learntoquestion ltq discussions

If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, citizens should not support their country despite any patrioticism or nationalism due to the cause being wrong. This also forces their country to stop fighting since they do not have sufficient support from their own civilians. Included in the rules of war, proportional fighting, the country and the people would most benefit if the war is stopped while not much has happened since the country who is being attacked would only be able to fight proportionally to the attack and would only get the lands back which were invaded from them. This would avoid a lot of unnecessary bloodshed from both sides since a country that is attacked would likely have allies and if the war is unjust, many other countries would likely join in and be sided with the opposite side. This means that even if a country fighting for an unjust cause is able to dominate, they would most likely ultimately be taken down and would have to pay reparations to several countries, face harsh sanctions, and deal with a weakened army and economy. There is a lot of difficulty in refusing to fight for the war and it can be near impossible to have the majority of citizens refuse to participate in a war, despite it even being a morally wrong war. The difficulty originates from the sense of fear people have of being punished by their government, this then leads to many people in the society to have the same views and be forced to participate in the war simply to not get in trouble. This then causes a psychological impact similar to what is said in the Mass Society Theory. People start going with the crowd and begin fearing being left out or excluded from everyone else. Furthermore, this causes a person to involuntarily begin accepting and having the same views as the rest of the crowd. All these factors make it very difficult for people to refuse to fight a war which is why there seems to be more courage needed for people to refuse fighting a war than to go and fight it. The consequences of each citizen acting only according to their own moral compass during war can include a division among the people which can be very harmful for the nation as people should be most united during a time of conflict and war. This division could also have a consequence of an unstable government which is not onlky bad internally but also externally as it can be so weak that the country could easily be defeated by other countries, despite fighting for a just or unjust cause. I believe that it is most beneficial for people to all agree as much as possible on whether the act of their government going into war is justifiable or not, and if not, to decide if it is beneficial for the people of the country to go against their government at the specific stage of war they are in, or if the consequences will be harsher to endure and decide the best outcome for the people.

I do not believe that war is always wrong since there are many factors that play into waging war. The idea that war is bad and never to participate in it, is too simple and unrealistic. I also do not believe that war is organized violence because it is humans taking the lives of other humans which goes against the beliefs in which I was raised. I think that the intrinsic model is not necessarily wrong in some situations when you have no right to wage a war, but if you are being wrongfully attacked then you have the right to defend yourself. As for the consequentialist model, I believe that the first attempt to end the war should be peaceful instead of trying to resort to violence, of course, unless violence is the other’s first move. I believe that the consequentialist side is more realistic as it looks at war in the bigger picture instead of the intrinsic model which is more black and white. I do think that the Just War Theory does provide a bridge between the two philosophies but not a strong bridge as it can still be easily manipulated.

If a nation wages war for the wrong reasons, and is not justifiable it will depend on what the citizens of that country think. For example, if the U.N. decides that a war is unjust but that country and those people truly believe that they are in the right, they might not listen to the rest of the world and act out regardless. Now if the citizens of that country do believe that the war their country is waging is wrong then they should be able to refuse to participate, but of course, this can also be seen as treason. This begs the question of why bother becoming a citizen if you are not willing to fight for it. You resemble the elite during wars that only wish to reap the benefits of being a part of a country but not willing to aid it in times of difficulty. I believe that whether you are seen as a coward or courageous person depends on your environment since if you are surrounded by patriotic and nationalistic people they will encourage the enlisting of adults to war, but if you are raised in a less nationalistic environment it will be more courageous to deny enlisting. The consequences of each citizen acting according to their own moral compass leads to the collapse of a country/nation because they are no longer unified.

In a way, I agree with McMahan’s idea that it is still morally wrong to participate in an unjust war no matter what, but it is not wrong to still hold oneself to a higher standard and act accordingly. Maybe at least then it can prevent a war from going from bad to worse and prevent more war crimes. I do think that a soldier can act morally and honorably during an unjust war because their enlistment may not have been by choice, so therefore they may not see the need to take extreme measures to ensure victory.

I don’t think war is always wrong and therefore don’t believe in the intrinsicism model. It doesn’t take into account the small nuances and reasons behind war. If all war is bad does that mean that a country shouldn’t fight against oppressive powers? By the intrinsicism model they shouldn’t, and I don’t think that’s fair to the smaller power. At the same time however, I don’t think that all wars are just. That’s where consequentialism comes in, where basically a war is just if the ends justify the means. I prefer this model because it isn’t black and white and provides more leeway for the countries participating in the war. Using my earlier example, a consequentialist wouldn’t automatically condemn a country fighting for their rights or fighting against oppressors, instead they’d consider why their fighting and take that into consideration along with how they are fighting. Just War Theory does act as a bridge between the two and I think it works well enough. It isn’t a perfect system, but it gives space for the opinions of both sides to be acknowledged. The convention of war being a last resort satisfy instrinsicists who don’t support war no matter what. At least given this they can feel better about the war seeing that it was the best course of action in the situation. Having a just cause is another factor that I think is geared towards intrinsicists because it serves as a justification for the war. Even if someone may not support war, they can understand the reasoning and see it as less wrong. The conventions of the chance of success and declaration by a valid authority exist to appeal to consequentialists, giving them the structure they seek to gauge and justify a war.

I think it would be nice to believe that people would refuse to fight in bad wars, but we all know that isn’t the case. There are so many other factors including societal pressures, ignorance, and government pressure. Most people wouldn’t be able to stand out in a group like that, even if they didn’t believe in what they were fighting for. It definitely takes more courage to choose to not fight in a war you don’t believe in than to fight for one you don’t. It’s especially hard for men because their masculinity is put into question if they don’t want to go to war. Many of the political comics we looked at in class showed that conscientious objectors were viewed as less than and looked down on by other men. This is another reason why it’s more courageous to be a conscientious objector. The people who fight against wars always face social and political consequences. Their social image is hurt and it could cost them financially like in the case of Muhummad Ali. This isn’t to say that soldiers fighting in war don’t face their own battles, they often come back traumatized and could end up hurt or disabled. Many don’t even make it home at all. Both paths bring their own consequences, but at least veterans are somewhat respected in society and don’t face the social scrutiny that objectors do. Despite everything I’ve said above, if everyone prioritized their personal beliefs, nothing would get done within a country. If a nation is in a position of peril and needs to go to war, the government can’t listen to the opinions of every citizen, they need to prioritize the nation as a whole. It’s important that very few people are allowed to be conscientious objectors because in the end, countries need soldiers for war. They can’t defend themselves if no one is there to fight, willing or not.

Although starting a war is almost always morally wrong due to its aggressive nature, there are ways in which it can be justified. For example, wars of self-defense are almost universally accepted as justified. But despite the reason for going to war, large scale and organized violence resulting in the destruction of civilian life cannot be justified due to its negligence towards the value of human life. In a perfect world, wars wouldn’t be needed and countries could trust that the other would hold up just war theory and respect the parameters of war crimes. However, since humans are bound to act in their own self-interests, this isn't realistic and unfortunately, wars do happen and just war theory is not upheld. Due to this arguments based on people's individual morality can be made for both the intrinsicism model and the consequentialism model. I think that for the most part, the intrinsicism model should be followed as closely as possible for each country to maintain its integrity. However, a major flaw of the intrinsicism model is the lack of creativity it allows for, it follows a much more black and white path where what's wrong is wrong with no exceptions. In the context of a war, this can prove to be incredibly troublesome as we don't live in a perfect world and the enemy either needs to be destroyed or will destroy us. This leads the intrinsicism model to be somewhat hypocritical, if one follows it and doesn't win the war at the expense of innocents, they are likely to be defeated using the very tactics they avoided.

This would lead most to see that a consequentialist model is more realistic than an intrinsicism model in the modern world. However, the consequentialist model has a fatal flaw of not recognizing civilians as outsiders of the war. A war is not fought between civilians of states, but rather their militaries, and to kill someone as a contingency is not only inhumane, but barbaric and illegal, and as Socrates said “without rules, we are nothing but animals.” To be inhumane and animals is the complete opposite of modern so the idea of consequentialism being realistic for the modern world is quite contradictory.

For the modern world, the intrinsicism model can be followed if the laws against war crimes become stricter and are upheld more consistently, without the superpowers of the world receiving preferential treatment as they do in many cases of war crimes. In excerpt 1: Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, this idea is elaborated on where “despite the emphasis on abiding by war’s conventions, war crimes continue.” For an international network of states to work together, everyone has to be held to an equal standard, and if and only if that is achieved, then the intrinsicism model can work in favor of everyone. So contrary to the common idea that the intrinsicism model is unrealistic in a modern society, I think the intrinsicism model is incredibly realistic and would be effective if society was truly as modern as we think it is.