learntoquestion ltq discussions

Questions to Consider:

Please craft a well written response that incorporates what we have discussed as a class and your own views on Just War Theory. You should also refer directly to the readings linked below as well, including at least one quote for reference to at least one of the readings in your response. You can choose to focus on one of the question sets, or to incorporate several of them into your response.

1. Is war always wrong or can the use of large-scale, organized violence sometimes be justified? Is the intrinsicism model (war is morally wrong) or the consequentialism model (war is not morally wrong if the outcome is just) more realistic for the modern world? Does Just War Theory, particularly the permissible reasons for war (jus ad bellum), act as a bridge between the two philosophical ideas? How?

2. If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, should citizens refuse to participate in the war effort? Does it take more courage not to fight in defense of your nation or is it cowardice to fight in a war you believe is morally wrong? What are the consequences though if each citizen acts only according to his own moral compass when a nation is at war? Are those consequences realistic for a nation to endure?

3. The philosopher Jeff McMahan has argued that “we must stop reassuring soldiers that they act permissibly when they fight in an unjust war, provided that they conduct themselves honorably on the battlefield.” Do you agree or disagree with McMahan’s idea? Can soldiers act morally and honorably during wartime, even if the greater cause they are fighting for is unjust? Do the rules of war (jus in bello) assist soldiers to act morally? How?

Word Count Requirement: 500-750 words

Readings to Reference:

Please refer to the ideas, either using a quote or paraphrasing, from at least one of the readings in your response.

Excerpt 1: Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum (Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Excerpt 2: Just War Theory-Jus In Bello and Jus Post Bellum (Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

In Between War and Peace (Facing History and Ourselves)

Rubrics to Review:

LTQ Rubric

Although war is inherently wrong and destructive, sometimes large-scale, organized violence can be justifed, particularly in instances of justice, self-defense and retaliation from initiating acts of aggression such as physical injuries, insults, and trade embargos, or to pre-empt an anticipated attack. This is especially true when all other forms of solution have already been attempted, and the last resort is the declaration of warfare. It also may be justified through reasonable success and if the desired end was proportional to the means used, all key aspects of jus ad bellum. The consequentialist and intrisicist models are viable mindsets that attempt to classify morality during warfare, but both possess faults, and fail to perfectly categorize events of all wars, since each in history has been fought with different circumstances, participants, reasons, and time periods. The article “Just War Theory - Jus Ad Bellum” from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes, “Consequentialism is an open-ended model, highly vulnerable to pressing military or political needs to adhere to any code of conduct in war: if more will be gained from breaking the rules than will be lost, the consequentialist cannot but demur to military ‘necessity.’ On the other hand, intrinsicism can be so restrictive that it permits no flexibility.” However, the former is more realistic in warfare, and has been witnessed throughout history for the sake of minimizing overall destruction and not prolonging warfare if the ends can be achieved more easily and efficiently. These actions might be labeled as unlawful, but it’s wishful thinking to believe morality can be pursued in all aspects of warfare, especially since the nature of war itself is immoral. Moreover, if a nation wages war for unjust reasons, civilians should refuse to participate in the war effort, although this isn’t often reflected in reality. It’s a best-case scenario, as civilians and soldiers often show moral tendencies or obligations to support and defend their country. It takes immense courage, to stand up against the duty to fight in a war that is morally wrong. Individuals who do so could face punishment or ostracism from their society, family members, or friends. But it is also not cowardly for people to fight in defense of one’s nation, even if the war is unjustifiable, because it is the responsibility of those enlisted and conscripted. It would be ideal to eliminate all injustices, but if everyone acted accordingly with their moral compass, the entire country would suffer because there must be those who defend the country and carry out the events that are currently transpiring, as once war is declared it is very hard to impede the consequences. I disagree with the philosopher Jaff McMahan’s statement because ordinary people have no power or impact to determine whether their nation goes to war or not, and oftentimes under different conditions or pressures, people cannot freely choose whether they fight or not. Additionally, once deployed, their job is to fight. If combatants are determined in maintaining honorable behavior throughout the unjust war, however, they should not be blamed for the overall unjustness of the war, since they are actively working towards facilitating morality even in the face of injustice. Moral behavior can be displayed even in an immoral war, depending on the actions of the individual, the actions of those around them, and the choices they make as a combatant.

It is difficult to fully explain whether war is justified. There are many different regulations and rulings that attempt to dictate what gets passed as morally correct; one of the main ideas from excerpt 2 of The Principles of Jus In Bello is that “a nation fighting an unjust cause may still fight justly.” The belief is that organized violence is justified if it is done to a minimum and with the morally correct intent.However, they go on to describe how even with this principle “for what does it matter, it can be asked, if a nation wages a war of aggression but does so cleanly?” (2). Essentially, they explain how there is no sure or guaranteed way to figure out if the actions level up to the same severity, especially when there are ways to manipulate situations to look “cleanly.” These regulations are way too broad, making it difficult to keep things in line. Justification is tougher when there are no strict protocols on it. Organized violence can never be justified, however, there can still be a solid explanation and reasoning behind it. A lot of the rulings are explanations as to why wars run. the way they do. Minimizing the violence is always a goal, there is only so much you can do. This theory attempts to provide a bridge between the two ideas, but doesnt do it successfully. The Intrinsicists believe that all kinds of war should be dissipated, while consequentialists believe that the outcome is more important than the measure taken. Minimal amount of violence is still violence, and goes against the ideas of intrinsicism. To consequentialists, they aren’t necessarily seeking out violence, but if those are the steps necessary, then that's the risk they’re willing to take.

It takes an equal amount of courage to not fight as well as to fight in wars you believe are morally wrong. When standing up against the war, you place yourself in an out group. A group that is often a majority and a safety net. You are also disobeying the power, which can be extremely difficult seen through the Obedience Theory. People want to feel included, and find it necessary to have a group of people. This is why separating yourself from the war and those powers takes a large amount of courage. At the same time, fighting in the war takes courage. It is courageous to place yourself so close to imminent danger, but that idea is just surface level. As seen through the idea of cognitive dissonance, people often bend their morals to fit into a majority, which can lead to negative views of oneself, or enhance the ones that are already present. Within war, there are different groups of people that can request to be taken out of the war, some that don’t. The individuals that don’t are also separating themselves from their in group. These groups can change based on the situations; for example some people choose this because it disagrees with their morals, while some do it because it goes against their religion. Making this decision, you are abandoning one group for another. It takes a lot of courage to abandon your safety nets for another, separating yourself from the world you know.

In certain contexts, I believe that war doesn’t always have to be recognized as wrong or morally incorrect. For example, if war is sparked through an act of self-defense, then I wouldn’t consider it something that is wrong. It’s unrealistic to think most countries won’t protect their people because “war is considered to be something wrong”. This ties into the idea of the consequentialism model. The more realistic ideology would definitely be the consequentialism model because of its less extreme view on war. In the modern war, war is still prominent and if the intrinsicism model was being followed, there wouldn’t be any war to begin with. The Just War Theory serves as a bridge that connects the two models by introducing the “justification of how and why wars are fought”, because, in reality, that is what the consequentialism and intrinsicism models discuss (further detailed in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy) (1). The Just War Theory dives into the purpose and effects of limiting certain kinds of warfare through international agreements like the Geneva and Hague conventions to limit moral and economic damages that are so prevalent in war. Another type of convention or idea associated with the Just War Theory is the Jus Ad Bellum convention, which are principles that limit the justifiable reasons to engage in warfare. These principles include: having just cause, being a last resort, being declared by a proper authority, processing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end bring proportional to the means used. All of these rope back into the consequentialism model because it is a more realistic take on warfare and how countries would genuinely act during times of extreme conflict.

If a nation engages in war for unjust reasons, citizens shouldn’t participate in the war, however, we know that more often than not, this does not happen. Citizens of countries that participate in war will usually be swept by the mob and almost forced to think a certain way. For example, in the Between Peace and War article, it states that some Germans felt that “[they] recognize no parties; only Germany” (2). The German people wanted to follow the Kaiser and the Kaiser believed that there was only one goal in life: to protect and serve mother Germany regardless of what comes after. In this case, it takes a lot of courage not to fight in a war that is morally wrong. It’s safe to assume that a person who doesn’t participate in war, especially an eligible man, will undergo a lot of pressure and receive threats. On the other hand, participating in war that a person believes is morally wrong to avoid threats can be seen as cowardice, however, they are still fighting in a war, so it balances out. If everyone were to stick to their morals during war, nothing would get done and there would be a huge lack of unity, which is an unrealistic environment for a country to strive in, especially during war.

I agree with McMahan’s idea. Although a soldier can be seen as heroic or courageous for fighting a war, if it’s an unjust war, it can be seen as cowardice. Depending on the perspective that you’re looking from, a soldier can be seen as acting morally correct during an unjust war. However, the act of participating in the winning side of an unjust war is morally incorrect within itself. The rules of war serve as a guideline for soldiers to act morally. If a soldier were to take the time to reassess what he was doing and abided by the guidelines, it would assist them to act with more morality by taking the lives of others into account.

War can sometimes be justified when it is classed as self-defense or there was a just cause for it. Realistically, war is inevitable because we live in a world where there are strong people with strong senses of nationalism, who will go to extremes to protect their own people. While war is inevitable, it does not mean that every war is just. Like the principles of Jus In Bello says, “a nation fighting an unjust cause may still fight justly, or a nation fighting a just cause may be said to fight unjustly” (Excerpt 2). Having a just cause can be a little difficult to interpret because everyone has different views, but I think the most important factor is the intentions of starting the war. If it were out of self-defense and is deemed to be beneficial to most, I would consider that a just cause. However if the war is fought in an unjust way, I wouldn’t consider it justified. To fight a just war, only the soldiers active in the war should be involved. Even if someone was a former soldier, they shouldn’t be involved, even if they hold valuable knowledge or any of the sort. I also agree with the fact that wars should be fought proportionally because any unnecessary violence would not be considered just. This aligns more with the consequentialist model because war is not morally wrong if it is for a just cause and fought justly. If the war is able to adhere to the principles of Jus Ad Bellum, Jus In Bello and Jus Post Bellum, I think it is able to be justified.

If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, citizens should be able to refuse to participate in the war effort. If the citizen thinks that the reason for war is wrong, they should have the right to refuse to fight, even if it means providing little support off the battlefield. This would also be better for the military because having people that don’t want to fight on the battlefield is arguably worse than having less people fight. Having people who don’t aren’t willing to fight on the battlefield will only slow everything down, therefore citizens should be able to refuse. It takes more courage to refuse to fight than to fight a war you think is morally wrong. To refuse to fight in a war in defense of your nation takes a mental toll on the person and will last a lifetime. If someone were to refuse to fight, they will be seen as the outsider and will possibly face challenges even when the war is over. Choosing to fight in the war even though you think it is morally wrong will take a mental and physical toll on you in the moment, but you would be able to fit in with everyone else. Like the social conformity theory states, people prefer to fit in with a group even if they know their ideals are wrong. There will be less of a mental toll for if you fought in the war, therefore making it more courageous to be in the outgroup and not fight. Despite the fact that it would be great to let citizens refuse to participate in the war effort, it wouldn’t be realistic for that to be the case. If citizens are given too much free choice during a war, it will ultimately make things more chaotic. There will be people that choose to not participate, but there will also be those who go to the extremes. Stopping those who go to the extremes will be difficult to do in a just way, so it would be unrealistic for a nation to get that amount of freedom.

War can originate from a just cause, and be carried out justly, and as such is inherently justifiable under certain pretenses. There is something to be said about unnecessary loss of life or the destruction of entire communities, and the unfathomable toll that they take on those afflicted. But what lies at the heart of war -- a just war -- is rather the opposite of this: it sprouts from a desire to protect. It is not only “permissible” for a state to take all measures that ensure the livelihoods of its people, but an obligation. It is, of course, still “wrong” to harm fellow humans, to take up arms against those that we consider opposition, to use violence as a means of resolution -- it is “wrong” because they are actions so detrimental and catastrophic, such an all-encompassing force that can not simply be stopped once it has begun rolling. To go to war is to concede a moral high ground, to understand grave consequences, and to pursue the outcome all the same. But this notion of going to war should not suggest some innate evil -- it is, sometimes, simply the ultimatum that we must rightly choose. Meeting aggression with aggression can, and should, be done with only the purest of intentions -- as “pure” as the intention of violence can be. To name a few instances, a state can be faced with invasion from a hostile force, or its population threatened by external conflict, and it is entirely just for them to respond with the waging of war. When all options are exhausted, when the absence of war means the total collapse of a state, the conflict becomes not a question of morality, but an understanding that doing a bad thing does not mean a bad person. The Just War Theory explores a concept adjacent to this, in which it deduces that war can be carried out through “fair, reasonable” means, as well as kept away from “truly” evil actions or intentions. Excerpt 1, in particular, summarizes the parameters through which this theory modifies war, saying as follows: “a just war should be doing so for the cause of justice and not for reasons of self-interest or aggrandizement” (3). The ideas that this excerpt develops coincide with the basis that war is a carefully balanced scale, one that can be set off by the most subtle of infractions, and as such should be mindfully, gracefully handled. War is not viable when it is used as a means of expanding one’s honor or authority, or when the forces that are drawn on far outweigh the situations in which they are used, or produce far too staggering results for what it might have otherwise. The Just War Theory, as this excerpt examines, is the code through which war can be taken as “justifiable” -- when it is an exhaustive solution for a threatened state, carried out through defensible, humane means, it is to be considered the only instance through which war is acceptable. It’s important to recognize the Just War Theory to not only reevaluate past conflicts or those going forward, but to coincide with what we inherently believe to be evil.

I think we need a combination of consequentialist and intrinsic thinking when we analyze the motives and morality of war. War will always be the wrong approach to dealing with disagreements, and even atrocities, but its connection to the concept of human nature deems it inevitable. We must learn to realize that war is wrong but may be the right decision in certain instances. In addition to exhausting other options and protecting the innocent, I think the most justifiable reason for war is understanding if an unresolved issue will cause more harm than the war itself. Looking back over history, when we examine justifiable wars it always comes back to World War 2. The reason for this is that if the Nazi party had not intervened, the atrocities would have been greater than the war's death toll. This is what has deemed the war as justifiable and connects back to the just war theories justifiable reasons. In the German Social Democratic Party's statement, they wrote 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”. This statement highlights how human nature determines what individuals do in the case of war. We often act according to the rules of who we are fighting for thus protecting our “in group”, even when we know what the right thing to do is and the consequences. This is what makes war so complex. Although the statements in the quotation from the German Social Democratic Party are somewhat controversial and nationalistic, I agree that the constant discussion whether war is right or wrong is “not for us to decide”. If each individual, or even nation, only acts by their own moral compass and personal opinions on war, it would lead to too many opinions circulating, which would cause more harm than good. Setting written rules like the Geneva Conventions and philosophical rules like Just War Theory show how the human race tries to create just wars with the knowledge of war's inevitability. This is also why I believe people should not particpate in war efforts if they do not believe in the war itself, because people absent from the war's ideology and principle would make the war more complex and less efficient.

I think soldiers can fight morally and honorably for an unjust war because they are only acting on orders from a higher power. Even when soldiers submit to malicious orders, they can be haunted by their actions and suffer from post traumatic stress disorder. The rules of war, jus ad bello, do not teach soldiers how to properly act in war. In some instances, they are intentionally taught to mistreat the enemy, like in the Vietnam War, but many soldiers are against the actions encouraged. On another note, I think war has unconsciously contributed to a lot of societal issues, particularly in regard to the concept of gender roles. Traditionally, fighting in wars has been attributed with masculinity, and even toxic masculinity, and staying home has been attributed to femininity. Because participating in war and not participating in war are both difficult, I think there requires an element of courage no matter what position you take.

I believe that war-organized violence isn’t always wrong because I think that war becomes wrong as soon as the group who indicated war goes past the point in which they start harming others that weren’t towards their original goal. An example of this is shown in Excerpt 1: Just War Theory- Jus Ad Bellum. It states, “If nation A invades a land belonging to the people of nation B, then B has just cause to take the land back. According to the principle of proportionality, B’s counter-attack must not invoke a disproportionate response: it should aim to retrieve its land and not exact further retribution or invade the aggressor’s lands, or in graphic terms it should not retaliate with overwhelming force or nuclear weaponry to resolve a small border dispute.” This creates an example of the line one has to cross for what they do to become morally unjust. There is a very big idea and a contrast between what makes a war ethically right. Using military excuses to kill out people defeats the purpose of morality. The ideas of an intrinsicists and consequentialists greatly differ in the sense that consequentialists think more about the outcome and the problems of what can happen when one does a certain during war. The flaw with both of them is that they can still leave people with a broad framework of what is ethical or not. I think that our country, along with the whole world, use both intrinsicism and conequentialism because powers sometimes do things for their own benefit instead of considering the problems of what can follow, but the government sometimes has a play in constricting a certain level or extent to that violence. I think that it sometimes depends on what people think the limit to said actions is, how selfless they can be. If they don’t consider the lives of others while fighting a war, that is completely unjust. Along with that point, there is a major difference in fighting a war for the win versus fighting for a cause. One can start a war just to feel that success or power in occupying others and creating a sense of fear.

I think that there is a big difference between being patriotic and being a conscientious objector. One can be patriotic and love their country but not want to fight in war. I believe it is cowardice in a way to fight in a war one believes is morally wrong. Even though one might not have the choice on whether or not they should fight in the war, killing people because a “group majority” or a “single government” said to do so is the cowardly part of doing so. The problem of each citizen acting according to his moral compass when a nation is at war is that one can be completely selfless and another can be selfish which can cause unnecessary deaths. People are quickly swayed by a majority as well and fear is a main motive for actions. This is depicted in the piece Between Peace and War when it states, “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. On July 28, 1914, the German Social Democratic Party, then the largest political party in the world, held a huge public meeting that ended with cries of “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.” This shows the great impact of being easily persuaded by the majority, therefore showing that one can’t always be trusted to make a decision that can have great impact to it.

The question around whether war is always going to be wrong, or, actually is something that can be justifiable, is a complex and difficult issue to consider. At the bottom of this question, two dominant perspectives exist, intrinsicism and consequentialism. Intrinsicism suggests that war is inherently morally wrong, regardless of its various possible outcomes. This perspective emphasizes its belief in the value of human life and the ethical implications of violence. It also argues that engaging in war violates many fundamental moral principles. On the other hand, consequentialism determines the morality of war based on its outcomes and consequences. From this point of view, if the consequences of war lead to an overall greater good in the world, such as the protection of human rights, the prevention of genocide, the establishment of world peace, technological and medical advances, new treaties, or many other things, then war may be considered justifiable. In terms of the world today and how we as humans tend to behave, consequentialism often seems like a more realistic approach to war. Given the complex and difficult nature of international relations, security concerns, and other such situations, many can argue that the consequences of inaction can be just as severe as those of action. For example, interventions in certain conflicts to prevent atrocities can be considered as morally justified from a consequentialist point of view.

Just War Theory defines moral guidelines when it comes to warfare, whether it is who should be deemed a legitimate target, how people should be treated, or what is considered an acceptable use of force. However, the Just War Theory also provides a structure that can bridge the gap between intrinsicism and consequentialism. Providing outlines of specific conditions under which war can be deemed justifiable, particularly through the principles of jus ad bellum and jus in bello, Just War Theory requires that the intention behind the war should be to promote good or avoid evil. It must also be backed up by a significant probability of success, which emphasizes the need for a reasonably fair chance of success to prevent severe casualties and loss of life. Additionally, the principles of last resort and proportionality specify that all nonviolent options must be considered and attempted before resorting to warfare, and the anticipated benefits of the war must be reasonably proportionate to the harmful consequences of the war. In the text Between Peace and War, in a letter that philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote, it says; “The greatest difficulty was the purely psychological one of resisting mass suggestion, of which the force becomes terrific when the whole nation is in a state of collective excitement.” This reflects the importance of critical moral reasoning in the face of societal pressures, which is a significant idea of the Just War Theory that emphasizes the justification of reasons needed for engaging in war.

Overall, while intrinsicism appears as a powerful perspective and makes a clear and effective point against war based on ethical principles, consequentialism offers a more practical perspective that acknowledges and is more up-to-date with the realities of modern conflicts. Just War Theory acts as a connecting structure, guiding decisions about the war in a way that can align with both of the moral philosophies, seeking to ensure that any path to violence is thoroughly and carefully considered and justified. Ultimately, this theory allows for a moral evaluation of war that considers both the intrinsic moral opinions regarding violence and the potential just outcomes of conflict.

I believe that war is not always wrong, but then again not every war is justifiable. The act of war must have a reason in order to be justifiable, one example of this would be protecting one's country in order to have freedom and or people for their civilians. In today's age we follow a consequentialism model. This is because we support war if the reason behind it is morally just. However as a society, a commonality we share is that a war is not considered just if those who are not participating, for example, civilians, are harmed and are treated unfairly. I believe that jus in bello does serve as a bridge between the two ideas. This is because it allows for principles to be followed to create a just war (consequential) but explains intrinsic values if these principles are not followed.

I think it depends on the citizen whether or not to participate in an unjust war. If the situation is that they would be safe if they were not involved then they should not participate. Like for example if a citizen lived in an authoritarian society where it was not allowed to not contribute to the war then I believe that is just. However this does not excuse them for their behavior it gives an explanation as to why, still in this situation they would be a perpretator. I believe that if they are not in a situation where they are required to participate in an unjust war then the citizens should not partake in the activities. I think it does take courage to not partake in a war that you find as morally wrong. Connecting to unit one, in society and mass movements we tend to find ourselves agreeing with the majority and having an ingroup. If considering that your nation is the ingroup in this society it is very challenging to break away from this group. If each citizen were to act for their own personal morals then there would not be unity of mass movements for war given this lack of unity. I believe this would also lead to a lot of internalized problems within the nation since there would be a lot of contradictions between ideas given each person's individuality. I believe that it is normal to have internalized problems within a nation since we have constantly seen that throughout history. However it is not realistic for a nation to endure this because constant internal problems would result in the decline of a nation.

The rules in jus in bello bello assist soldiers to act morally. If a soldier were to act following the rules and values mentioned in jus in bello bello then their actions would be explained and more justifiable for the reasons why they were acted upon. However it does not make the actions committed morally correct as soldiers are still responsible and have to take accountability for their actions. However it does assist soldiers to act morally because it allows for actions considered “ unjust” to be justified if they follow the rules of jus in bello.

The concept of intrinsicism and consequentialism is very interesting to me. While I can see why people would want to follow the intrinsic model, sadly it is not fundamentally realistic in the real world at all. Consequentialism is more realistic for the real world because it does not view any situation as immediately black or white. The intrinsic model leaves a lot of room for error or lost opportunities, while the consequentialist model takes everything about any given situation into account. I believe that the ability to weigh pros and cons in the consequentialist model makes more sense in the real world to truly consider what has to be done to get the desired outcome. “... there are those of a more skeptical persuasion who do not believe that morality can or should exist in war. Its very nature precludes ethical concerns.” This quote stood out to me because I do agree with it. The heavy topic of ethics in Just War Theory seems to forget about the extremely wide range of personal morals. Everyone has a different moral character that was most likely shaped by the people they were around since birth. War in itself is a violent, cost heavy tactic that has little to no room for morals because if there is any hesitation in someone like a soldier, they could be killed. Morality in war can be the main preventative measure for war crimes, but it can also be the main hurdle people have to jump over if something is required to be done for the sake of the country fighting. This is why I think it takes more courage to fight in a war no matter if you think it is just or not, than to abstain from fighting at all. While I can understand both sides of the argument because sticking to your morals in what you believe is right and wrong, and disregarding the majority of your nation doing the opposite takes a great deal of strength, it is still not the same as physically fighting in a war. Staying in a country during a war they are involved in, in itself is very brave, but going to fight in a war requires a level of courage not many have. All hours of the day that you are out there fighting in war you are constantly faced with the threat of death at any moment. While some conscientious-objectors were killed, there were a good amount who were just put in prison, which in comparison to fighting in a war is not as bad. I am definitely biased in regards to this question because there are some veterans in my family, but I still think from an objective standpoint physically going to fight in a war requires more courage than to not fight. I think however, that if every person had the choice to be a conscientious objector due to moral values, not including the people who have religious reasons, there would most likely either not be that many wars fought, or a lot more would die because no one would be fighting for their nation. Any question about Just War Theory posed only gives way to a lot more what ifs because it is such a controversial topic.