learntoquestion ltq discussions

War is wrong unless it's the last resort to solving an important issue. The best ways of rationalizing war are self-defense and for a cause such as stopping a crime against humanity. An example of the first rationale, self-defense, is Belgium fighting the German Empire in World War I in order to not lose land, sovereignty, and other things. An example of the second rationale is when the U.S. and other Allies invaded Nazi Germany-occupied Europe in order to free the countries and peoples whose lands and lives were being ravaged by the Germans, plus to stop the increasing amount of deaths from the Holocaust, a crime against humanity done by the Germans. These are the two most-reasonable rationales for creating war.

In comparison between the two ideologies on which is better to view the subject of war, the most practical one for modern times, and possibly for the past too, is consequentialism. This is because many actions could be inherently or by default “bad” but could be justified because of their outcome or the context in which they occurred. An example of this would be if someone ran over a person on the highway. This is immediately viewed negatively because it involves taking a life. However, if not hitting the person meant swerving into a truck carrying a tank of gasoline, causing that truck to crash and explode on the highway, then the former option would be the optimal scenario. In war, this type of choice must be made often. Oftentimes, the wrong outcome occurs, even if a just outcome was intended. Leaders may not know everything about the places they attack and that leads them into trouble.

I agree with McMahan’s idea that we can’t make soldiers think that they have permission to do immoral things while serving, even if those actions are accompanied by good manners and respect. This is because a lot of times people will be swept up in the crowd and whatever the crowd does. This ties in to mob mentality. This is the notion that peoples’ bad behavior, decisions, and actions are all magnified in large groups. This has occurred many times throughout the world. Groups often unify under one person, then when that person takes responsibility for the wrongdoings, that person’s followers are more than happy to carry out the deed.

I don’t believe Jus Ad Bellum stops unjust wars from happening but it does encourage better behavior and ethics during war. This is because many countries will follow the guidelines of Just War Theory, but their soldiers on the ground may do wrong things that are against the rules. This then leads to trials of course. “Just war theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought” (excerpt 1). Without this, nations would have zero desire to be good to each other during wars, and there’d be problems similar to those in the First World War that would occur on the battlefield. This is the extent of the effect of Just War Theory.

Originally posted by glitterseashell1234 on October 21, 2024 17:57

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.

This post was extremely informative, and it made me take up different viewpoints. A compelling argument in the first paragraph was how the most justifiable reason for war is if it causes less harm than an issue unresolved. This made me realize how certain issues that cause wars could eventually lead to damage and destruction even without the war, making that war justifiable. They related it to the Nazi party, and the idea that the atrocoties would be greater if they had not intervened in WWII. Another point brought up, which was similar to what I talked about in my LTQ, was the fact that war is extremely complex, and that if every country abided by their own rules, then it would make for a dangerous war ideology. I believe the systems should be more explicit in their war theories, so there is no bias. I also agree that people who don’t believe in the idea of the war should not have to fight it, because our morals should come before our patriatism, because us as individuals should be able to decide what we fight for. I like how they used realistic examples from our history to explain certain aspects of their argument, and to help the reader understand the point.

Originally posted by Dale on October 22, 2024 23:19

War is wrong unless it's the last resort to solving an important issue. The best ways of rationalizing war are self-defense and for a cause such as stopping a crime against humanity. An example of the first rationale, self-defense, is Belgium fighting the German Empire in World War I in order to not lose land, sovereignty, and other things. An example of the second rationale is when the U.S. and other Allies invaded Nazi Germany-occupied Europe in order to free the countries and peoples whose lands and lives were being ravaged by the Germans, plus to stop the increasing amount of deaths from the Holocaust, a crime against humanity done by the Germans. These are the two most-reasonable rationales for creating war.

In comparison between the two ideologies on which is better to view the subject of war, the most practical one for modern times, and possibly for the past too, is consequentialism. This is because many actions could be inherently or by default “bad” but could be justified because of their outcome or the context in which they occurred. An example of this would be if someone ran over a person on the highway. This is immediately viewed negatively because it involves taking a life. However, if not hitting the person meant swerving into a truck carrying a tank of gasoline, causing that truck to crash and explode on the highway, then the former option would be the optimal scenario. In war, this type of choice must be made often. Oftentimes, the wrong outcome occurs, even if a just outcome was intended. Leaders may not know everything about the places they attack and that leads them into trouble.

I agree with McMahan’s idea that we can’t make soldiers think that they have permission to do immoral things while serving, even if those actions are accompanied by good manners and respect. This is because a lot of times people will be swept up in the crowd and whatever the crowd does. This ties in to mob mentality. This is the notion that peoples’ bad behavior, decisions, and actions are all magnified in large groups. This has occurred many times throughout the world. Groups often unify under one person, then when that person takes responsibility for the wrongdoings, that person’s followers are more than happy to carry out the deed.

I don’t believe Jus Ad Bellum stops unjust wars from happening but it does encourage better behavior and ethics during war. This is because many countries will follow the guidelines of Just War Theory, but their soldiers on the ground may do wrong things that are against the rules. This then leads to trials of course. “Just war theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought” (excerpt 1). Without this, nations would have zero desire to be good to each other during wars, and there’d be problems similar to those in the First World War that would occur on the battlefield. This is the extent of the effect of Just War Theory.

There are a lot of good use of examples for certain situations that help make your point. The justifications for war are thoughtfully analyzed in your post, focusing on humanitarian intervention and self-defense. I like your take on consequentialism, which forces us to think about the consequences of our actions, especially in the context of war. It emphasizes an understanding of multiple events instead of the concept of black-and-white thinking. I agree with your view on the necessity of ethical considerations in war when you use McMahan's quote. It's interesting how you relate this to mob mentality, showing how people can become irrational in a group environment. This strengthens your argument for the significance of personal responsibility in war, I wrote something similar in my work and I think it’s interesting how morality plays such a big role in society as well as in war. It’s also interesting how that can influence others, who at some point, just want to fit in (conformity). I liked your analogy with the truck and the gasoline, it is a good example of how sometimes decisions are a big part of commitment to war, and how some people think about what can be seen as wrong versus the outcome of it.

Originally posted by Camellia on October 21, 2024 23:04

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.

The most compelling idea I liked about this post is about how the intrinsic point of view is most often times unrealistic and lacks rationality, and often times being black and white when the world is much more complicated and has a lot more layers than just that. Multiple posts would agree that while the intrinsic model is the most ideal, it feels too happy and sunshine and rainbows in order for it to come to fruition. I also found it interesting that you talked about how the consequentialists also have their flaws, showing how both sides aren't fully adequate and sometimes have high expectations for what war should play out like. I fully agree with the idea that the consequentialist model has almost this generalization of who is actually apart and who is not a part of the war, causing a lot of harm and apathy towards civilians who are just like us.

I enjoyed the quote that you embedded into your reflection, referencing Socrates and how he called humans 'animals' without rules. It reminded me of my post and how I mentioned the idea of social conformity theory and without rules the world would be in utter dismay and hysteria. The reason that there are so many rules and constrictions of how countries should treat prisoners of war is to make it so that the two warring countries can go back to peace more efficiently, without major complication. If we were to have no rules, then, as you said, it would seem barbaric and overly petty and spiteful, only causing the war to last even longer than necessary. If I had to suggest feedback, it would be to expand more on this quote since it can be generalized and expanded upon.

Overall, I enjoyed the reflection as it was very easy to follow through and there were a lot of insightful inputs!!

Originally posted by ClockRabbit1191 on October 23, 2024 07:30

When it comes to war it’s not always necessarily wrong. War in some people's minds can be viewed as a very evil thing to do but in some cases it is utterly inevitable or necessary. For instance if your county is being attacked by another country you should have the right to defend yourself. There are some rules in Jus Ad Bellum including that of “Reasonable Success. THis is another necessary condition for waging just war, but again is insufficient by itself. Given just cause and right intention the just war theory assesses that there must be a reasonable probability of success.” meaning you have to be sure you aren’t just causing unnecessary death in your own people. This is one of the biggest factors when it comes to Just war as some of the refusal of war in people stems from this. Wars throughout history have sometimes ended in a bloodbath for one side leading to people dying and even more advocating against war. With all this said war isn’t as black and white as some make it out to be. Countries quote Jus Ad Bellum to justify their reasoning for war even if they are bending the guidelines to get there leading to other countries believing it’s wrong of them to go to war in the first place. In other scenarios countries who are being invaded need to defend themselves and to do this they must wage war against whomever is attacking leading to death. If a nation were to wage war against another the people should decide whether or not they want to fight in it. There are negative effects if this would become a reality as many countries’ armies would turn into complete chaos as most wouldn’t enlist as they believe war to be wrong. This leads to countries fighting a war without enough men. If people act according to their own moral compass then there would be those who go against what their government believes to be right, leading to inner conflict within a country. The tension built up between rich people, government officials and working class people would not be in the county’s best interest as when in war your country wants to have as much cohesion as possible. The consequences of this conflict are massive, when countries fight in war they want to look big, powerful and look to have the same social viewpoint. If a country is fighting amongst themselves they look weaker and easier to take over. So it’s in the country’s best interest to stop the inner conflict and to do this they would have to make their people support the war. Nations aren’t willing to lose a war so that their people can have a moral compass. Losing a war for most countries leads to a massive amount of casualties and these countries aren’t willing to risk that. This is why some countries including Singapore have a rule claiming that their people have to serve in the military. This leads to them looking as a strong complete country, they aren’t a country willing to lose the war for their people’s moral compass.

The idea that I found most compelling in my peer’s post is how some countries can bend the rules of the Jus Ad Bellum in order to justify their reasons for waging war. This can create animosity between that country and others leading to even more problems and chaos. I like how my peer comes to the conclusion that the people should choose whether or not they want to participate in fighting for the country because they are the ones putting their lives on the line. I also agree with the negative effects that are listed since being a country without people who wish to sacrifice for, stops that country from being a nation and is just land with inhabitants. I find it interesting how a country like Singapore which made it a law for its citizens to serve no matter their viewpoint on the matter. You can see this implemented in different countries too, like South Korea or Brasil in order to make sure that their military force is sufficient for times of conflict. Overall I agreed with the post and thought it was well-written but maybe ClockRabbit1191 could dive deeper into the topics like what countries bent the rules in order to wage war, or maybe wars could have been prevented if the citizens had refused to serve in times of war.

Originally posted by crazygoose17 on October 22, 2024 21:01

In my opinion, war is always wrong unless it is waged in self-defense. Not only the costs of war but also destruction of people’s homes, loss of life, and long-term harm caused by war make it a horrible course of action unless it is the only way to protect a country from direct aggression. While Just War Theory offers a rubric to determine when war might be justifiable, I believe it should be interpreted through a strict lens. I do not think any cause for war beyond self-defense, whether for political, economic, or ideological reasons, can be morally justified. Wars fought for conquest or intervention, even when they claim to be for a "greater good," often lead to unnecessary suffering, and I think it’s dangerous to rely on consequentialist thinking in such matters. It opens the door to using violence as a tool to achieve certain outcomes, which changes the moral justification away from the real and necessary protection of life. For me, the principle of jus ad bellum should be rooted solely in defense against aggression. I think that if every nation strictly adhered to self-defense as the only valid cause for war, we would avoid most of the unnecessary conflicts that have plagued history. The quote in Excerpt 1 says “Self-defense against physical aggression, therefore, is putatively the only sufficient reason for just cause,” and that aligns with my belief that wars initiated for purposes other than defense is abuse and manipulation, causing more harm than good. Even when wars are claimed to be humanitarian or to bring about peace, I believe the ends do not justify the means, as violence turns into more violence the majority of the time, leaving long lasting effects on societies. Self-defense, on the other hand, is a basic right and, in my opinion, the only reason a nation or individual can resort to war. I think it’s also a question of integrity if we begin to justify wars that go beyond defense, we risk normalizing violence as a means to achieve goals, which makes it easier to toward justify imperialism and exploitation. Moreover, I resonate with Jeff McMahan’s argument that soldiers should not be reassured that they are acting permissibly when fighting in an unjust war, even if they conduct themselves honorably on the battlefield. Soldiers and citizens alike have a moral responsibility to question the justice of the wars they participate in. I believe that if the cause is not one of self-defense, then participating in the violence still makes one complicit in an unjust cause even given Jus in Bello. In the end, my view on war is grounded in the belief that peace and non-violence should always be the primary goal, and war should only be considered when all other options have failed, and survival is at stake. I see the Just War Theory as a useful guide, but one that should be interpreted in a way that maintains the dignity of human life and resorts to violence in the most extreme cases, which should only be in a case of self defense

I agree with my peer’s post. They talked about how the restrictions of justifiable war reasons should be limited to just self-defense. They also talked about how some of the sociological ideas like jus ad bellum should only be rooted in defense against aggression. I also agree with the claim that the author of the post made about how if every nation adhered to self-defense, then the unnecessary wars would be prevented. A lot of other posts mention how self-defense should be one of the only reasons to wage war and if not, the only reason to wage war. My own views are very similar to what I have read in my peer’s post. Self defense is a basic necessity to survive in global conflicts and sometimes doesn’t end up harming other countries as much as the one(s) you are directly defending yourself against. This reduces all types of damages and in some cases could cause a net benefit for either country. I think the post could benefit from touching on some other topics but I enjoy the depth that they go into the idea of self-defense. All around, all of the points that my peers made were clear and easily understood.

Originally posted by bluewater on October 21, 2024 22:00

I believe that war is not always wrong and that the use of large scale violence can sometimes be justified. In certain cases where people are fighting for a greater good for human rights against an oppressive power, they are justified. But, there are many wars that were said to be for a greater purpose that were unjust. For example, extremely nationalistic countries like Germany and Japan had indoctrinated their people into becoming extremists for their country. They believed they were doing something great for the world which was wrong in the eyes of everyone else in the world. Our views of what is right and wrong in war are all subjective and it varies from person to person. In these previously nationalistic countries, there were people who stood against these beliefs but were forced to engage in these wars for their country. I don’t believe that it is cowardice to be compliant and fight in an unjust war because many of these people were forced to or have other reasons preventing them from backing out. Some soldiers were drafted or forced to fight and if they refused, they would most likely be ridiculed or punished in some way. But, I believe that refusing to fight is an act of courage as this individual is sacrificing their status and self for morals that they believe in. In the past, those who refused to fight would be ridiculed and some would be put to prison for evading military duties. However, if everyone refused to fight because of their beliefs, militaries would not be as large and defensive capabilities would diminish leaving many countries vulnerable. These consequences of respecting everyone’s moral beliefs are not favorable for these countries because if they lack the manpower and resources to protect themselves, then there is a high chance that they can fall victim to a rebellion or I believe that soldiers can act morally during war and control their actions as much as they can. Even in a battlefield, they can still respect other peoples’ lives by paying respect to the dead and treating noncombatants as best as they can. Even if they are fighting for an unjust cause, they can still respect others and behave like a human being rather than as a killing machine. In many wars, people were fueled by propaganda and fear which led to drastic actions. The laws of war assist soldiers to act morally because it provides an unbiased set of rules. In an excerpt from “Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum”, they mention how people of differing nations have different beliefs which may cause them to believe that certain things are acceptable. In this passage they use an example of suicide attacks being seen as honorable by the Japanese during World War 2 and these attacks being seen as shameful acts in other parts of the world. By creating a solid set of rules, it eliminates these possibilities of misinterpretation. The intrincisim model is too positive and does not fit reality as it can easily be exploited by others. The consequentialism model is realistic but I do not think it is morally correct. If we only think about the outcome of things, we don’t think about what we are doing to reach this goal. A combination of these two would be ideal as it keeps one’s humanity while also being realistic and acting accordingly.

I agree with the first statement that large-scale violence can be justified, however, I believe that countries often get carried away with this belief as they think that what they are fighting for is justifiable even if it isn't to the rest of the world. Due to this variation in what is justifiable or not, although violence should be sometimes used, most of the time it is used in the wrong way or for a cause that is in reality unjust. I agree with the idea that countries like Germany and Japan indoctrinate their people to become extremists since we were able to also notice this in class with the Turkish empire after the Armenian genocide and even to this day. This indoctrination could make it complicated for people of the country to see if the actions of their government are good actions which can be justifiable or not since the governments which control their people usually censor and punish those who speak badly in any way of the government. I think that setting up a solid set of rules for war does not eliminate misinterpretation as many cultures in the world are very different from each other and it would be near impossible for everyone to interpret an action committed in war as good or bad.

Originally posted by slaughterhouse5 on October 21, 2024 23:24

Large-scale organized violence can sometimes be justified, but only under very specific conditions. For this reason, I agree more with the consequentialism model, because through the intrinsicism model, one disregards reasons for war that actually make sense and can benefit people overall. Just War Theory provides permissible reasons for war, which contains some ideas from the intrinsicism model - that war and violence is generally wrong - but mostly ideas from the consequentialism model, which states that there are cases in which war can be used for good. Some examples where war is used for good are some revolutions, where the oppressive group refuses to listen to the reasoning of the rebellion group and continues to oppress them. In this case, once peace has been tried but not successful, violence can be used as a way to bring good change to society. The problem with this is that one person’s heroic rebel group is another person’s terrorist group, so any organization could use this exception as an excuse and say that violence is necessary, when many people could strongly disagree. Other justifications for war are when it is necessary to protect the people of a country - an example is that it was okay for Ukraine to go to war against Russia because they needed to protect their country after getting invaded. A problem with this is “preemptive strikes”, where a country attacks one group first in order to prevent violence from being inflicted onto them. Any country that begins a war could claim to be using this justification. If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, it is the citizens’ responsibility to refuse to participate. If everyday citizens fail to act, it has the potential to lead to things like the Holocaust, where millions of people died due to the inactions of everyday people. The decision to not serve one’s country is a difficult decision to make for many people because of the desire to act upon the belief that their country is superior. I believe that it is not only cowardice, but morally wrong and unethical to fight in a war that one believes is unjust. If one believes it is unjust, they know that the pain and suffering that they are inflicting on others is completely unnecessary, and they are choosing to inflict this pain for possibly selfish reasons, such as desire for glory in war. On the other hand, it is very difficult to not partake in nationalist actions, especially when one is surrounded by extreme nationalism in their everyday lives. This extreme nationalism can cause changes in a country's politics, shown by the quote in the Facing History article: “ “I recognize no parties; only Germany.” This quote shows the extreme beliefs of many Germans in the early-mid 1900s. It definitely takes courage to not fight in defense of one’s nation, and it is very important to take actions such as these because it is always a good thing to stay true to oneself and not partake in the actions of the majority of people if one doesn’t believe it is right. However, if a citizen only acts according to their own moral compass when a nation is at war, it can be difficult for that country to win because soldiers would likely be disobeying orders. If soldiers act according to their own moral compasses at all times, it could put the country at risk for committing war crimes because the soldiers would likely disobey commands and possibly commit actions that go against international law.

I agree with the perspective that the Just War Theory aligns more with the consequentialist model rather than the intrinsic model. This theory acknowledges that war is inherently bad but it recognizes that there are situations where war is unavoidable and necessary in order to lead your nation. The Just War Theory sets guidelines to minimize the harm that is caused by war. Even though it aims to bring clarity to the concept of war, the justifications it provides can be confusing allowing any nation to manipulate them in support of their own agenda. Another thing I would add to slaughterhouse5’s response is that although I believe that people should not participate in a war that they don't believe in, I wouldn't say it is necessarily cowardly. It is difficult to go against the views of a whole nation and not fight in a war that conflicts with one’s morals. Therefore it is especially courageous to abstain from participating in a war because your nation has opposing values to your own. Standing up for oneself can be good to an extent but if too many people contradict the rules of a government and are only willing to follow their personal moral compass then the nation won’t be able to accomplish any goals or improve. Too many people would have contradictory ideas and that would cause more confusion and disorganization in the government.

Originally posted by Dale on October 22, 2024 23:19

War is wrong unless it's the last resort to solving an important issue. The best ways of rationalizing war are self-defense and for a cause such as stopping a crime against humanity. An example of the first rationale, self-defense, is Belgium fighting the German Empire in World War I in order to not lose land, sovereignty, and other things. An example of the second rationale is when the U.S. and other Allies invaded Nazi Germany-occupied Europe in order to free the countries and peoples whose lands and lives were being ravaged by the Germans, plus to stop the increasing amount of deaths from the Holocaust, a crime against humanity done by the Germans. These are the two most-reasonable rationales for creating war.

In comparison between the two ideologies on which is better to view the subject of war, the most practical one for modern times, and possibly for the past too, is consequentialism. This is because many actions could be inherently or by default “bad” but could be justified because of their outcome or the context in which they occurred. An example of this would be if someone ran over a person on the highway. This is immediately viewed negatively because it involves taking a life. However, if not hitting the person meant swerving into a truck carrying a tank of gasoline, causing that truck to crash and explode on the highway, then the former option would be the optimal scenario. In war, this type of choice must be made often. Oftentimes, the wrong outcome occurs, even if a just outcome was intended. Leaders may not know everything about the places they attack and that leads them into trouble.

I agree with McMahan’s idea that we can’t make soldiers think that they have permission to do immoral things while serving, even if those actions are accompanied by good manners and respect. This is because a lot of times people will be swept up in the crowd and whatever the crowd does. This ties in to mob mentality. This is the notion that peoples’ bad behavior, decisions, and actions are all magnified in large groups. This has occurred many times throughout the world. Groups often unify under one person, then when that person takes responsibility for the wrongdoings, that person’s followers are more than happy to carry out the deed.

I don’t believe Jus Ad Bellum stops unjust wars from happening but it does encourage better behavior and ethics during war. This is because many countries will follow the guidelines of Just War Theory, but their soldiers on the ground may do wrong things that are against the rules. This then leads to trials of course. “Just war theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought” (excerpt 1). Without this, nations would have zero desire to be good to each other during wars, and there’d be problems similar to those in the First World War that would occur on the battlefield. This is the extent of the effect of Just War Theory.

I find that the most compelling part of the essay would be the section that describes a scenario that describes a consequentialist idea. The idea that it is better to choose the greater of two evils. They describe how someone being run over on a highway is an action that would be prone to criticisms right from the start. However, if that was done to avoid a gasoline explosion, it would be excused. I find it very compelling to hear a story outside of war; this makes it feel more realistic because even though war is a very real event that happened, because of how long ago it was it tends to get lost in history. This also made me think further about the way our judicial system works, and whether these factors are put into consideration when deciding if someone is guilty.

I agree strongly with my peers' idea that war should be used as a last resort. Sometimes, going into violent conflicts is inevitable, as horrible as it sounds. It is also difficult to say what action should be done, unless you are in a position of power. There are a lot of politics and foreign relations to take into consideration when waging on war, which are difficult to take into perspective unless you are in that exact position.

I think next time, my peers could spend less time explaining the ideas of consequentialism and intrinsicism., and more on their own analysis. While I do find it being retested necessary, it feels a lot like relearning already known information.

Originally posted by everlastingauroras on October 21, 2024 10:05

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.

The most compelling idea of this post is that organized violence is never justified and it takes an equal amount of courage to fight and not fight in a war. I agree with the fact that minimizing violence should always be a goal, but I don’t think it is impossible to justify war. In my post, I stated that war can be justified by the various reasons presented by Jus In Bello. This could be the intentions of the war or even the way the war is fought. I agree with the fact that intentions are hard to interpret because they can be manipulated to make things look better than they are. However, there are still times when war really is out of self-defense or good intentions. Obviously violence is harmful in many ways, but it isn’t always purposeful or wanted. In this case, the violence in wars can be justified because it is not out of bad intentions. To address the second point, I agree that both choices will result in some sort of cognitive dissonance. Like I stated in my post, not participating in the war will place you in an out group, which is very difficult to handle mentally. Participating in the war will have physical consequences, but it will be less of a toll mentally. Unlike this post, I believe that going through the mental toll will be tougher in the long run than having some sort of physical injury. There is a possibility of ending up with a life changing injury, but at least you won’t be seen as an outsider for the rest of your time.

Originally posted by traffic cone on October 22, 2024 16:16

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 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.

I agree with traffic cone on the idea that today’s world is best described as a consequentialism model and I found it very interesting that they connected everything back to unit one with the ingroup and outgroup. It’s really interesting to see how although people are uneasy or very scared to go to war, they feel obligated to do so because of the societal pressure that is put on them as everybody else participates in war aswell. Similar to Souljaboy’s post, Traffic cone also believes that the consequentialism model is better fit for today’s society because an intrinsicism model is very unrealistic and doesn’t fit in today’s ideals. I believe that me and traffic cone’s ideas are very similar in the fact that we both believe that a sense of nationalism and peer pressure make people more likely to participate in war. I believe that traffic cone did a really good job answering the questions and I love how they connected this unit to unit 1 with the ingroup and outgroup stuff. The only thing I think they could’ve expanded upon was the question about if everybody in a nation decided to not act on their personal morals. Other than that, it was a really good post and I love how they connected everything together.

Originally posted by bostongirl5 on October 22, 2024 09:41

I believe that organized violence is sometimes justifiable. Humans in general, are individualistic, while we thrive when we are together, and in groups, as animals we are solely looking to survive. Moreover, because we have complex brains, and ways of thinking, emotions like regret, anger, loneliness, fear, etc, become prominent in our actions. As much as I wish it were true, I do not think that all problems, on the global scale, can or should have been solved, with conversation or written agreements. The intrinsicism model, which states that war is morally wrong, is the outlook I think most people want to have. We want to agree that war is wrong, and that there should never be murder or violence. But the consequentialism model, which states that war is not morally wrong if the outcome is just, is and has been the more realistic one. To look at and analyze war through today’s eyes, means that we can not ignore the world’s history. If we ignore the world’s history, then it is easy to say that war is not justifiable, that it is always wrong, and that there should never ever be violence. But none of us, at least in America, could have gotten to this very converstion without there having been war. Whether it be the revolutionary war, the civil war, or wars outside the country, we are all products of violent crimes. In this outlook, I think that the Just War Theory can act as a bridge between intrinsicism and consequentialism. Permissible reasons for war, like having just cause, being a last resort, or being declared by a proper authority, are all ways to shape war into a box. They allow for a clear way to look at and anaylize war. While the different principles are helpful, it is important to note that they can not always apply. Excerpt 1: Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum (Encyclopedia of Philosophy), explains this by saying: “But when enemies differ greatly because of different religious beliefs, race, or language, as such they see each other as ‘less than human’, war conventions are rarely applied”. In this way, I do think that each war is vastly different from the last, and while Just War Theory principles aid in the catogorizations of violence, they can not always be counted on.

Furthermore, I think the questions often arised from this discussion: “If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, should citizens refuse to participate in the war effort?” and “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?” are not easily answered. Each person may have thier own expiernce or values that differ their opinions about such a controversial topic. As we found earlier, we live in an obedient society. We are taught to obey, or at least listen to, those who hold authority above us. Whether it be a parent, teacher, boss, president, or judicial law, we know when we need to do what we are told too. If every citizen acted according to their own morals, would there even be grounding morals? That very concept opens up discussion of what makes morals, morals? I think that if people did whatever they felt was right, there would be no unity, no cohesion, and things would not get done. At times, there needs to be a right and wrong way to do things, and a freeflowing society, in my opinion, is weak. I do, however, believe that there should not be societal consequences for doing what we are told. Even when instucted to serve in a war, you don’t morally believe is right, I think soldiers can still act honorable. All this to say, Just War Theory does not seem to me as a clearer way to look at war, but an even more complex analysis, that opens more opinions.

I’d like to start by saying that I generally agreed with the ideas you presented. I’ll also admit that you mentioned some things I hadn’t recognized in my own reflection -- such as how all of us, those a part of America, are “products of violent crimes.” It hadn’t occurred to me how close of an example we have to reference when considering the justification of war. The understanding that it is, sometimes, necessary to not only build up, but inherently preserve, the lives of a nation, seems like a natural one for me. But your reference to the Revolutionary War and Civil War, for example, sort of opened my eyes even further. When we discuss the Just War Theory, such a great part of it is -- rightfully -- centered on the repercussions and consequences of war itself. As such, however, it can feel like we are stranded on the “theoretical” justness to a conflict, just as we struggle to offer tangible “evidence” for it. These examples, however, reminded me of other, more blatant, more recent instances in which war can be perceived as just, and as such shed some enlightenment on a belief I had already, but is now even further grounded.

Originally posted by User0729 on October 21, 2024 22:13

For starters, great job with your LTQ response! I don’t have any suggestions related to the mechanical aspects or depth of the discussion. All of the points and ideas that you made were clear and thorough. I believe that one of the most compelling ideas that you propose in your discussion is that war can’t be classified as organized violence. I agree with your point that war can’t be simplified to such simple terminology and it also goes against the beliefs and morals in which I was raised. Additionally, I agree with your statement on how the consequentialist model applies to war better than the intrinsic model, as it is more realistic, while the intrinsic model is more black and white. I also agree with your point about how nations should have the right to defend themselves in the face of opposition and colonialism. Another very interesting point you brought up in your response is the idea that Just War Theory is a bridge between the intrinsic and consequentialism model due to how it can vary and be manipulated. Lastly, I agree with your point on how what largely determines if you are a coward or courageous person is the environment you are raised in and who surrounds you.

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.

Post your response here.

Originally posted by TheGreatGatsby on October 21, 2024 11:19

I believe that war isn't always wrong. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have war, however nobody is perfect, and so it's important to understand what war is and why people participate in it. If a country were to say that they are going to attack another country, for that country that is being attacked, they don't have many options. Either they accept defeat and not participate in a war or they fight back. If the country chooses to let the other invade them and take over, the citizens of that country will be angry with their leader for laying back and letting their country get invaded by another. This leaves the country no choice but to fight back and start a war against the other country. Even though this is a war, could it be considered just since the country is defending itself? Based on this argument, I believe that a consequentialism model is more realistic for the modern world. There is no way to fully prevent war and it’s unrealistic to believe that war will never happen. If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, I believe that citizens should have the choice to refuse to participate in the war effort. If citizens feel that the country is wrong in their war efforts, the citizens have the free will to refuse to aid the war. However, a lot of the time if people feel a strong sense of nationality with their country, it’s harder to refuse to aid the war. We’ve seen in history all the time, there are outgroups for every majority group. Some people may feel that if the war their country is going into was formed by unjust grounds, then they won’t aid the country. I believe it takes courage to both defend your country and stand your ground against the war. It is well known that soldiers who are put to war are some of the bravest people out there, but those who refuse to participate in an unjust war can be considered just as brave. Those who don’t participate in the war can be outcasted by society and seen as lazy. While that person can argue that they won’t be part of an unjust war, the rest of society may not think that the war is unjust and further isolate the person. However, when it comes to a person who knows that their country is leading an unjust war and despite that they still participate in the war can be considered cowardly. While there may be societal pressures that keep them from speaking out against the war, it’s cowardly to fuel and support that war. If each citizen acts according to their own moral compass, that will be a problem since nobody wants to go to war willingly. If each person who believes that the war may be even the slightest bit unjust and they refuse to join the war effort, then the country won’t be able to defend themselves. It’s key for a nation to develop a sense of nationalism for the people since that nationalism is what drives the people to defend their country and go to war.

I think TheGreatGatsby makes a really interesting point in their response regarding a country's responsibility to fight in war for their citizens. Countries have a known loyalty to their people, and a lack of loyalty could lead to an even worse civil war. I think the role of civilians is what makes Just War Theory more complex. This is due to the fact that in war crimes, countries are notably crossing the line when a significant amount of civilians are targeted. Soldiers who fight in war are necessarily only victims if they are treated unfairly in prisons or tortured with brutal weapons. Soldiers are seemingly “volunteers” in the war. Additionally, civilians are usually fulfilling the roles of conscientious objectors, increasing the complexity of the morality of not participating in war. Conscientious objectors are also outcasted by people in society who believe in the principles of the war. I also think TheGreatGatsby makes an interesting analysis of what makes someone “cowardly” when it comes to war. They describe it as someone who participates in a war they believe or know is unjust because of pressure. Is someone who participates in a war they believe is unjust cowardly? Or, are they simply being manipulated physiologically by their society?