if war or violence is moral; shouldn’t we all know violence can never be moral? The real question is how can it be justified.

You also said that you think it’s most patriotic to fight for the values of one’s country, and in America, that would be freedom and justice. I don’t know exactly how I feel about this, but I wonder about how useful the word ‘patriot’ is in the first place. Your definition makes some sense, but I feel it’s arbitrary what ‘values’ a country represents. You can say that freedom and justice are American values, but I could just as easily say that racism and inequality are American values. Also, take somebody in a country like Iran protesting against their oppressive government, trying to make things better. Is this considered unpatriotic, because they are going against the values of theocracy? Or is there nothing more patriotic than trying to improve their country? I don’t know the answer to these questions.

Originally posted by Gatsby on October 21, 2024 16:45

While war is sometimes justifiable, war is always objectively morally wrong no matter the cause. The consequences of war are ensured; no matter the “winners” or “losers” lives are always sure to be lost and that in itself is morally unacceptable to modern ethics. To justify war with a cause, there must be certain standards to hold the declaring party to. Just ad bellum is a tool used to analyze the validity of a state’s decision to wage war. In this day and age, despite how far global society has progressed, the innumerous inequalities and oppressive across the world make conflict inevitable in search for resolution. Society leans towards a more consequentialist model in which many believe that their cause is a justifiable reason for war however those in privileged areas of the world in which the threat of war and political tensions are less, citizens may lean more towards a modern intrinsic model because they have the comfortability to discuss war as a far possibility.

Citizens affiliated with warring states should always be given the right to choose whether or not they serve in the army. In the case of World War I, thousands of men on both the Allies and Central sides rushed excitedly to enlist in the army, however once they were in the war they could not escape it and all the horrible bloodshed that followed. It may be harder to say no when others around you are so eager to join a cause which makes it extremely difficult to speak out and decide to not fight if one disagrees with the reason for war. Whether a soldier is “given” a choice or drafted by the government, saying no to serving your country is hard because it’s often ingrained in your beliefs to show nationalistic pride even if you have personal qualms with your country’s systemic treatment of certain groups or policies. Take for example the United States today, many people criticize the government and the systemic inequalities that have shaped the country, but when a large event – not necessarily bad – happens a wave of patriotic pride ripples through the country. This can be observed at the 2024 Paris Olympics in which many people cheered for their favorite athletes representing the U.S. while they still did not agree with the political state of the U.S. The same can be seen for nationalism in wars, to feel unsure of their countries values but pride in the united power of their country in which one is persuaded to join. However, a dissenter to participation in war could also act negatively for the outcome of the war. While the importance of speaking out against morally corrupt behavior is one thing, dissenters in a war may lead to negative outcomes for soldiers or innocents who are left unprotected by a weakened and unstable military.

The idea that Jeff McMahan proposes that soldiers in war should be held accountable for their actions and for their decision to fight for an “unjust” cause. While soldiers should be held accountable for their individual actions, their decision to fight for an unjust cause may not be completely their own. Considering circumstances such as a draft and a society overrun with propagandic news, soldiers may not even understand what they are fighting for. However, the standard that all soldiers should be held to is the moral behavior during war which includes many rules from Jus in Bellum that try to prevent immoral acts from occurring during war. The rules of Jus In Bello, while unable to completely enforce them, certainly help prevent war crimes from happening. Modern ethics and societal norms help to shape these principles and encourage participation in Jus In Bellum rules. This includes the pressure to conform to the status quo that a society imposes, and targets human nature and desire to fit into a group that has beliefs that they do not necessarily agree with rather than become a social outcast for dissenting to rules. This can have a positive effect on enforcing the rules of jus in bellum on soldiers.

The notion that those in more peaceful regions are able to view war through a more intrinsic lens and those in more conflict prone areas might view war as a necessary evil is the most compelling idea. I agree because a person's ethics and morals are shaped by life experiences and environments, which makes it interesting. It shed lights on how privilege can shape one's perspective on war. This person's view on soldiers taking part in an unjust war relates to other peers’ posts because while many said that while the morals of an individual may not align with the motives of war, they should still be held accountable for their involvement, which I agree with. Others also touched on the influence of proponga and drafts on a soldier's decision, their decision is compromised by larger societal pressures.Therefore, it seems unjust to hold them entirely accountable for the decision to fight in an unjust war, though they should be held responsible for how they conduct themselves during war. I also agree with this point, operating under pressure complicates an individual to make moral choices but accountability is important. Overall, this was very well written and insightful, it definitely provoked me to take into account the moral implications soldiers and different nations have when it comes to war.

Originally posted by Gatsby on October 21, 2024 16:45

While war is sometimes justifiable, war is always objectively morally wrong no matter the cause. The consequences of war are ensured; no matter the “winners” or “losers” lives are always sure to be lost and that in itself is morally unacceptable to modern ethics. To justify war with a cause, there must be certain standards to hold the declaring party to. Just ad bellum is a tool used to analyze the validity of a state’s decision to wage war. In this day and age, despite how far global society has progressed, the innumerous inequalities and oppressive across the world make conflict inevitable in search for resolution. Society leans towards a more consequentialist model in which many believe that their cause is a justifiable reason for war however those in privileged areas of the world in which the threat of war and political tensions are less, citizens may lean more towards a modern intrinsic model because they have the comfortability to discuss war as a far possibility.

Citizens affiliated with warring states should always be given the right to choose whether or not they serve in the army. In the case of World War I, thousands of men on both the Allies and Central sides rushed excitedly to enlist in the army, however once they were in the war they could not escape it and all the horrible bloodshed that followed. It may be harder to say no when others around you are so eager to join a cause which makes it extremely difficult to speak out and decide to not fight if one disagrees with the reason for war. Whether a soldier is “given” a choice or drafted by the government, saying no to serving your country is hard because it’s often ingrained in your beliefs to show nationalistic pride even if you have personal qualms with your country’s systemic treatment of certain groups or policies. Take for example the United States today, many people criticize the government and the systemic inequalities that have shaped the country, but when a large event – not necessarily bad – happens a wave of patriotic pride ripples through the country. This can be observed at the 2024 Paris Olympics in which many people cheered for their favorite athletes representing the U.S. while they still did not agree with the political state of the U.S. The same can be seen for nationalism in wars, to feel unsure of their countries values but pride in the united power of their country in which one is persuaded to join. However, a dissenter to participation in war could also act negatively for the outcome of the war. While the importance of speaking out against morally corrupt behavior is one thing, dissenters in a war may lead to negative outcomes for soldiers or innocents who are left unprotected by a weakened and unstable military.

The idea that Jeff McMahan proposes that soldiers in war should be held accountable for their actions and for their decision to fight for an “unjust” cause. While soldiers should be held accountable for their individual actions, their decision to fight for an unjust cause may not be completely their own. Considering circumstances such as a draft and a society overrun with propagandic news, soldiers may not even understand what they are fighting for. However, the standard that all soldiers should be held to is the moral behavior during war which includes many rules from Jus in Bellum that try to prevent immoral acts from occurring during war. The rules of Jus In Bello, while unable to completely enforce them, certainly help prevent war crimes from happening. Modern ethics and societal norms help to shape these principles and encourage participation in Jus In Bellum rules. This includes the pressure to conform to the status quo that a society imposes, and targets human nature and desire to fit into a group that has beliefs that they do not necessarily agree with rather than become a social outcast for dissenting to rules. This can have a positive effect on enforcing the rules of jus in bellum on soldiers.

The notion that those in more peaceful regions are able to view war through a more intrinsic lens and those in more conflict prone areas might view war as a necessary evil is the most compelling idea. I agree because a person's ethics and morals are shaped by life experiences and environments, which makes it interesting. It shed lights on how privilege can shape one's perspective on war. This person's view on soldiers taking part in an unjust war relates to other peers’ posts because while many said that while the morals of an individual may not align with the motives of war, they should still be held accountable for their involvement, which I agree with. Others also touched on the influence of proponga and drafts on a soldier's decision, their decision is compromised by larger societal pressures.Therefore, it seems unjust to hold them entirely accountable for the decision to fight in an unjust war, though they should be held responsible for how they conduct themselves during war. I also agree with this point, operating under pressure complicates an individual to make moral choices but accountability is important. Overall, this was very well written and insightful, it definitely provoked me to take into account the moral implications soldiers and different nations have when it comes to war.

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 the most compelling argument for my classmate's post was that current geopolitical relations can seriously impact other countries around the world, even if they’re not engaged in the actual fighting. For example, they give the example of the Russian-Ukraine war and how that has affected oil and grain. Furthermore, I agree with the fact that the intrinsic model is better. However, I think we should add a stipulation that war is justified only if another nation attacks you first and the fighting is only for self-defense or preservation. This combines both the intrinsic model that war is generally bad but also takes into account part of the consequentialist model that shows us sometimes it is acceptable to fight as a consequence of a previous action. Nevertheless, I partially disagree with my classmate's view on civilian participation in a war. I think they oversimplify the outside pressures that the rest of society places on the individual and make it seem a lot easier to not participate in the war effort. Additionally, I completely disagree with the fact that some compliance with war efforts is legally required of citizens because many people if they have the opportunity between deciding to fund the military or fund another program, the majority of them, decide not to help the military.

Originally posted by blank.image on October 22, 2024 22:35

We learned in the previous unit that mass movements are nothing without a large following that is willing to listen to and carry out what the leader of it is saying. If they don’t believe in the movement, there won’t be one. I believe the same thing applies to war. If a nation wages war for unjust reasons and they are aware of it, I think that ideally citizens should refuse to participate in it. If you know that something is wrong you shouldn’t do it, especially with something as dangerous and destructive as war. War makes it so that people are forced into a position where they have to choose between life and death. This could completely be avoided if people just didn’t help the effort because then there wouldn’t be one. I feel like the biggest problem that comes with this choice is the fact that the opposing country may decide to attack the refusing nation regardless of whether or not they’re fighting, simply because the initial threat was there. I feel like the fear of being attacked and losing everything does create the need for more courage if one were to decide to sit out of the war effort. It’s absolutely not cowardice to refuse to fight in a war that is believed to be unjust though. The war goes against the morals of the people and not wanting to put everything on the line, including their good conscience, is fully understandable. War is really heavy and dangerous and I feel like calling someone a coward because they don’t wish to partake in it is completely ignorant and nonsensical. With that being said, I feel like differing opinions on the war may cause some internal conflict in the nation. In Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum it said that “Possessing just cause is the first and arguably the most important condition of jus ad bellum”. The issue with this is that it is too vague, and too much can be left up to interpretation. Something one person may feel is just cause for war is something that another may not agree with and that can lead to more internal issues. If the majority of a nation doesn’t believe in the war effort it would be far less destructive than half supporting it and the other half not supporting it. In fact, I feel like that could be nearly just as dangerous as warring with another nation. War is incredibly messy and I believe that 95% of the time it is never the last option. With that, I will also say that I do not believe that war is always immoral. It’s not a favorable outcome in the slightest and it would be more ideal if it didn’t have to come to it but there have been times in history where it actually helped people gain freedom from their oppressors. I think that especially at this point in time, the world has seen so many wars and has built up so much conflict that it’s practically impossible to eradicate, which is the sad truth.

I love your connections with previous units and how you’re using it to build on our current unit. How you weaved in that mass movements require a cult-like following and how war requires a similar mentality to succeed is compelling. Other posts such as in projectvictory’s and mine shared a similar idea that how the abstinence of war should be the ideal that it can be dangerous but, I love how you incorporated fear in which the other nation might not follow the rules of Just War Theory and that a non-threatening country may still be attacked. It adds another layer of depth to the situation of war in which no one knows what the other side is thinking. I think we definitely share some ideas, like how a war just shouldn't be waged if the populace doesn’t wish for it and although we both believe people should not fight in a war they don't believe in, however I think we differ in that you believe people should abstain from war if they don’t believe in the cause while I still think they should regardless if they do. We both acknowledge the dangers of abstaining from war and how the debate of whether or not a civilian should fight is extremely gray. Overall I really enjoyed reading your piece, there were no mechanical issues, it was extremely thoughtful, and I love your conclusion of how war is inevitable but can have its upsides. However the one thing I wish you expanded more on is the psychological aspect of war and the fear that comes with abstaining from war, whether or not the other nation will attack or not and how that affects what people will do.

Originally posted by projectvictory on October 22, 2024 19:28

A man who doesn’t support his country is a man with no standing. That is the way it has always been portrayed. The history lessons, ranging from The Armenian Genocide to WWI and more, nationalists have been made to be the good guy, and the true Country Man (“All American Man”). Yet, what is to be said for the people who feel moral discomfort during war? Why do we hold such a pedestal for nationalists, but not for those who dare to disagree? These questions rung in my head when learning about the Just War Theory. In a perfect world, I am anti-war on all decisions and all ideals. Yet, I understand that this is less than likely, especially considering the human desire for revenge, power and greed. Reading the Just War Theory, I found that most countries were prided by the amount of nationalism they had, and anyone who didn’t agree with wars or the current war of that country would be treated as less than a citizen, and not far enough from a traitor. I believe there is a toxic reality in nationalism, as beautiful as it is to see in other aspects of life; specifically when it comes to the war movement. One example that carried with me throughout the lessons I’ve learned in both Facing and other history classes, was the propaganda and call to nationalism during WWII. So many memorable characters, movies, and songs have come with the time of WWII in support of the American effort, but it is often forgotten the pressures that non-conforming citizens felt to fully support the war. Although it may be hard to discern citizens from enemies, Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum offers the belief that “It would be wrong” based upon principles of discrimination, “to group the enemy into one targetable mass of people”. I agree with this, but it seems that countries and mass groups of people who fail to realize just how far their push their nationalism and condemn others, may not. I firmly believe that citizens should not be persecuted for being brave and courageous enough to not agree with their countries role in war. And I especially believe that the process of disagreeing with your countries role in war alone is very valiant, as the consequences may be as violent as ones own death. Civilians, in my eyes, will always remain innocents unless abiding directly to the war crimes. A civilian alone cannot choose if their country enters war, and I therefore believe they shouldn’t be forced to disregard previous morals for a completely nationalistic mindset. This goes against anything that Free Speech and belief may stand for, and blatantly illustrates whether a country is stable enough to not feel threatened by such differing ideologies. Anyone who does not stand for genocide, who does not stand for unjust war crimes, who does not stand for the warping and villanizing of another country or race, is unfortunately in our current societal climate, brave. This should not be something that is considered bravery, it should be normalized. We are a melting pot of people, and that melting pot becomes awfully small when we cannot accept differing opinions without violence or harmful persuasions.

I share your views on war and nationalism. Although nationalism is frequently applauded, it can sometimes put pressure on people to support policies they feel are incorrect. According to the Just War Theory, it is unjust to declare entire populations to be adversaries based only on the conduct of their governments. When their nation goes to war, many people feel conflicted, especially if they oppose it. Your WWII example demonstrates how propaganda may persuade people to back the war while disregarding those who are against it. Although they typically have no say in whether their nation enters a war, civilians nevertheless bear the costs. People who oppose unfair wars ought to be viewed as courageous rather than as traitors. Instead of punishing dissent, we should promote open discourse and tolerate differing viewpoints in a free society. It's critical to normalize doubting the ethics of war. This embodies the principles of free expression and is necessary for a robust democracy. A more caring society may result from honoring individuals who have the guts to defend their convictions even in the face of difficulty. We must oppose the notion that true patriotism entails mindlessly adhering to all national policies and instead stand behind people who exercise critical thought on these matters.

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 think this is a great way of looking at Just War and war in general and I agree with a lot of your ideas and thoughts. I like how you pointed out the cost of war and how typically countries don't seek to fight in wars due to the expenses, not only in money, but also in life. It offers a greater understanding of what needs to happen for war to be waged and how it is almost never the first resort because of these costs. I also like how you brought up that, ideally, war would not ever need to occur but the way that we, as a society and as humans, are wired, we are selfish and want to preserve our own ideals and thoughts rather than give them up for someone on the opposing side. I completely agree that Just War theory only has power if people choose to abide by it, otherwise it doesn't serve much purpose. Given what we've seen in current events, once war is waged, people tend to disregard these aspects that would justify it and want to do everything in their power to "win." It's an unfortunate reality we live in that violence is sometimes necessary to meet our needs and people take advantage of this to get away with committing heinous crimes they attempt to excuse with war. At the end of the day, people are willing to do a lot to protect themselves and their country, like you said, and if that means putting your morals aside to fight for what you love then it's a small sacrifice for the greater good and you did an amazing job at articulating that. I really enjoyed reading this and think that you have an interesting way of looking at what we've learned.

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.

Post your response here. I also agree with the fact that whenever a nation wages war, it is up to the individual to participate or not, depending on their moral consciousness. If a nation starts a war that goes against a person’s belief, there is no reason that they would have to fight for that country, and end up killing others for a cause you don't truly believe in. They also should be able to have the option because even if they agree with the reason to fight the war, if they believe in not harming another individual or killing, they should have that option not to. Like in the past, there should be no reason that someone should look at another differently if they choose not to participate, no matter the reason, because it is the individual’s choice to fight or not. I really liked how you added reasons why people may have to fight for their country that I personally did not think about. I completely agree with the fact that some people may decide to fight in a war for other personal reasons, like the fact that the country has military service laws, as well as programs like ROTC. Sometimes people serve their country because financial reasons are just simply being forced, and that others should not shame them for participating today and try and look at it from a different perspective.

Originally posted by username on October 19, 2024 19:47

In studying the justifications and rules of war, I have been unable to decide if war can be just at times. In my opinion, I am against war and believe it is justified in only very rare circumstances such as a war of self-defense and a war to prevent atrocities such as genocide. It is because of these potential reasons that despite being an intrinsicist in nature, I believe a consequentialist view is better in policy for our modern world. I do however believe that the rules of jus ad bellum are too broad to follow and be a bridge between consequentialism and intrinsicism. The various justifications given by jus ad bellum are mainly up to interpretation of the countries that are in war, which allows them to justify any war they may fight. Russians believe their invasion of Ukraine is justified in order to protect the Russian Ukrainian minority in the country, claiming that Ukraine is a Nazi state. Americans believed their invasions of Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries were for the good cause to fight terrorism and defeat dictatorships, and believed that peace had been exhausted as well leaving invasion the only option. Formal declarations of war almost rarely happen nowadays, with Putin referring to his invasion of Ukraine as a “special military operation” and Ukraine referring to Russia as a “terrorist state”, with neither countries having officially declared war, but most argue that Ukraine’s cause is still just. Success is also subjective, various countries can believe they could be successful, with the United States believing that success could be possible with Afghanistan, as well as Argentina with the United Kingdom over the Falklands and Hamas with Israel. Proportionality is subjective, as seen with Israel and Hamas, the Israelis believe their war is proportional despite international condemnation of the severity of the destruction in Gaza.

If a nation wages an unjust war, I think that citizens should resist participation in the war effort, however due to the justifications of war mentioned in the above paragraph, such a case is both rare and very challenging to do so. I believe it is a courageous opinion to resist going to war in most cases, as if people refuse to go to war, they either become a social outcast at best case and at worst case be imprisoned and harm may come to them and their families. That being said, if almost no people were to agree to fight in war, there may be disastrous consequences. Powerful countries would be able to take smaller countries easily with no resistance. However, such a case is rare due to social identity theory, where most people feel an intense connection to their homeland, a group they are in, so they will likely in most of the case be willing to fight for said homeland.

While I think it is rare for a war to be just, I think it is easier for a soldier to be just on the battlefield. To disagree with McMahan, often those fighting in a war were drafted and forced or coerced into fighting. Even if there is no draft, many were likely forced into the military due to economic reasons or cultural reasons forcing them into it. It is thus unjust in my opinion to tell soldiers who are forced into fighting for their lives that they are the ones doing harm as it ignores the fact that most soldiers would not like to fight in the wars they are fighting. In war, it depends on a soldier’s actions on whether they are just – such as if they are only killing combatants and not civilians. If there are a set of rules like jus in bello, I feel that soldiers are more likely to follow them, given that the military tends to be a place of strict authority, so soldiers are often unlikely to not follow orders. There needs to be rules about who can and cannot be attacked. It is best said by the Encyclopedia of Philosophy “punching another individual is not morally supportable in a civilized community, but those who voluntarily enter the boxing ring renounce their right to not be hit” (Jus in bello and Jus post bellum) - there needs to be rules so that innocent people to not fall victim to warfare.

I appreciate the thoughtful response you gave on the topic of just war theory firstly. From your perspective, I noticed that war may be justified only on infrequent occasions, in self-defense or to prevent atrocities like genocide. Like you said in your piece, there is an inherent confusion within the rules of jus ad bellum, and therefore our efforts at applying a uniform judgment about the justness of wars are complicated and nuanced. Each of those justifications gets interpreted differently by each nation to fit their narratives. Your claim about the courage to stand in resistance in unjust wars really struck a chord. From my perspective, there is immense social coercion and personal consequence for those who would bear the mantle of dissent. As you noted, though, if enough citizens were to refuse to fight, that could create some void of power, which a larger nation could exploit. I also appreciate how you have distinguished the justice of a war with the behavior of soldiers while in combat. Most soldiers are not there by choice, and adherence to laws like jus in bello is of great importance in order for them not to cause civilian casualties. Setting up an ethical framework in warfare itself is important to maintain humanitarian ends; hence, this view is totally supported. Your comprehension adds a lot to this multifaceted discussion.