learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by star fire on October 21, 2024 20:01

War is not always and the use of large-scale, organized violence can sometimes be justified. It would be kind of naive to believe that people can never go to war. Not naive in a bad way, because wishing for the world is very peaceful thinking and if the world was perfect, there wouldn’t be war. But the world isn’t perfect. People attack people all the time because they view them as different even though everyone bleeds the same color. And when someone wages a fight with someone else it is the other person's automatic response to fight back. And honestly, it’s their right to fight back. They can choose to be the better person and walk away, however that is rarely ever the case. The same can be said for groups of people. If an enemy attacks, they will attack back. That’s why the consequentialism model is more realistic for the modern world than the intrinsicism model. However, the amount of violence seen in wars in history books and the wars seen today is completely unnecessary. Wars should only be fought between the leaders of people because that’s usually why the war started in the first place. To include innocents, attack civilians and take up people from their lives and families to fight a battle that they caused is evil. It is selfish to hide behind their desk and risk other people’s lives just because they have a difference they cannot solve. A war against a group of people is even worse. To target a group of people just because they’re different then you and you view them as a threat is immoral. Just War Theory does act as a bridge between the two philosophical ideas. In the Just War Theory in the Just Ad Bellum Convention section it says that “war should always be a last resort… all other forms of solution must be exhausted”. It takes into account that war is inevitable at one point, but it shouldn’t be the first thing that the two warring groups think of. They must’ve tried to find any other solution and war should be the last resort. In that same section the excerpt also brings up a very interesting point that there is “too much fog in war”, “too much moral haze”. War corrupts people, it turns innocent people who don’t know any better than what their government is telling them against each other and makes people act in ways they otherwise wouldn’t do under the guise of nationality.

I believe philosopher Jeff McMaham is somewhat incorrect and correct with his statement. Of course we shouldn’t reassure soldiers that killing people isn’t right even in the state of war, killing people is never valid, however we cannot ignore the fact that many are forced into that position or that they are fighting to protect their family members and the innocent lives that are waiting for them back home. They aren’t fighting just for fighting sake, they’re doing it for a reason. What would happen if they weren’t fighting for their country? What would happen to their family members and the civilians back home?

I really agree with this point because it highlights the moral responsibility of those in power. If leaders had to face the consequences of their decisions, it could help reduce the suffering caused by war. I find this idea interesting because it reminds us that the effects of war go beyond the battlefield and deeply impact ordinary people. The mention of Just War Theory adds depth to this argument by suggesting that all other options should be tried before turning to violence. This reflects my own belief that understanding should be our first choice. I agree with the idea that thinking that humans can never go to war is naive because, since the beginning of time, killing and violence have been ingrained into the human race. We are mentally and physically evolved to participate in violence and dehumanize a side that is different than us, the ideas of groupthink and mob mentality force us to come together against one cause. Every side will think they are just which completely negates the idea of war being just. Overall, I agree with your thoughts and they align with my own thoughts on the ethics of war. It reinforces the idea that while conflict may sometimes seem unavoidable, we should still always aim for peaceful solutions whenever possible. I think it would be valuable to explore how both philosophical ideas and real-world examples can help us understand when violence might be justified and the role of individuals in conflict situations.

Originally posted by bostonlatin1635 on October 21, 2024 18:48

To preface, we, as United States citizens, are extremely lucky and should be grateful for the lack of war on our soil in the last two centuries, as most of the effects of war are horrific, and many governments inflate their senses of selves, so they enter a war they are destined to lose. This idea of actual chance of victory was heavily discussed in some excerpts of Just War Theory or jus ad bellum.Just war theory, theorized after world war II, aims to answer the question of when or if ever war can be morally just. They are in two different perspectives: one of intrinsicism (all war is inherently wrong, regardless of context) or consequentialism (war isn’t morally wrong, given the correct cause and context). For me, I believe that we all should be somewhere in the middle, and that a middle ground would work much better in the modern world. At the moment, I think we are almost purely consequential in our decisions to engage in war. However, many countries have leaders with heavily biased minds, and they want to appear very strong in the global scene as a priority as to what that means for their civilians. On the basis of civilians in wars, I believe that civilians ought to have a choice whether to participate in wars. What many world leaders overlook is their own peoples thoughts and opinions. If a war is not morally just in the minds of masses, then that should be a nonstarter in the initiating of war. For example, the drafts in the United States saw many 18-25 year old men go into battle, mostly against their will. If more people resist the draft than willfully go in, that means that civilians disapprove of the draft and war in general. However, these governments will still go to war without fully knowing whether.

As for the third question, Jeff McMahan raises important questions about the morality of soldiers in unjust wars. On one hand, soldiers can act honorably and follow the rules of war, known as jus in bello, even if their cause is not just. These rules are meant to protect civilians and ensure fair treatment of combatants, promoting dignity in warfare. However, simply following these rules doesn’t guarantee that a soldier is acting morally overall. An honorable soldier in an unjust war may still be contributing to harm and suffering, even if they conduct themselves ethically on the battlefield. The distinction between jus ad bellum (justice of the war) and jus in bello emphasizes this: one can fight honorably but still be part of an unjust cause. It’s crucial to recognize that while soldiers can maintain personal honor, the greater moral implications of their actions are complex. Soldiers must reflect on their roles and the legitimacy of the war they are fighting. Ultimately, while jus in bello helps guide behavior in combat, it does not absolve soldiers from the moral weight of their participation in an unjust conflict. Balancing these perspectives can help us understand the deeper ethical challenges of warfare.

I agree very much with this person's beliefs and ideas about the fairness and justness of war. I stated in my response that the best answer to war, or the best theory to apply to scenarios when contemplating whether or not to go to war, is somewhere in between intrinsicism and consequentalism. I would agree that our involvements in war seem very consequential--not only in Ukraine and Gaza, but also other instances in the early 21st century in the middle east-- we believe we won't lose much by going to war, and the probability of us impacting the country in our favor is high. I also agree, I think, with the idea that the people, and not the government, ought to have the final say in declaring war. However, what if the people are not willing to fight for their country but the government desires to protect it, for non-corrupt reasons. This poses the question: if the government does stand for a "good" or "just" cause, and fits all the criteria in Jus Ad Bello, but its citizens do not support the war, is it still just?

As to their response about the third question:

I really like this person's point about finding a balance between perspectives. Although they want to bring honor to their country and upon themselves, like they said, there are always moral implications as well. For one to truly do the right thing involves taking these moral responsibilities into account and measuring them accordingly. This person argues, I believe, that a soldier who fights honorably for an unjust cause ought not to be absent from blame and their ethics still ought to be questioned. Therefore, jus ad bellum is more important than jus in bello, because jus in bello does not relate to the question of ethical causes of war.

Originally posted by lilbigmacfries on October 22, 2024 10:31

I believe that if someone’s country does anything that doesn’t align with their personal morals and beliefs, they’re not obligated to support it. Just as one of the videos we watched said, these mass atrocities and killings cannot happen without popular support. It’s also my understanding that in Jus Ad Bellum, not having a just reason to go to war overturns any other qualifications a country might have, such as hugh probability of winning, etc.

With that being said, I believe that it takes an extreme amount of courage to stand against your own nation and choose not to fight. In majority of cases I’ve seen or learned about, the vast majority of citizens willingly go to war behind their country, but it’s easier to run into war surrounded by other people than it is to stand seemingly alone against everyone around you. This ties into what we learned in Unit 1, regarding theories such as mob mentality, or the obedience theory. It’s apart of human nature to want to be in the “in” group, therefore overcoming that desire and being comfortable with standing alone in the “out” group takes more than anything it takes the be apart of that “in” group.

The passage, Jus In Bello, leaves a lot of responsibility for any actions of war committed on the soldiers themselves. It almost seems like it’s up to the soldiers to differentiate who’s a valid target and who’s not, but that isn’t the way it should be. When going into war, countries should have outlined battle plans instead of just throwing a soldier into war to decide who to kill and who to spare. While it might seem obvious to not kill civilians, when you’re thrown into a war without detailed or strict instructions, that may be harder to do. Ultimately, while soldiers are essentially human weapons of war, a lot of the times they’re following certain orders or guidelines from authority, which can be valid to a certain extent.

Despite having to follow orders, soldiers still hold some responsibility for their actions in war, especially when those actions go against their own morals. It’s hard to disobey such a powerful authority such as one’s own government, but as we saw in the Milgram experiments, it’s possible to go against orders if those orders are not something that’s agreed upon. Truthfully, it’s more courageous to not engage in unjust violence during war than it is to blindly follow someone’s orders and commit violent acts that the soldier themself doesn’t even agree with.

Overall, the ability to stand behind one’s own moral compass and beliefs is more admirable then blindly accepting orders or blindly following them. As seen in the reading we’ve completed, many countries go to war for unjust reasons, creating unnecessary and extreme violence. Besides courage, it takes a person with a strong sense of self to stray away from mob mentality, and extreme displays of nationalism during times of war. Just War Theory tends to avoid that entire situation, making war more of a last resort, and nullifying it to avoid extreme cases such as genocides, etc.

Your reflection on the complexities of war and individual morality is both clear and thought-provoking. You highlight the courage it takes to oppose national actions that conflict with personal beliefs, emphasizing that mass atrocities cannot happen without popular support, which calls for critical examination of our roles. By discussing Jus Ad Bellum, you point out that without just reasons, even military successes lose legitimacy, leading to a deeper understanding of ethics in conflict.

You also address the responsibilities of soldiers in Jus In Bello, noting that they often face moral dilemmas without clear guidance. This underscores the need for ethical training to help individuals navigate such challenges. Your reference to the Milgram experiments shows how powerful authority can lead people to act against their values, making your point about true courage lying in resisting unjust orders particularly strong. It reminds us that standing up for one’s principles requires great strength, especially under pressure.

Overall, your reflection calls for a commitment to personal beliefs and moral principles, promoting the idea that peace and justice should take priority over blind obedience. This mindset is crucial for creating a fairer world, especially against nationalism and mob mentality. By encouraging individual moral courage, society can challenge unjust systems and work towards a future that values compassion and ethical responsibility.

Originally posted by transcending.deer_777 on October 22, 2024 02:54

I believe that war can always be justified. When I say this, I do not merely mean that when countries have a disagreement, they should wage war to settle their differences; I believe that the justification of war is purely perspectival. Whether a war is caused by the over-aggressiveness of a country or by self-defense, there are many sides to a story, and the justification is based on the identity and background of the person involved.

Although I believe that the justification of war is purely a matter of perspective, I don't support the intrinsicism belief that war is morally wrong. War serves an important purpose in settling conflicts that cannot be resolved through diplomacy. In certain cases, military force or presence can demonstrate that a country should have control over a disputed issue. However, consequentialism can be equally dangerous as a concept. Just because the end result may justify a conflict, that does not mean that any means used to achieve it are justified. Just War Theory serves as a bridge between these two philosophies, making it clear when war is justified and how to act morally before, during, and after a conflict.

The issue with Just War Theory lies in its qualifications for what makes a war just; there are too many criteria. I'm not sure if this is an element of intrinsicism seeping into the theory, but under such strict guidelines, Just War Theory nearly implies that no war is just. This connects to the idea that a war can only be justified by an individual based on their lived experiences, making it impossible to justify any war from an unbiased perspective.

A citizen's responsibility to serve their country has long been tied to patriotism, but something that is discussed far less during wartime is a citizen's responsibility to uphold their morals. In the whirlwind of conflict, it is easy to justify violent and cruel actions because of groupthink, but we must not undermine the individual's ability to think critically. It falls upon each individual to decide whether fighting in a war upholds the core values of their country. As many would say, “We would never fight a war if every soldier had to agree to it,” and to that, I say good. War in our current society has been far too normalized as a fallback for solving issues. As stated in Just War Theory, “War should always be a last resort. This connects intimately with presenting a just cause - all other forms of solution must have been attempted prior to the declaration of war” (Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum).

War is a difficult topic, and I believe its justification is deeply subjective, dependent on the perspectives of those involved. We should recognize the complexities behind each conflict and avoid rushing to point fingers, because, like most situations, it is neither black nor white but rather various shades of gray.

I agree with much of what this student argues, especially regarding how war can be justified but is not morally right. They talk about how war is based on your perspective, which leads to the question that when people´s perspective´s are different, how can one understand if a war is justified? We base our justification of war on our own feelings about whether it should be happening, and not on the facts that inform the conflict. Even though war can be justified, mass killing and sanctioned destruction is morally wrong in all cases. If someone is conducting a just war, that doesn't make waging war morally correct, it only makes the war morally allowable. They also argue that war cannot be justified from an unbiased perspective, but I disagree that waging war in an act of self-defense is not justified when looked at from outside countries, like when the US watched Russia invade Ukraine. In addition, I agree with the idea that people are not responsible to fight in a war if it goes against their own moral values. Just because the reasons for the war might be just, that doesn't mean that everyone must fight in it because of other beliefs like religion that impact someone's ability to participate in the immorality of war.

Originally posted by questionably123 on October 22, 2024 07:47

In most circumstances, war is unjustifiable due to the death and destruction it causes. When a nation goes to war for reasons such as greed, vengeance, or petty rivalries, that war is not justifiable. Soldiers often face the loss of their lives or endure the trauma that comes with combat, all because leaders prioritize their pride over the needs of their citizens.There are situations where war may be justified, such as wars fought for independence, wars that are a last resort, or when a nation is threatened, making war the only way to escape oppression. I believe the intrinsic model is better for society than the consequential model because, even if the outcomes of a war may be seen as justified, the war itself may still be unjust, which is evident in many conflicts today. In these inconsequential wars, the distinction between justifiable defense and unnecessary violence can become blurred, and unjust strategies may be employed even for a just cause.Just war theory attempts to reconcile these two philosophical perspectives by stating that war should be considered unnecessary unless there are just reasons for it.

It may take more courage to refuse to fight for your country if you believe the war is wrong. Declining to participate when everyone else agrees can be very challenging due to groupthink or conformity pressure. A person may face anger and pressure from others who believe they should fight. However, standing up for what you believe is right might lead to greater fulfillment and less moral dissonance. Some might consider it cowardly to resist fighting in a war, but combating societal pressure can require even more courage. Often, soldiers follow orders without critically examining the implications, but the actions taken during war can weigh heavily on an individual. If everyone relied solely on their sense of right and wrong, the unity required to protect a country might unravel. Furthermore, if a nation goes to war for unjust reasons, its citizens should still fight even if they personally believe it is unjust. However, if a significant majority believes the war is unjust, they should refuse to participate, and the country should reconsider going to war if its citizens do not see it as necessary.

Even though Jeff McMahan believes that soldiers should not be told they are acting rightly simply because they behaved honorably during an unjust war, I disagree. While it is true that the war itself may not be morally justifiable, soldiers can still act honorably by following the rules of war and treating others with respect during battles. Their choice to conduct themselves honorably is significant, even in an unjust context.The principles of jus in bello can also guide soldiers in maintaining moral behavior, particularly through the standards of discrimination and proportionality. These principles set limits on actions, such as prohibiting the targeting of civilians or the use of excessive force. However, it is important to note that these rules may not always be sufficient, as wars often bring about severe horrors beyond these principles.

I think the most compelling argument that you made in your post regarded how the distinction between justifiable defense and unnecessary violence can become blurred. I agree that every action taken in a war or conflict can be defended or protested against by different people. I also think how people view a specific course of action during a war is greatly influenced by who they already believe is morally right or just in their war. The idea is especially interesting when examined in the context of wars where a nation might be justified in their reasoning for war but kill indiscriminately and disproportionately, especially when innocent civilians and children are involved, or when a war is waged between two nations who are equal in their justification for going to war and there isn’t a distinctive or correct answer to which nation is more morally just.

Another compelling point that you made was your comments on how soldiers can still act honorably by following the rules of war and treating others with respect during battles and how as a result should be honored and awarded for that. I completely agree and understand that there is a great importance to respecting and honoring those who have served and fought respectfully with national recognition, especially when they have withstood harsh and dangerous conditions. However, I don’t believe that citizens should still fight even if they personally believe a war to be unjust. I believe that the beliefs and reasons that you fight for, even if you might not personally believe in them, serves as a factor to whether or not your actions can be justified. Even if one personally acts honorably in a war, if you fight with and for a side that commits war crimes and mass atrocities, can you really be considered an honorable person?

Originally posted by mrgiggles!! on October 22, 2024 07:42

There is no denying that war as a whole is a complex and convoluted topic, with the justification of war being even more so. Thus, over the years, both the intrinsicist model and the consequalist model have come to light, falling on completely opposite ends of the spectrum. While intrinisicts believe that war and the acts that come with it are altogether morally wrong regardless of the outcome, consequentialists believe that war can be justified if it will prove to be beneficial. Though both are equally valid perspectives on the justification of war, they are both “either vague or restrictive when it comes to war,” as described by the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. For intrinsicists, does a nation not have a right to defend itself? Must it accept defeat even if war could absolutely help them? For consequentialists, who decides what is a morally just or unjust reason to go to war? What if the moral views of two opposing countries greatly contrast one another? How are “good outcomes” measured? I think that in our society, consequentialism is a much more realistic outlook, as war is simply too nuanced to reduce it to “right vs. wrong.” Even though many would want to agree with the intrinsicism model, it is rather too optimistic, as many people wouldn’t act according to their moral compass in times of war. Even if they did, war may still be inevitable as every person has a unique set of moral beliefs that shape how they would justify certain actions. What I may view as reprehensible could be perfectly just in someone else’s eyes. Additionally, while I do believe that humans are not naturally violent, I also think that we are certainly inherently drawn to violence. War, particularly for the protection of one’s people, is a reoccurring event all throughout history. While many people truly want to fight and serve for their country, many conform to societal pressures and participate despite their own values. I find it more courageous to not fight in defense for your nation due to your moral values, as it is difficult to not conform to the norm. Those who are “outliers” among a group of people are often ostracized and deemed less patriotic. In the images shown during class, it’s clear that conscientious objectors were painted as lazy and unmanly as they chose not to engage in war, even sometimes thrown in jail because of this choice. Their adamant rejection of the status quo isn’t an easy thing - it’s far easier to conform than willingly choose to be the “other”. On the other hand, I don’t think that it’s exactly cowardice to fight in a war that is morally wrong or unjust because of the desire to confirm. Humans inherently want to feel as if they are a part of a group - we naturally form “us vs. them” distinctions. For this reason, it’s easy to share a sense of common hatred with others against an enemy and use war as the way to do that. Engagement in wars seems to be largely tied to social psychology theories and human behavior, which only adds to the complexity of this topic. It’s hard to provide a definitive answer on what is exactly just or unjust since our perspectives vary so greatly from person to person and there are a wide array of factors that may contribute.

The most compelling idea in your post is the complexity of moral perspectives in the context of war. The contrast between intrinsicism and consequentialism is something that I agree with you on. Consequentialism seems more realistic when considering the nuances of war. In war, it is hard to label things as purely good or bad. The questions you raise about how “good outcomes” are measured is interesting, I agree with the idea that we as a society should question who determines these moral justifications.

I also found your section on conscientious objectors to be interesting. Rejecting war out of moral conviction requires significant courage, which is something I agree with. Through the ideas about conforming to societal pressures, we can see the reflection it has on our human nature. I appreciate how you acknowledged how both conforming and resisting can be complex responses rather than simply categorizing them as weak or brave.

One suggestion I have is to expand on the role of social and psychological factors in decision making during a war. Perhaps you could connect it to theories such as group think or social identity theory. Overall, your post is very interesting and reflects the complexities of Just War Theory.

Originally posted by EastCoast11 on October 22, 2024 07:11

When navigating the historical roots of War, we find ourselves developing an understanding of the complexities of human conflict, therefore we must ask ourselves: Is war always wrong or can the use of large-scale, organized violence sometimes be justified? The answer to this prompt may not be so easy to figure out, but understanding that perspective and morality play a significant role in this decision. On one side of the spectrum, some people hold moral principles such as prioritizing human rights and restorative justice. Therefore leaning towards ‘Intrinsicism In which you are certain on whether the actions are right or wrong at the start, regardless of how the outcome may be. Your instincts will often be clouded by your personal preference for truthfulness and respecting individual safety, which will drive one’s perception of the behavior. This stance often projects personal beliefs onto others, aligning with one another that have deep-set values to spread awareness. In contrast to Intrinsicism, some people fall under ‘Consequences’, those tend to follow a slower approach in comparison. Finding preference in judging an action’s mortality based on the outcome, despite how harsh and risky the process to get to that point was. This type of mindset is usually aligned with utilitarianism so instead of thinking individually, but instead, the overall advantage and benefits are taken from the operation. Consequentially, war is mostly to be justified based on the probability of success, as the concept of battling is good or not is not in thought of whether to proceed or not. The goal is to reduce the death outcomes and to rather protect the innocent or those at risk. The two positions are recognized, and now we question whether the war is acceptable as it is a sacrifice made for the better, will it be justified? Under what circumstances, or should they be validated at all? The concept of just war theory was introduced to include ethical guidelines that contributed to the reasoning for war and actions taken during the war, then the aftermath principles. Though, I agree with a piece from the Encyclopedia Philosophy, “The just war theorist is keen to remind warriors and politicians alike that the principles of justice following war should be universal and morally ordered and that victory should not provide a license for imposing unduly harsh or punitive measures or that or commercial interests should not dictate the form of the new peace”. Stating that regulations and principles established to guide any sense of war behavior should be morally bound. Therefore, the possible results for the civilians should be put at the top of the list of concerns, not necessarily the potential win the party could be facing. If we lived in a world where victory was the encouragement to wage war and put many individuals' lives at stake. There is certainly a gap between peace and war, unless just war theory is followed before parties decide to wage war as a solution to their problem, our better world will not be achieved.

Post your response here.

The most compelling idea in my peers post is the distinction between intrinsic and consequentialism in the context of war. The explanation of opposing moral frameworks intrinsicism and consequentialism,provides a good foundation for understanding ethical debates about war. I agree with this idea because it highlights the main dilemma in justifying large-scale violence: whether to prioritize principles or potential benefits. It’s intriguing because it frames war not just as a failure of diplomacy, but as a moral and philosophical challenge..My views align with my peers in recognizing that both intrinsic and consequential ethical frameworks are necessary when evaluating war. However, I like the intristic model more because of . I also agree with the post’s emphasis on the importance of just war theory but would stress even more the need for post-war justice to prevent future conflicts.A suggestion for improvement would be to further clarify the connection between intrinsicism and consequentialism with specific examples from history or philosophy, which would deepen the discussion. Additionally, the post could benefit from more exploration of how just war theory addresses the balance between morality and practical outcomes

Originally posted by shirleytemple on October 18, 2024 09:22

We all hope that we would be against war, regardless of the situation. However, modern society leans more towards war, and having a cause for fighting. Often throughout history, war has been unnecesary, therefore wrong, however with the change of society, war has become less frequent and more well thought out due to jus ad bellum. War is to restore peace, rather than just revenge. As seen in Jus Ad Bellum, war has criteria it needs to meet in order for it to be considered just. Some of this involves the idea that war should be a last resort, sometimes there is no other way to stop a common evil or protect a country without it; “justice of war…:having just cause, being a last resort, being declared by a proper authority. Possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used. (Jus ad bellum. 5)”. As well that measures should only be taken to the extent needed, which prevents excessive killing. These guides apply into Jus in Bello, where rules are applied to how you treat civilians and POWs. The idea that civilians shouldn’t be targeted, which limits casualties in war. This is not a one way mirror though, for this idea is broad and has holes in it. What if the civilians were old soldiers, what if they aid their soldiers, what if the soldiers hide with the civilians. All of these questions have answers that are dictated by individual morals. Which is also why no one can ever come to an agreement. Throughout Jus ad belllum, the writer constantly reminds the reader that this is a guide, “jus ad bellum are useful guidelines …” and “a useful starting point for ethical examination and they remain a guide…”. This is an important distrinction because while everyone hopes people would follow these rules, but many people don’t. You can make the argument that these aren’t real rules, which in truth they aren’t, but they can be used to keep people in check during war and analyze if the war was necessary and help politicans take the next steps after war. The hard part about this is that rules are only as good as they are enforced. Meaning that if people don’t push people to abide by them, they are less likely to follow. Moving on, civilians should be allowed to refuse war, if they feel it is unjust. Following, that if it so happens so many people do not wish to participate, that a country is left with a small army, that maybe leaders should reutrn to why they are going to war, and if it is necessary since so many people deem it not. It takes courage to fight and to stand against your country. Courage to fight because you are coming to terms with the fact you could die, you give up your life for others, for your country. While courage to stand against it because you are defying a greater power, and often the majority, which can seem like everyone dislikes you and is against you. Soldiers can act morally and immorally during war, even if it is unjust. Soldiers fight for so many reasons, it’s not all just simple. They could be forced, they could feel align with the cause, they could be pressured, and so many more things. Regardless of what side of war they are fighting on, it is possible to act morally. The soldiers are doing what they are ordered. Jus in bello helps soldiers know what acts are moral and which aren't, and keeps them in line. It also gives not only soldiers but leaders as well a rule book, and enforces responsibility onto them. As said in jus in bello, “the principle of responsibility re-asserts the burden of abiding by rules…on those acting in war to remind them that one day they will…take up civilian status…free of any guilt from war crimes.” This is an important and necessary thing in war, because the feeling of responsibility forces people to act better, knowing they could be punished for their actions. This is also why figures who don’t feel harsh responsibility often do whatever they want, and harm whoever they want because they know they won’t/can’t be punished (this was seen with the rise of Hitler, European countries believed if they left him alone he wouldn’t become anything bad, and Hitler used this as an incentive that he had the power to do whatever he wanted).

I think the most compelling idea that my peer writes is that Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello serve as ethical guidelines rather than just a set of strict rules. It acknowledges that these principles are not always followed, but they can be used for analyzing the morality of a conflict both leading up to it and during it. I agree with the idea that the principles of Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello are only as effective as their enforcement and the willingness of nations to follow them. The emphasis on accountability is important because it suggests that creating a system where individuals know they will be held accountable for their actions in war can help avoid immoral behavior in war. This aligns with the overarching theme that war should be conducted in a way that minimizes civilians’ suffering. I like the example of Hitler, who exploited the absence of accountability, because it illustrates how ethical guidelines can also fail to prevent atrocities. My view aligns with my peer’s: I believe that these are critical guidelines, however the real world application sometimes falls short. But these guidelines are valuable for holding leaders and soldiers accountable for their actions post-war.

Originally posted by asianwarrior27 on October 23, 2024 06:45

One on one hand, one’s loyalty to their country can drive them to participate in a war even if they disagree with the causes of war. And on the other hand, one’s morals can create resistance to participate in the war that they think is morally wrong. The Principles of Jus ad Bello in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy discusses that war is only justified if it meets a set of moral conditions. When a government decides to wage an unjust war, it is up to the citizens then if they want to fight or not, which poses them with a moral dilemma: to participate in a war that they think is unjust or refuse to fight because of ethics.

Jus ad Bellum, as discussed in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, offers the criteria for when a war is justified: a war must have a just cause, right intentions, and only be waged when other means are exhausted. This framework can justify resistance to a war if it’s initiated for reasons such as economic and political gain, and in that case, citizens can feel morally just to not participate. It takes more courage to refuse to fight in an unjust war because it defies both state authority and societal expectations. There are many instances where one, who decided to stand for their beliefs and not participate in a war they thought to be unjust, faced punishment or death. " Between War and Peace highlights the moral complexity of such decisions because people don’t want to feel like they failed their country but also don’t want to fight for an unjust cause. As discussed, one’s refusal to fight in a war can be viewed as abandonment of national duty, especially if the lives of others are at stake. This can be viewed as selfish or cowardly because they are avoiding their responsibilities as a defender of their nation.

If every citizen were to act according to their moral values on participating in war, national unity and military effectiveness would be undermined because a nation relies on the cooperation of their citizens in wartime. If too many people decide not to participate in war because it is unjust, then the nation becomes vulnerable to destruction and defeat. However, forcing people to serve in wars that they think are unjust can result in serious internal divisions and distrust in the government. A divided society can lead to social and political instability in the long run. Just War Theory suggests that wars should only be fought when they meet the strict moral standards. If a war fails to meet the criteria, then the citizens may be justified in their refusal to fight. Nevertheless, the theory also accounts for the necessity of collectivism and that a nation can not function if every citizen decides their participation in war for themselves.

While refusing to fight in an unjust war can be seen as an act of moral courage, it causes significant consequences for citizens and the nation. Even though a conscientious refusal may be a valid response, it raises the question about the ability of the nation to defend itself and maintain unity.

I love your point about the effects society would face if every individual chose their involvement in a war. I strongly agree with this idea and believe that there is a very fine line between forcing people to fight in an unjust war and listening to the voices of those involved in a necessary war. This fine line needs to be carefully considered. While I agree with you on this point, I also wish you had expanded more on how this concept has played out in history. Additionally, since you believe this could cause issues, what is the people's obligation to stand up to governments and express what they believe is wrong?

My biggest suggestion would be to delve deeper into the argument and take a more defined stance on what you believe, while also debating possible counterarguments. At times, it felt like you were teaching me about just war theory, whereas you should be arguing whether you agree with it or not. Lastly, rather than relying solely on documents, it would have been better to reference a war, either current or historical, that reflects the characteristics described in just war theory.

Overall, your discussion was very informative and a great read. It really made me reflect on the impact individuals can have on their environment and challenged the notion that individuals are powerless.

Originally posted by mydoglikescheese on October 18, 2024 09:40

In a perfect world where everyone got along, war would not exist. Even now, I believe there are much better solutions to fighting and that we as people have the capacity to work problems out. When choosing to fight wars, especially now in an age where large machines and technology are largely accessible, the violence just becomes larger. I believe war is not the right way to go, and that it is morally unacceptable. Despite this, I still believe in certain instances the only thing that can be done is to fight back, specifically in the case when a smaller group is being oppressed by a larger group. The loss of life and the total dehumanization of war is brutal, and if a war is going to be waged just because a nation has become greedy, the citizens should refuse to participate. The excerpt from “The Principles of Jus In Bello” questions why wars happen in the first place saying, “[w]hat if a war and all its suffering could be avoided by highly selective killing?” This nuanced question brings up a good point, however in the assassination of world leaders the idea of revenge comes up, and this is often a spark for wars in the first place.

Choosing not to participate in a war is not cowardice, but is also not a simple one-way street. In my view, war is not morally right, and yet it occurs. With an understanding of how our society works, unfortunately war will happen and continue to happen. I believe that during a war, there are not necessarily morals, but more so ethics. With every person there is a different opinion, meaning that what one person thinks is right is entirely different from what their neighbor believes. In spite of this it’s important to recognize that as mentioned in the Geneva Convention, civilians should not be harmed. There is no reason to go after them, and ultimately they should not be brought into the equation, except on the opinion if the war should be fought or not.

In the United States among other countries there is a large idea fighting in a war is noble and it is something of utmost respect. This narrative should not be fought over whether it is true or not, but rather should not be told at all. The soldiers who fight in a war are not bad people, and it is an honorable thing to do, however in all countries it should not be sold as that. War is a brutal and devastating thing, and when it is lifted up into this light, it enforces the mindset that war is the right way to go. By stopping this glorification of it, we can begin to better understand the total devastation that war brings, and perhaps even stop it from happening. By prematurely enforcing this idea, people will be less likely to support a war, especially for one that is not one that is being fought out of self defense.

The most compelling idea in this post is the fact that war should not exist, and wouldn’t exist in a perfect world, however there is the belief that there are some instances where you have to fight back. I completely agree with this idea because killing people and ruining the mental state and family dynamics is not okay and should not be acceptable as it should not be the first go-to. I find this interesting because it shows how one feels about other people's lives and interesting that this person and I have the same views. I also found it really interesting about the idea that people have different ethics, as they have different opinions on what one thinks is right another person might see differently, which I found interesting because I didn’t particularly see it in that view. An idea that was similar was the idea that choosing not to participate in a war is not cowardice and is okay, however can come with a lot of consequences like being made fun of or being seen in a different way because you are not doing what everyone else is doing, which ties in with conformity and mob mentality, but sometimes there is not much one can do. Overall, I thought this was well written and all ideas were complete and found it nice that there were so many ideas similar to mine!

Originally posted by cherrybacon on October 22, 2024 07:41

War isn’t always wrong, the use of large-scale organized violence can sometimes be justified. In the Jus Ad Bellum excerpt, the article reads, “War should always be a last resort…all other forms of solution must have been attempted prior to the declaration of war.” Therefore, war is justified after the use of every other method not working to meet the goal people were striving towards. The consequentialism model is more realistic for the modern world because it means war is not morally wrong if the outcome is just. For example, say a genocide is taking place in a country, if that country decides to hold a revolution, it’s just for them to start that war. Just War Theory does act as a bridge between the two philosophical ideas because it showcases the way that people need to be able to act within a war, whether that's the intrincism model or if its the consequentialism model.

If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, its citizens should refuse to participate in the war effort. It most likely won’t be easy for people to stand up against their government but it’s worth a shot. It definitely takes more courage not to fight in defense of your nation than to fight a war you believe is morally wrong because one would be going against their nation's beliefs and going against nationalism. If each citizen acts according to their own moral compass when a nation is at war, it can lead to that country losing the war due to not enough people participating in the war. Those consequences are not at all realistic for a nation to endure because this will make it so the nation is easy to fall apart and conquer/ defeat.

I agree with the statement that “we must stop reassuring soldiers that they act permissibly when they fight in an unjust war” because people need to be able to stand up for themselves and fight only for what they believe in and not fight for something that goes against their moral beliefs. Soldiers can act morally and honorably during wartime, even if the greater cause they are fighting for is unjust by not listening to all the commands that are given to them. If they are told to inflict violence on places where there are common citizens, they can act honorably by refusing to do that specific act in the war. The rules of war assist soldiers to act morally because they provide a guide to how these soldiers should act in war.

You make a strong argument, and the overall prose and organization of your writing is very well structured. Standing up not only for one's self, but also their group, whether it be a nation, culture, idea, etc. is very important, and you highlight that well in the last paragraph. With your last paragraph, another quote that could fit in is from the excerpt from Facing History and Ourselves titled Between Peace and War which states, "I think that to be a real conscientious objector a man must be, consciously or unconsciously, an extreme individualist.” It sort of ties in with the idea of objecting to a war if you think it is unjust, and it highlights the individuality in the right to protest.

I agree with you in your first paragraph as well, specifically about the act of rebellion. While I believe that most wars don’t need to be fought in the first place and I do not think they are right, I also understand the need to fight back, particularly when a group is being oppressed and even killed for their identity. It is always important to be true to yourself and to recognize the external forces that may be going against you.

Originally posted by KWR26 on October 21, 2024 21:36

I don’t think war is morally wrong if there is a just cause. In cases like the attack on Pearl Harbor I feel it is necessary even to go to war to defend yourself from further attacks and to provide a beneficial outcome for the people within your nation. As shown in the first reading “to defeat Germany in ww2 it was deemed necessary to bomb civilian centers.” I think consequentialism is more realistic in our world today where nations are constantly fighting each other for control of land and/or resources that they say they need. While war is hell, it is possible for war to be conducted justly in a manner that, while horrible, does not shine a negative light on either side. I think that citizens should have a choice on whether they participate in a war or not. I think it takes more courage to go and fight overseas against the guarantee of death but it definitely takes a lot of courage to refuse to fight. Sometimes governments have to step in and make decisions for the people but generally I believe that when left to their own devices people will make decisions based on their well-being and that often includes the well-being of their nation. In the case of Desmond Doss, he refused to use a gun and instead voluntarily served as a combat medic and ran through battle unarmed. On Okinawa when his platoon was being shelled, he single handedly saved at least 75 wounded soldiers on Hacksaw Ridge and was awarded the Medal of Honor as well as 2 Bronze Stars and 3 Purple Hearts. While still serving he refused the government’s orders to kill the enemy because of his standing as a conscientious objector and became an American hero in the process. I disagree with McMahan, I think individual soldiers can act justly even if the conflict they are fighting in is an unjust one. For example, American soldiers in Vietnam for the most part opposed the “war” and were seen in newspapers and on television brandishing signs that read “war is hell”. People often overlook the fact that most of those soldiers did not have a choice in whether or not they went to Vietnam as the decision was desertion or death and they wanted neither. While the war was heavily opposed at home, probably because it wasn’t really a war, it was full of atrocities coming from both sides, American’s blanketing Vietnamese crop fields with Napalm creating famine and generational diseases from the remnants of Napalm in the soil, and the My Lai massacre. As well as the Viet Cong targeting southern Vietnamese civilians and multiple Americans being killed in bombings the viet cong carried out. Soldiers can act honorably if they follow the general premises of Jus Ad Bellum and respect the enemy as humans and not just an opposing force. While you may kill, you can kill incidentally in self-defense, rather than killing for the sake of killing. Jus Ad Bellum helps soldiers carry themselves honorably in war by giving them a sort of guideline for right and wrong in extreme situations like war where the distinction is often blurred and both sides commit atrocities. Even though soldiers may kill in battle situations, that is more justifiable through the Geneva conventions and Jus Ad Bellum than walking into a village and killing everyone inside of it out of “fear” or “precaution”.

I agree with the idea that war isn't morally wrong if there's a just cause, but there's also more thought that has to go into that. Even with a just cause, war should still be a last resort unless it's a direct act of self defense like the Pearl Harbor example you gave. Although I don't agree with the idea that bombing civilian centers was absolutely necessary to defeat Germany, I see why that both can and cannot be argued. Anyone overall should have a choice of if they go to war, not just military and political leaders. In my opinion, waging a war your civilians want no part of doesn't make much sense, given that without your country's support, you'll only seem weaker at war with other nations. I agree that people make the decision that best fits their situation when deciding whether or not to go to war, and I personally believe that the government stepping in and trying to take that choice is both morally and ethically wrong. It also shows that the country most likely shouldn't go to war if they don't have enough willing participants to back it. Overall, there were very good points made in this post with good examples and evidence to back them up.

Originally posted by make_art_not_war on October 21, 2024 23:52

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.

The most compelling idea in this post is that citizens who decide to not support a war that they don’t personally believe in are courageous. This peer goes into how great of an impact that citizen advocacy can have on their society. “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” is a great point and I feel that it is important because if citizens were to stop supporting bad ideas from their government, governments would be forced to actually keep in mind what the citizens want for their future. This student’s post also connects the Just War Theory to the last unit we focused on discussing, the concept of conformity. It shows a strong moral compass to be your own person and not justify and follow with immoral actions, this is difficult because in these scenarios going at against the majority can have huge consequences. I also agree with the idea of soldiers act morally in an immoral war because there’s a code of conduct for them to act morally. Often times even if they are willing to fight in the war that doesn’t mean that they are the reason for the war happening so they shouldn’t be ridiculed and blamed for the immortality of the war but be held accountable for their own individual actions.

Originally posted by RW1107 on October 21, 2024 15:23

"...Someone else causing that harm is morally wrong, but simply responding to that aggression cannot be morally wrong because it is required. People often do not simply submit to their enemies without a fight, even if the chances of them succeeding are next to nothing. Very few people thought Ukraine had a chance to fend off Russia when they attacked, and yet they were able to do so based on the will of the people. It's in our nature to fight back, and that should not be hampered by pacifism in the face of death..."

This is the most compelling idea in the post. RW1107 does a great job pointing out the flaws of both intrinsicism and just war theory here. The idea that responding to aggression can’t be morally wrong connects to something I talked about in my post. I think one of the biggest contradictions in jus ad bellum is that only war out of self defense is justified, yet wars fought with ulterior motives are inherently unjust, according to it. Self-defense, though, is inherently self serving, and RW1107 recognized that as well, yet pointing out that it also contradicts yet another tenet of jus ad bellum, which I think is a great point: that oftentimes, wars of self-defense don’t have a high chance of success. Yet it is ridiculous to insinuate that a small country should not try to preserve its sovereignty and autonomy in the face of a much more powerful invader is unjustified in fighting back. I didn’t even consider Ukraine as an example of this, but it fits perfectly well—according to the theory, Ukraine would be unjustified since it is not likely to defeat Russia. But suggesting it should have given up without a fight is absurd. The last sentence is very well-written and perfectly explains the unrealism of intrinsicist thought. In theory, pacifism is the answer, but in practice, it is inapplicable. In situations like Ukraine’s, most would agree that anything that Ukraine has to do to drive Russia back should be deemed necessary to Ukraine’s own survival, whether certain actions they might take could be considered inherently bad or not. Besides, when the other side has already broken every rule of just war, why must the victim be chained to an unbending set of iron rules?