learntoquestion ltq discussions

In the article “Between Peace and War” the writers highlight how nationalism bound people differentiated by ethnicity, class and political party. In an excerpt from the German Social Democratic Party after the declaration of war on Russia in 1914, they declare, “Now we must face the inexorable fact of war. The horror of hostile invasion threatens us…to erase their [the endaraged or injured by war] inestimable suffering–we consider this our urgent duty,”(page 1). Thus the people, who were against war, turned into supporters of what was in their opinion, a just war. However, many of these people would end up dying and killing in what was relatively pointless conflict.

The first excerpt from Encyclopedia of Philosophy deals with Jus ad Bellum, the rules outlying what allows a war to be permissible. The generally agreed upon principles are that war: is a last resort, has a just cause, is declared by an authority, has a reasonable chance of succeeding, is only carried with good intent, and that parties use means proportional to what would be gained. States convinced the populace that they were following these yet to be enshrined principles. As said in class, most nations in WWI believed that the war would be quick, decisive and not excessively damaging.This is just one example of how soldiers are reassured of their conduct.

The second excerpt begs the question of what it means to be a target and what counts as a proportional target. It thus introduces “consequentialists” – those who believe that if an immoral action has a long lasting benefit it can be justified– and “intrinsicist”– who believe that an immoral action is simply wrong. Militaries often employ consequentialist policies such as destroying roads, power networks, the internet, or buildings housing arms despite civilian death because of the fact that the action would shorten long term suffering. In some cases soldiers might be forced into such actions but I believe that people try or should try to avoid such actions unless it is necessary.

As with anything, war and ethics in war are extremely complicated to evaluate. Although it is almost always in the best interests of the world to fight and prevent war, there may be a few special cases and exceptions in which war may be justified and even necessary. Although I would like to agree with the intrinsicism model, because in a perfect world war is always wrong, the real world forces us to challenge that notion. Therefore, I consider myself more of a consequentialist, and certainly believe it is the most realistic for our current world.

An example that comes to mind is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The Ukrainians were being threatened with death, as well as the loss of their homeland, culture, and natural resources. As a matter of self defense, they were almost required to fight back against the Russians, since they had no other alternative. The model of intrinsicism would suggest that the Ukrainians must not fight back because war is wrong, and they would see their country destroyed. However, the Ukrainians made a brave and unified decision, because they decided to protect their country even though they knew it would be a great risk not only to them but their families as well. As we know, war also has many moral and ethical conflicts entangled within it– after all, humans kill other humans in war. Many everyday Ukrainians had to grapple with the tough decision to fight even though they knew that killing someone may be something they had to do.

Considering this example and the fact that more is almost always morally wrong, I believe the just war theory constitutes a fair and just bridge between the consequentialist model and the intrinsicism model. After all, war should only be waged in very special circumstances. There was no reason for Russia to wage war on Ukraine other than greed and their self-conceived ideological superiority. Thus, following the just war theory, they would not wage war, since it did not fit all six categories that declare a war “just”.

The just war theory states that proportionality is necessary in war. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy states, “Proportionality for Jus in Bello involves tempering the extent and violence of warfare to minimize destruction and casualties”. To me, this point is extremely important since in war, moderation and proportionality are interesting and were only briefly mentioned in the Jus In Bello excerpts. For example, no matter how just the cause, it is never reasonable to bomb an entire city with the intent of killing every single civilian there; it would be more appropriate to bomb, say, an arms factory used for creating nuclear weapons which were destroying your towns. In order to de-escalate conflicts, and not re-escalate them, proportionality is the most important factor.

Jumping to conscientious objectors–to me, conscientious objectors are some of the most brave people. Although it seems like the easy way out, the societal shaming and punishment brought about from being a conscientious objector are (often) typically worse than the dangers and risks faced going out to war. Being a conscientious objector doesn’t arise from a fear of going to war– the word “conscientious” proves that it is a conscious and thorough decision to not fight, and that they have thought out the consequences of war. I have even more respect for those who refuse to fight for an unjust cause–for example, Russians not willing to do Putin’s bidding. I believe those people are doing the right thing, whereas I believe that people who choose not to fight for a just cause may be doing the right thing for them, but not objectively the right thing.

In the modern day large scale organized violence has allowed humans to become detached from the destructive acts that they commit on society. In the past war was much more personal, often requiring physical contact with the opponent in order to kill the enemy. However industrial society has taken warfare to another lever with mechanization causing distance between the two warring parties. While many people would like to believe that they always embody the better angels of our nature and intrinsicism values, most of the time, as a result of modern society and large scale warfare, we are required to embrace our consequentialist selves too. The Just War Theory and jus ad bellum aim to combine these two models of thinking. For example, one criteria for a “just war” is good intentions. In the excerpt from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Just War Theory, it is explained that good intentions can result as a desire to maintain peace for both parties involved, reflecting intrinsicism, however “such a war may justly be deemed too expensive or too difficult to wage; i.e., it is not ultimately in their self-interest to fight the just war,” reflecting the utilitarian nature of consequentialist values that also shape the just war theory.

While it is important to consider the will of the people in making greatly impactful decisions such as initiating, provoking, or joining a war it is also important to recognize that if all citizens decide to abide by their personal moral compass the effects of war would be amplified. If a large number of citizens do not support the war effort of their country, this could not only lead to civil unrest within the state but also a prolonged war as leaders would not have the support emotionally or physically from their own people. I believe that it is courageous to not fight in defense of your nation because you still have the opportunity to be patriotic as your morals do not necessarily have to align with the actions of the leader of a state. It is also courageous in the sense that you are rejecting conformity and going against what is most likely the majority that supports the war with the risk of losing your livelihood and your future. On that topic it is not however cowardice for someone to fight in a war that they believe is morally wrong because they are often faced with the difficult consequences, as mentioned above, of going against leadership.

I do believe that despite the fact that a soldier might participate in a war that they believe is morally wrong or unjustifiably by the standards of the Just War Theory they can still conduct themselves honorably on the battlefield. This can be done by following rules of war as outlined in jus in bello and in other places, namely the Geneva conventions. Jus in bello and the Geneva conventions assist soldiers to act morally by creating explicit guidelines for war which make the line that distinguishes morality of war a bit less blurry. By setting specific rules such as the protection of civilians or prohibition of attacks on organizations such as the red cross soldiers can have some reassurance that they are not acting in a way that is completely unjustifiable by any standard. Keeping this in mind it is also important to note that these rules do not completely prevent war crimes from happening but they do decrease their amount.