In times when war is waged for unjust reasons, citizens have the right to and should refuse to participate in any war efforts if it does not align with their moral ethics. In most societies, there are groups of people who deem themselves “conscious objectors–people who refuse to serve in or aid the military for religious or moral reasons” (FHAO). These people refuse to participate in war efforts because of their values, including religious and moral. Thus, it ultimately takes more courage not to fight in defense of one’s nation because it shows priority in oneself over their people, or in other words a lack of nationalism. However, not participating in war to defend one’s nation can lead to social outcastment or even violence to those who refuse to engage.
Despite this, the consequences that can arise if each citizen follows their own moral compass during times of war are dependent on the nation’s population. If most citizens have a consequentialist view, then war is more likely to occur because, if the outcome of the war is beneficial for their own nation, then the citizens will be more willing to fight as the results of the war are better than not going to war at all. On the contrary, if most citizens have an intrinsic view, then the nation has a higher chance of defeat because less people believe in going to war and, thus, will not be participating in the fight. Thus, a nation with a large population of intrinsicists are more likely to experience harsher consequences, such as forced submission and power abuse from the enemy nation, because they had less people fighting in the war. On the other hand, a nation with a large population of consequentialists has a better chance at victory because more people are willing to engage in battle.
In the modern world, consequentialism is more realistic because it gives both nations a fighting chance at victory. From a moral standpoint, intrinsicism is more desirable as it allows for those who do not wish to participate in war to do so peacefully. In the present day, though, with increasing military strength and ongoing acts of violence, consequentialism is necessary to determine whether an enemy nation is a true threat or not and if it is worthwhile to enable such acts. However, intrinsicism standpoints are still vital to society as they can prevent major and devastating acts of violence. Since, “intrinsicism can be so restrictive that it permits no flexibility in war,” it allows for more deliberation of acts before they are done (Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Thus, by being so restrictive, they can stop bad acts of violence from happening before they even get the chance to become ideas.
This shows that, even though consequentialism may be more realistic for the modern world, both ideologies are necessary to ensure that war is not done outwardly and with bad intentions. Consequentialism allows for war to be deemed justifiable or not, while intrinsicism makes sure that no extreme measures are taken during the actual war or stops any unjust acts during war by preventing it entirely. Thus, the Just War Theory does act as a bridge between the two philosophical ideas because it separates the ethics of going to war from those of conducting a war. In jus ad bellum, consequentialism plays a heavy role as it weighs the potential positive and negative consequences before waging the war. In jus in bello, intrinsicism establishes specific and certain rules of engagement, regardless if the consequences are good or bad. Through this, the Just War theory bridges the two ideas by accepting the fact that some wars are needed, while also establishing strict rules for how to fight during a war to prevent any mishaps.