learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by facinghistorystudent on October 22, 2024 10:46

While it may not always be ideal, large-scale organized violence can be necessary sometimes. In situations where one country attacks another country first, a response is required. If a country responds to the attack of another country in an attempt to stop them from attacking again, their cause is just because their goal is to protect their people and ensure the smallest number of deaths possible within their country. This can sometimes lead to war, because every time a country is attacked, they will feel a need to retaliate, which could end with a never-ending cycle until someone surrenders or someone wins. However, it is not morally wrong for a country to enter war if their purpose is to protect their people.

I believe the consequentialist model for war is more realistic for the modern world. While the intrinsicism model is a way of thinking that most people would like to believe they align with, I believe that it involves too many hypothetical situations that not everyone would be able to consider in the heat of battle. As it states in "Excerpt 1: Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum (Encyclopedia of Philosophy)", the intrinsicism method is too restrictive to the point where it allows for no flexibility in war. Also, I think it can cause more harm than good. The hospital example that we discussed in class is a prime example of this. To someone who believes in the intrinsicism model, bombing a hospital that contained the enemy’s weapons would be wrong no matter what. However, to someone who believes that the consequentialist model, bombing the hospital would be worth it if it would destroy the enemy’s weapons and therefore prevent more deaths in the long run. The intrinsicism model, on the other hand, can lead to more deaths than are necessary. While certain aspects of war are not ideal and can be hard to deal with, it is important to look at the bigger picture.

While most people probably do not necessarily like the idea of war, it is a reality of the modern world. Therefore, I believe the consequentialist method is the most ethical way to approach war. If war is a necessary part of life, the best way to handle it is by ensuring that the smallest number of deaths possible result.

However, it is true that each person is entitled to their own opinion. If someone is morally opposed to war, they should not be required to fight in the war. Additionally, citizens should feel free to protest against war if they feel that their country is entering for unjust reasons, because a country being at war affects all of its citizens.

This presents issues within itself, though. If each person acted based on their own moral compass in a war, no one would ever be able to come to a mutual decision on what to do. It is not realistic for a nation to have to endure the consequences of such disagreements because there would never be successful wars. There is no way for every single citizen in a country to agree on their morals, because each person brings a different lived experience and perspective to a situation.

I agree with many of your points like that war can be necessary through means of self-defense and the consequentialism model being more logical. I think your opinion on the intricism model leading to "more deaths than are necessary” is very interesting, as well as something I did not think of before.

While I do agree with the majority of your thoughts, especially the one that nations should be responding to attacks, I don’t necessarily believe that the responses need to be violent. One of the ideals of the Just War Theory is that war has to be the last option for it to be justifiable. Sure, there most likely will be a cycle that is created from responding to attacks, but that doesn’t automate death among members of the responding country. Of course, in many, if not most, instances, war will likely arise, but I just want to touch on the fact that it should not always apply to a situation.

Your view on the complications that individual acts of personal moral compasses bring among citizens was great and agreeable. However, I don’t think a mutual decision on what to do in war is important. Typically, the country listens to the leader. If the president says the country is going to war, that is gospel, and the opinions of the nation’s citizens are irrelevant.

Overall, I appreciate the structure of your response and I agree with most of your beliefs.

Originally posted by 01000111 on October 21, 2024 21:28

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.

Firstoff, this was very well written and your claim was easy to understand and made sense. However, you looked at this matter in an extremely black and white fashion, simply saying that if the war is bad, and you know it to be, humans won't serve, and that other countries will hand out sanctions to the country in the wrong, but this hasn't been the case for most of history and I don't see why it would change. In most cases in the past, unjust wars were the most common kind, where you would invade over land, cities, materials, and nations wouldn't side based on the correct side, but based on the one that would gain them more wealth and prestige. Just look at WW1, no one nation was extremely in the wrong, compared to other wars, yet the treaty of Versailles was a big slap in the face to the Germans especially why? for economic gain. Aside from WW2, most other unjust wars weren't fought over morals, but instead gains, so we can't fully count on sanctions from other countries, especially not when the world is ina state of total war. Secondly, just saying that the civilian should always drop what he is doing if the war is wrong is just ridiculous, because while in an ideal world this works, there's many layers to a persons life, they don't have only themselves to think about; they have wives and husbands, children, their friends, their community, who are all put at risk when you desert. The consequences of everyone following suit into an unjust war are obviously bad, but in most cases you can't and couldn't up and leave your entire past life, as the risk was too great. A the end of the day, it's a well written piece, but it's just too simple an outlook, and comes from a point of privilege to be saying all these things, in my opinion

Just war theory is interesting, but especially so in the eyes of the people subjected to it. This year we have discussed three very important relating factors to the topics at hand here. First off being the idea of group safety or thinking in the justification and violation of various war crimes. I feel most often than not that we view the idea of war as the saying of “A square is a rectangle, a rectangle is not a square”. We view war crimes as an aspect of war, but often we fail to realize that we attempt to justify war, which is a crime. The very aspects of war are to combat, the process of funding “defense” is to advance, and the goal of war is to impediment, take, and often eradicate. Personally, I have strong opinions on war, or at least how it is conducted because we seek to justify horrible actions as necessary for the common good. While it is true that some fight with their fists, others words and resources. I believe that there is always a more civil way to end war, and using hatred, in any form, as a driving force is sought to be justified in an unjustifiable stance. We exist in a world that attempts to its utmost devices to divide us, make our ideas, our values, or beliefs into the world of wrong or otherwise, and we so often willingly ignore it. Other than accountability, which is important, I think that that really is the problem, not only that war exists but to some it's view as necessary, but I truly believe that it is not. Violence can be solved with rehabilitation, words with conversation, injustice with truly, simply, justice. War is an indefinable thing, taking another's life is an undefinable thing, whatever one may believe, other than written scripture and hope, how can one ever understand truly sending one to “the other side”. War crimes do exist, but they are nigh oxymoronic in nature, after all, where does society go, if we justify crimes and their worser crimes within. Weapons of all forms shouldn’t exist, what good is a bomb to the betterment of humanity and the planet, what good is a bullet designed for piercing armor if your justification for guns is “hunting”. We see this in America, what would someone need an automatic machine gun to “hunt”, are you hunting creatures of unfathomable horror, or is a person to disturbed by society today and rather confronts it with weapons of threat, to quell the idea of others using them. A society built on fear is a concept that is also rich, imperialism, facism, democracy, nihilism, and so many more, are wrong in moral or twisted to be. America alone has nearly singlehandedly devastated the economies of a multitude of South American nations, and serves as a threatening force rather than a freeing one, as they claim to be. This entire writing is a stream of consciousness, of opinion and matter of contention. Overall however, I haven't the foggiest of how to fix the world, this is no manifesto or convincing decree, this is just an observation. One thing I can say for absolute certainty is that we need to stop being so arrogant, all of us, we are not high and mighty, especially if grouped to be divided. We are not fit to defy the laws of nature, but we can our nature, and make it better. We are in the event of the 6th mass extinction, eons of damage over the course of our sophisticated 300 years. So we don’t have it figured out, and we need to stop acting like it, because if we don't, it will surely be our doom.

Originally posted by PinkWaterbottle on October 22, 2024 19:37

I don’t necessarily believe that the concept of war is wrong, as long as it is initiated for the right reasons. Some examples of war I see as justifiable causes are self-defense and revolutions. For these two circumstances, according to the Just War Theory, this reasoning would be legitimized. They would both be just causes, possessing the right intention and likely their last resort. I don’t completely agree with the Intricisism or the Conceptualism model, but I can see how Conceptualism would make more sense in older times. Nowadays, I believe it is a lot more difficult to get away with waging war, as we have many more resources, therefore, in my opinion, the Intricism model would apply to the modern day.

If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, citizens should refuse to partake in it. If they choose to become a part of the war, without trying other resources to end it first, they essentially are on a mission to kill the other side’s troops to win their battles. According to the Just War Theory, this isn’t right. Unless they are acting in self-defense to decide whether or not to join, I don’t think attributing to the violence makes sense. I think it is much more courageous to refuse to fight in a war one thinks is morally wrong as opposed to fighting out of cowardice. Realistically, unless, of course, there are harsh consequences, like death, that come with refusal, only weak-minded people would blindly follow others into war, rather than standing for their own beliefs. However, knowing these harsh consequences come with resisting joining the war and refusing regardless shows just how brave and strong that person is. While, of course, there are cons that come with doing so, there are benefits to resisting, like lack of dissonance. Those who fight in wars they don’t believe in definitely struggle with their integrity and try to decrease their dissonance by convincing themselves their brutality is justified. For example, Encyclopedia’s “Just War Theory” states “when enemies differ greatly because of different religious beliefs, race, or language, and as such they see each other as ‘less than human’, war conventions are rarely applied”. These new thoughts that are produced as means to reduce dissonance are directly linked to situations where there is more ruthlessness applied because of the enemy being seen as “less than”. To give an off-topic instance of this occurring, African captives were considered cargo and merely profitable items, rather than human beings. This dehumanizing title justified slave traders to treat them the way they did. The consequences, though, that come with citizens acting only according to their moral compass when a nation is at war is complete and utter chaos. Unity is forgotten and every citizen develops this general mindset of individualism. Simultaneously, despite having differing opinions, a nation is always unified by its nationality, and will always share something in common with each other because of that. If the nation cannot reach a consensus, I think it is realistic to say it will erupt with chaos, as war can arise from disagreements.

The most compelling idea in this post is the claim that it takes more courage to refuse participation in a war that one believes is unjust than to comply with an order to fight. I agree with this point, as standing up for one’s moral beliefs in the face of a potential consequence or some cases many, demonstrates a strong commitment to ethics and morality. The discussion of cognitive dissonance among soldiers who fight in wars that they don’t necessarily believe in is also especially interesting and highlights the psychological struggles that many face. This idea can also be connected to other ideas about the dehumanization of enemies in conflict, as was briefly mentioned in this post when it talks about the Encyclopedias Just War Theory stating that, when enemies differ significantly in aspects, they will forget war conventions, and chaos is unleashed, which is a theme that appears quite frequently when it comes to examining the moral implications of warfare. I agree with the views presented regarding the importance of moral integrity in warfare, though I do also recognize and respect the argument for a sense of duty or loyalty to one’s country, which complicates the decision of refusing participation. To possibly improve on this post, it could expandnd more on the exploration of the consequences of refusing to participate in war. While it does mention chaos and individualism, elaborating further on how these consequences unfold in society could provide more depth. And finally, Incorporating some more specific historical examples of individuals or groups that resisted certain unjust wars, and the impacts of their actions on the world, could also further strengthen and support the argument.

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

Although devastating and tragic, war is not always wrong and the use of large-scale, organized violence can sometimes be justified. In cases of self-defense, like genocide and colonization, victims should have the right to retaliate and protect their peace by any means necessary and possible, even if it means violence. Another example of when war could be deemed justifiable is when human rights are threatened and violated to an extent where physical force and war could be deemed necessary. The most fit and accurate model to apply to war is the consequentialism model, as war can vary a lot, is case-dependent, and a complex, multidimensional topic. It is too black-and-white to state that war is always wrong, as many factors could determine the need for a war. Some factors that could influence the need for war could include colonization or genocide and/or the protection of people or a religion. On the other hand, the intrinsicism model which states that war is always morally wrong is too hopeful and too unrealistic to be applied to war. It models how we believe that in the face of war, we will act based on our morals and not on what is necessary, which is too optimistic and unlikely. If a nation were to wage war for uncalled and unjust reasons, citizens should be able to refuse to participate in the war effort. It is so crucial that one stays true to their moral compass and stands up for what they believe in, even during times of uncertainty and hopelessness like war. Additionally, citizens shouldn’t need to feel obligated to actively participate in violence and death, solely for the pure greedy and selfish benefit of the government. It takes great courage to not participate and fight in a war you don't believe in. As humans, we have the tendency to conform to what the majority acts upon and believes. Those who are outliers and stay true to their ideals, opposing the majority, are the true gems of society. These types of people are needed in all social groups, as even one outlier can spark and pave the way for others to feel comfortable enough to share their opposing ideas. However, there are consequences if each citizen were to act only according to their own moral compass when a nation is at war. For example, if everyone were to act based on their unique belief set, there would be constant argument and conflict, a drawback especially during such pressing and hectic times. Additionally, if one were to always act on their moral compass, then sometimes the difficult, yet necessary actions that go against all morals wouldn't be taken, and the state and people would have to pay the price for the lack of action. The consequences I’ve previously stated are not at all realistic for war times, as during war, nations already have to struggle and persevere through a lot, and these added stressors would only escalate the situation and make it more devastating.

I agree with the points you made. War is not always ideal, but in the world we live in, it is sometimes necessary in order for a country to protect themselves. I particularly agree with the point you made about how courageous people who oppose the majority are. It takes a lot to stand up against the majority of your country when you believe that they are entering a war for the wrong reasons. Being successful at doing so can save so many innocent lives. This reminded me of the bystander effect that we learned about. It can be so easy for people to become bystanders, and this specifically applies to situations with outliers who refuse to fight in war. While this might not be true today, in past wars men were looked down upon if they refused to fight. This made it even more difficult and that much more courageous for men to refuse to fight if they did not believe the war was just, so I agree with your point that people like this are true gems of society. But I also agree that if everyone acted based on their own moral compass it would cause lots of conflict because not everyone would be able to agree. It is hard to be able to find a common ground between people with such different beliefs.

Originally posted by Tired on October 22, 2024 00:28

War is not wrong. War becomes an necessity countries use in order to balance out the world from further conflict. I saw an connection to Christianity, where in the same way the Bible depicts Satan to be a necessary evil, that although he is bad and causes mankind to commit every kind of crime and sin, God allows it because it’s to balance out the good. It allows this freedom of choice, even if the choice (in this case being war) may not necessarily be a friendly option. For God also had authorized his followers to start wars with “enemy nations”, those who were seen as overall bad people because they were not following God’s laws and commandments. I believe that if there was never war – while countries are stealing, accusing, and ridiculing each other, then there would never be peace. To me, there has to be some form of solution in order to result in an end of a feud for both sides. Therefore, the consequentialist point of view is more realistic, because they are taking account of the wrongs that will be righted once the war is over. The intrinsicist’s point of view is the ideal, however, it’s too optimistic for a world that is known to be filled with violence and spiteful people. Just War Theory becomes an bridge between the two philosophical ideas because it considers both ideals: “The just war theory may also consider the thoughts of various philosophers and lawyers [...] and examine both of their philosophical visions of war’s ethical limits (or absence of)” (Excerpt 1) It’s a blend of all ideas, however, the Just War Theory is blurry because of how vague some of the terms can be, causing a lot of debate on who is ‘innocent’ versus ‘guilty’ and who is ‘fighting’. It’s impossible to draw the line between them when we are so complex, and there are too many exceptions and factors that makes it difficult to distinguish between each other.

If a nation wages war for reasons that seem to be unfair, citizens should have the right to refuse in joining the war effort. Of course, the government would likely hold them accountable if this was the case, as we can see in past wars where soldiers did not want to fight and they had been punished for it. I believe that it could considerably take more courage to opt out of war then participate, because of the idea of Mass Society Theory, where people will turn against you for being one to rebel against the government and social norm. However, I also believe that fighting in the war also takes a lot of courage because of the fact that you are risking your own life. You become an immediate target to the enemy, that “those who voluntarily enter the boxing ring renounce their right not to be hit”. (Excerpt 2)

If each citizen acts accordingly to their own morale, everything would erupt and turn into shambles, causing mass hysteria. In the same way where the Social conformity theory shares that if the world did not conform and abide by the rules of life and society, then everything would be in flames, since conformity is the reason why most people behave themselves. Another consequence of everyone behaving on their own moral compass is that many people would most likely become jailed, or outcasted through the government, or higher authorities. This is because of the idea that higher authorities are more likely to take over, and that those who look up to them will follow their rules, even if it may have been against their moral compass in the first place. The excerpt states a similar idea, how those who may have been initially opposed to the war would suddenly feel that it is important to participate the war only a few days after because of a leader on television or in a rally telling them to. There is an shift of perspective from the belief of intrinsicism to belief of consequentialism, because when they realize that there is legitimacy to a war, their morals shift to more rationality and the idea of preventing further loss of citizens.

I agree with your statement that war is necessary for peace. I also believe that without some sort of ultimate solution, our world would not be able to function. I also agree with the your statement that a consequentialist way of thinking is the most ideal as it leaves little room for exploitation. I found it interesting that you said that wrongs could be corrected after war and I’ve never really thought about it like that. In the past, many wars and tactics have been criticized for years after the war and some of these wrongs have never been righted. One example of this was the use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although this use of force led to the end of the war and stopped further bloodshed, countless civilians were killed. Another issue with this kind of mindset is if people committed crimes and heinous acts claiming it was for a “greater good”. If there was a good outcome but it led to the deaths of many, could it ever be a wrong that can be righted? Many classmates also shared similar ideas about the refusal to fight in unjust wars based on moral beliefs and if compliance was cowardice. A common idea that was shared was that the refusal to fight was considered more courageous than compliance from fear. Many others also stated that society would be in disarray if everyone refused based on their moral beliefs. I agree with these points but I believe that if people refused to fight, it could also lead to changes in society. If every country had a lesser military, it could lead to more peace and less disarray in society.

Originally posted by phrenology12 on October 21, 2024 20:32

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.

Hi greenzebra! I found your points to be really compelling, especially about how the just war theory is a good sort of base but that there needs to be a more specific set of rules. I totally get what you're saying, but I also think that the looser rules allows people to plead their cases better. Like how you said a consequentialist mindset allows for more context than something just being wrong with no exceptions.

Also, I liked your point about going against an entire country, especially when its your own, being harder than just going with what they say. However, I think there are definitely levels to that, it's more brave to speak up than be complicit when being complicit doesn't mean you're going into war or having to put your life at stake. When it comes to going with what the government says at the cost of your life, like having to fight in that war, I think it might be braver than speaking up and feeling shame. But I know that in many cases, there are more parts involved and that shame is usually a best case scenario for those who speak up, so I do think both sides have to have a level of bravery under those conditions.

Finally, your point about soldiers was also really interesting because although in theory soldiers should be able to think for themselves and their moralities, under those conditions I think its really hard to not follow orders, and in many cases can come with consequences.

Originally posted by questions on October 21, 2024 17:32

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.

I agree with many points in this statement. I believe that the best way in justifying war is to have just cause for going to war rather than justly fighting a war. However, I disagree with the idea that citizens should be able to refuse to participate in the war effort if the war has unjust causes. This is because citizens are responsible for seeing that their government that they allow to govern them is a good government. They are the ones who must decide whether or not to consent to said government. I believe, therefore, that the citizens of nations who go to war for unjust causes shouldn’t be able to not participate just because of the way they feel about the causes for war. Even if the causes for war were unjust, citizens should have to comply with the demands of their government or do their civic duty of protesting, an act often necessary in order to stop governments from doing bad things. I also disagree with the idea that only the soldiers active in a war should be involved in the war. This is because of the case of self-defense. I believe that citizens’ rights to defend their property from unjust actions during a war should be always recognized.

Originally posted by phrenology12 on October 21, 2024 20:32

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.

I agree with the idea that consequentialism is more realistic because it recognizes the complexities and moral ambiguities of war. In my opinion, war is not just a black and white issue. The consequences of every single person’s actions must be considered and evaluated, as decisions made in wars often have long lasting effects on not just their country but the world and it’s history. The quote about skepticism regarding morality in war highlights the tension between ethical considerations and the harsh realities soldiers face. I too believe that courage is needed not only to fight but also to keep away from fighting, especially when one's morals conflict from the rest of the majority. This brings up a dilemma of how do we balance individual morals with national duty? While I respect the bravery of those who choose to fight, I also see the strength in standing firm against a war that feels unjust. Really, these talks about Just War Theory bring up a lot of questions and situations that reflect the controversial topic of war and the ethical complexities that must be taken into consideration. I like the depth of this argument and the different perspectives it offers human morality during conflicts

I definitely agree with what this person said about consequentialism being the more realistic approach to war. This person also said “many can argue that the consequences of inaction can be just as severe as those of action” and I think this was a really great point and it was very well said. This statement aligns with the ideas of consequentialism because it is pointing out that sometimes violence is necessary if the outcome is good, and by doing nothing the outcome will be much worse. This person also states that Just War theory provides a way to connect consequentialism with intrinsicism, which I agree with but the reasoning for this argument was not very clear in the post. I suggest clarifying this and clearly stating the ways in which Just War theory supports both consequentialist and intrinsicist beliefs. I also suggest adding more personal opinions to the post rather than just restating ideas mentioned in class, but the person did a really great job of stating the details of what we learned. My response was similar to this person’s because I also agree with the consequentialist approach. A real life example of this is the war in Ukraine: Ukraine has to fight in order to protect their land, otherwise they will no longer be a nation. In this case, as well as many others, it is clear that violence is sometimes necessary.

Originally posted by Fahrenheit.jr. on October 21, 2024 20:21

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.

Post your response here.

Originally posted by verose on October 21, 2024 17:46

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 like how they made an argument in their post. Although I know that wasn’t in the instructions, it made their post flow nicely and made it easier for me to understand. I agree with the poster that war is a useful tool for protecting a country and I also believe that countries are obligated to protect their people, and that going to war is a valid way to do that. I think the most compelling part of their argument is that war is a tool for protection. I hadn’t initially thought of it in that way when I wrote my response and I think that’s such a simple yet accurate way to think about it. I also hold a consequentialist view, like the poster, but I found it interesting that they didn’t mention consequentialism or intrisicism in their post. I also like that they took into account other variables, stating how they don’t agree with aggressive warfare for the personal gain of a country. They also acknowledged the moral problem of taking human lives, while also asserting that it’s justified if it's for a good cause. I liked how they still showed a nuanced understanding of the topic even though it conflicted with their own views. I also think it’s interesting how consequentialist their view is too as I noticed some other posts shared the views of both consequentialists and intrinsicists.

Originally posted by fionaphoenix on October 22, 2024 09:09

There are some interesting points made in this paragraph including questioning those who refuse to fight in the war could help crumble the country and weaken the nation. Similarly to what I wrote many inner conflicts would happen and raise the probability of war which goes against what these people originally wanted. The interesting part about this is that it makes you think that country’s will do anything in their power to make sure that people don’t act with their moral compass and group them up in order for them to remain strong and have unity in their societal beliefs. Although I don’t 100% disagree with the idea that it’s not cowardice for someone to not fight in war because you believe it to be morally wrong. I think it’s not as simple as that, I believe that people should have the right to pick but for example your country is being invaded by an outside country and they need a lot of soldiers to defend themselves. If there are so many potential soldiers not participating in war what does that country do then, just give up their land and forfeit. Although I think people should have their choice of what they believe in, I don't think it's as black and white as some believe.

Originally posted by charsiu on October 18, 2024 12:42

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.

This piece is incredibly compelling as it presents a strong argument for the justification of war. I agree with the writer’s ideas as they are very similar to mine. I like the discussion of consequentialism versus intrinsicism because it highlights a key point: “it's wishful thinking to believe morality can be pursued in all aspects of warfare, especially since the nature of war itself is immoral.” I agree with this statement and moreso, go on to discuss it in my own piece, by stating how the intrinsicism model is what people wish they thought, but that the consequentialism model is much more realistic.Furthermore, I found that the addition of debate on Jaff McMahan’s statement aids to the complexity of this piece, as it begins to dive into more personal aspects of Just War Theory. I think often it can be difficult to talk about what is and what is not just, when we start to think of war as soldiers fighting each other, not just countries fighting each other. I think overall, this piece is written very well mechanically, and has good depth and discussion. I liked how the author used discussion of civilian engagement in war to bridge their arguments between the intrinsicism vs consequentialism models, and discussion of Jaff McMahan’s statement. I’m curious to learn more about this author’s views on other aspects of Just War Theory like outside country engagement. Overall, this author presented a strong, justified argument reasoning war.

Originally posted by facinghistory19 on October 21, 2024 20:56

When a war is waged that we as humans know is wrong, we have to make the decision whether or not to fight, in the spirit of patriotism for your country, or whether you become a conscientious objectour, and in some cases get persecuted. So is it true cowardice that causes us to be Conscientious objectors? No, in most cases it isn’t cowardice, because if the war sits wrong with you, or goes against your religion, you shouldn’t have to fight, as killing people is the most morally wrong thing a man or woman can do. However, when the rule is taken advantage of, and the war is just, it's simply ridiculous that you wouldn't defend the rights, freedoms, and lives of others over your beliefs, or religion. It’s like comparing objecting to serving for Nazi Germany, in which case you would have been persecuted, putting your life at risk for what you believe and what likely was just, as patriotism doesn’t make up for the horrendous atrocities that would have been committed; or deciding not to serve Great Britain in the fight against Nazi Germany, in which the whole country was in imminent danger of loss of freedoms, and every man serving helped. And on top of that, there are ways to help without fighting directly, which is arguably just as important as the fight itself, because without the production of weapons, rations clothes, and vehicles, the war itself and the military complex can’t run. So if an objector decided that they couldn’t fight, due to whatever reason, but they were still willing to serve their country in other ways, they just couldn’t support killing, then it’s more than fair, and by no means cowardice. It’s a very thin line to tread, however, between religion and beliefs and real cowardice, because if it comes to the point of lying and shirking any kind of duty, and the war is to prevent an unjustness, then it’s most likely cowardice and things of the sort stopping the person from serving their country. Furthermore, another point must be made about not fighting in an unjust war, because if you know that the war is unjust, and it’s causing unnecessary killings, and the only basis for you not serving is how unjust it is, should you not rebel against your country to expedite how quickly the war ends? That’s the thing with all of these, it’s extremely hard to answer because every situation is different, and to different people, it’s courage, or cowardice depending on their opinions, meaning these opinions change from person to person. Lastly, we need to ask ourselves what would happen if each citizen acted solely on their moral compass in a just war, what would happen. The thing is, however, when that question is posed, we are always acting according to our moral compass. Since we as humans have free will, every single decision is based on our moral compass, because even if you are “forced” to do something, you can still not do it, all you do is face the consequences, but if you don’t want to, you wouldn’t, meaning your moral compass is always being followed to a certain level. So by that logic, that means that everyone is already acting by their moral compass in war, whether they choose to serve or not, leaving us with no key difference from the status quo. At the end of the day, The question of whether it’s cowardice or bravery is so multilayered, that it’s unanswerable, each different situation has a different just outcome. However, to determine what is truly right, sometimes we as humans should sit down, reflect, and ask ourselves, “Is what I’m doing the right thing”? Whatever you deem it, you gave it some thought, and that should be your answer. Too often are major decisions rushed into

.

I would say that the most compelling idea is that the question of cowardice versus bravery is an unanswerable question regarding conscientious objectors and soldiers fighting in war. I thought this idea was very compelling because to me at least it's true. There are so many unknown, and what ifs that could continuously be asked to counteract any argument from either side, that there is no true clear answer to the question. I would say that my own views are pretty aligned with the thoughts in this response because the unknown factor about the question they chose to focus on was something I also chose to focus on. Their response was relatively similar to others with the given examples and questions they raised. I also agree with this take on how morality affects the people in war and the actions they will choose to take. They posed the question about how people, whether they know it or not, will follow the morals that they have developed over their life. When that time comes to become either a conscientious objector or a soldier, the question about just wars and a person's decision all comes down to their morality and what they view as just or not.