learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by I_G0t_r1ch_1n_my Amirizz on October 15, 2025 00:00

There are two main codes of conduct that determine Jus Ad Bellum. One is consequentialism-the idea that a positive outcome outweighs its negative implications, the other is Utilitarianism-the Idea that there are no circumstances that allow for leniency. I believe that Consequentialism isn’t a more realistic model for the world. It allows for behavior to be loosely interpreted. The 6 juss-reasons for a war can be manipulated to mask a hidden motive that allows the war to be classified as justified rather than to be not justified: “Just-Cause”-A political official might claim that their extreme measures in the defense of human rights is required to ensure a positive outcome of extenuating circumstances like bombing a hospital or the genocide of an ethnic group they claim to be perpetrators. Legitimate Authority- A figure of authority could wage war on state with no given reason, or the figure of authority can be a dictator, declaring war without a just cause. Probability also delivers complications. To what extent does overpowering the enemy become unjust. Portionality-A dictator might argue that excessive force is necessary in achieving a positive outcome. An example is the nuclear bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were killed. The U.S claimed that this was necessary because of the devastation of Pearl Harbor and the militaristic advancement. and this loose interpretation is caused by the doctrine of consequentialism enabling these complications. I think that Utilitarianism is necessary in order to ensure that a war is just. Having loose interpretation creates problems. An example where loose interpretation has created problems in the past is the AOC. There wasn’t a strong centralized government and set of laws that allowed the government to be governed properly, which then caused the states power to be authorized over the federal jurisdiction. States like North Carolina and other southern states were able to compose a set of laws that went against the government's power. States could nullify the jurisdiction of the federal government which prompted sequential circumstances that overlapped the ideas that governed the Nation/ colonies as a whole. There is also the idea that war dehumanizes people. When people are forced into war they succumb to the inevitable-death, destruction, forced migration, and war crimes that are extremely inhumane. The nature of war dehumanizes people. Nationalism creates further divisions within society which heightens the dehumanization of people. Divisions create groups and cause groups to label their enemies as less than human: “But 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. It is only when the enemy is seen to be a people, sharing a moral identity with whom one will do business in the following peace, that tacit or explicit rules are formed for how wars should be fought and who they should involve and what kind of relations should apply in the aftermath of war. In part, the motivation for forming or agreeing to certain conventions, can be seen as mutually benefiting”(Excerpt). In the text it explains these conventions. We get caught up in our beliefs that we associate the other as less than human.

I think that the most compelling topic in the writing was when the 6 juss reasons for war were talked about. The writer spoke deeply on how they can be interpreted in many different ways which can cause harm to many others. In theory these reasons for war can be used in the right way but the way that they can be interpreted in different ways is wrong. The writer also spoke about how “to what extent does overpowering the enemy become unjust”. I thought this piece was very important because it connects back to many moments in war when many innocent lives were taken, and the piece specifically talks about the bombing of Hiroshima. Although the Americans were getting revenge for the bombing of pearl harbor, and it was a part of war the bombing of Hiroshima was unjust. Many innocent civilian lives were taken when this bombing happened, and the amount of death, and destruction was terrible. I completely agree with the idea that the 6 juss reasons of war are unjust because of how they leave so much room for interpretation, and there are many loopholes around these reasons. But I do believe that some times in war action needs to be taken but I believe that there needs to be ways around all of the death.

Originally posted by 987654321 on October 14, 2025 13:54

War can be viewed in every way. Society is divided by the intrinsicism and consequentialism ideals and can both be viewed as realistic. Neither ideals are wrong, they just correlate with the individual's inner morals. People who believe war is morally wrong tend to be intrinsic while people who believe war is not morally wrong, but only if the outcome is just. Although, in our modern day society, the consequentialist ideal does seem more realistic. Living in a world with foreign or external threats means our society needs to be prepared for anything. If we are being threatened and it could result in innocent lives lost, the strongest way to defend ourselves is war. At the same time, war can cause innocent lives to be lost too. Although there are just laws in place to prevent innocent civilians from being killed, this doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. The Just War Theory is a set of limits and rules to war to make sure the cause is justifiable and will be fought morally. This theory does act as a bridge between intrinsicism and consequentialism. Intrinsicism is the belief that war is morally wrong, but the Just War Theory sets limits to make sure wars are moral, which also plays into the consequentialist ideals. Consequentialistic ideas believe war is fair to the extent of making sure it is righteous. If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, citizens should be able to refuse to participate in the war efforts. It raises the question about why should people risk their lives and participate in war if they don’t believe in it or it’s an unjust reason for waging war? This question fits within the ideals of those who are conscientious objectors. In the “Between Peace and War” reading, a British man shares the view of an objector, stating, “I think that to be a real conscientious objector a man must be, consciously or unconsciously, an extreme individualist with little sense of the solidarity of mankind and of our membership one of another.” People viewed these objectors as people who had no sense of their nation and stood alone, like a traitor who doesn’t respect their community, but those who don’t want to participate in war also may just believe that it is unjust to have innocent citizens lose their lives for a war they didn’t want or believe in. It takes courage to not fight in the defense of your nation. Just because you fight in a war you believe is morally wrong doesn’t make you a coward, but rather it just proves the consequences one must face when they try to step away from the norm. There are consequences if one doesn’t stand with their nation as they are considered as an outcast and not part of the nation. If every citizen only acted according to their own morals during a time of war, the nation would be weak. It would have no sense of unity because there would just be so many different opinions and ways of thinking trying to run a country. Soldiers can act morally and honorably during wartime even if the greater cause they are fighting for is unjust because there are laws and values that soldiers must follow in order to have the most just war. This involves protecting innocent civilians and protecting buildings like not destroying hospitals. The rules of war through the jus in bello guidelines, attempts to make the most honorable and just war.

The consequentialist model is definitely more realistic when it comes to wars. There’s too many external conflicts and violence is often the most straightforward way to escalate a conflict that is complex. Self-defense is the most righteous cause to declare war, as it places most of the responsibility of lost lives on the aggressor while protecting the peace of the victim. I do agree that it takes courage to defy the norm as a conscientious objector and refuse to participate in war, but I believe that citizens should still be required to go to war. Despite not aligning with just causes, citizens and soldiers alike can still act morally during war like the response claims. However, it doesn’t address that a country will lose its military power and support if enough people refuse to go to war. This causes a pointless war, where the country is forced to fight a losing battle where plenty of lives are pointlessly lost. The idea that “if every citizen only acted according to their own morals during a time of war, the nation would be weak [. . .] it would have no sense of unity because there would just be so many different opinions and ways of thinking trying to run a country” is intriguing since the writer claimed that citizens shouldn’t be required to go to war and act on their individual moral compasses. This poses the question of the extent of individuality someone can express during times of war, as no unity creates confusion. I think the writer can expand on this idea a little bit more since this topic is very multifaceted.

Originally posted by random on October 14, 2025 17:19

Based on the Just War Theory, in my opinion there is no war where it is absolutely intrinsic or absolutely consequentialist. Intrinsic is the form who claims that there are certain acts that are bad or good in themselves and in which they do not matter if the outcome is good or bad and consequentialism is an open ended model, highly vulnerable to pressing military or political needs to adhere to any code of conduct in war. When it comes to choosing which is a better side, consequentialist in my opinion would be the better option because it matters what the outcome is and it justifies moral rules. I would rather choose a side in which myself and others care about the outcome being good or bad because if it is good that means people are happy, but if the outcome is bad, people are mad and will not enjoy the fact they did not get what they wanted. For the people who would rather be on the intrinsic side is up to them and they can have their opinion, but I would care based on what would happen in the world and to my life. I would care if the situation was disrupting my life or making it better in any type of way. Intrinsicists have many claims to which, “that possessing a just cause is a sufficient condition for pursuing whatever means are necessary to gain a victory or to punish an enemy” (Just War Theory- Jus Ad Bellum).

If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, citizens should have moral reasons to refuse to participate in the war effort. Refusing to fight in an unjust war usually takes courage because conscientious objectors may face punishment. If people stand by their courage, it doesn’t mean they are obeying the situation, it could mean people are standing up against it when it is wrong. But if people have their own moral compass and people choose to reject participation, the country will start to lose the ability to fight, which makes them look bad in that sense. If each citizen decides to go based on their own moral compass, those decisions would most likely be that people do not want to be part of a situation such as war where anything can go wrong. If you say yes to war, from there on it is on you and others to decide the actions in which you perform. They can either help part the world or it can cause many disruptions. In reality when talking about war there are also discussions among societies that protect conscientious objection, but that is why there are such situations like courts or debates to decide whether a war is just before it happens. Courts and debates are supposed to allow society to make a decision among each other to see what is overall the best decision when talking about a just war. A just war should only be presented if there is a major problem being caused, that has to come to an end by fighting within one another. Overall, a society should be respectful of moral objection while also acknowledging that wars should only be fought for just and appropriate reasons.

The most compelling part of my peers' ideas are their idea that consequentialism is a better approach because it focuses on the outcomes of war and if it is negative or positive. But my question is who determines that. But I do sort of agree with it because it emphasizes the importance of focusing on the actual real world effect of the people and not just on the “moral rules”. It's interesting how they say a good outcome makes people happy and a bad one causes suffering but what about the individual person? Their point about citizens refusing to participate in unjust wars also stood out. It gives power to the individual person's beliefs. It kind of connects back to what we've talked about with things like standing up to authorities and going against the group. My own view is somewhat similar. I also believe that the outcome of a war is very crucial but I believe there should still be strong limits on what actions are allowed even if the end result turns out to be “positive”. The end does not justify the means so I believe that the means do have to be controlled. I think not one of these methods are perfect but a mix between all of these can help.

Originally posted by ilovelexi23 on October 14, 2025 16:10

War has always been a major debate. War shapes nations, destroys lives, and raises some of the most difficult questions in humanity. Some believe that no matter what war is evil and wrong, whereas others see it as sometimes the only necessary solution to create peace and solve problems. Whether or not war can be justified depends on either the intrinsicism or consequentialism or Just War Theory model of war. In the intrinsicist perspective, war is always wrong in itself because it involves intentionally causing human life to be put in harm's way, destruction and suffering. There are certain things in war that have to be seen as purely evil, taking someone’s life is evil. I don't think violence can ever lead to peace. Throughout history even just wars have ended in violence and many deaths. Once society accepts killing someone, as a way to solve peace, it will mess with people’s morals and make bad things be seen as okay in different situations. Consequentialism judges the morality of the war by the outcomes. If it ends well, it can be seen as good and justified on a large scale. If violence prevents greater harm, it can be defended as a good thing at times. Many people can see World War 2 as a justifiable war as it stopped genocide. War is not good in itself but it solved a larger issue. Just War Theory combines these two moral rules for when and how war may be fought. That war can be argued as justifiable under certain rules such as having a just cause, for the right intentions and other important rules. It shows the belief that killing is wrong while accepting the idea that sometimes it may be necessary to prevent a greater evil. Overall, I think it is important to see both sides, I believe that overall war is bad and there are other ways to solve big problems but I can also understand that war sometimes is inevitable and can come down to the only solution.

The most compelling part of this person's post is their belief that war is morally wrong, and they also express their understanding of the inevitability of war happening, even though this person believes there are better ways to solve issues. Another part of their compelling idea is how they conveyed that seeing the truth and both sides of the story is extremely valuable, which I completely agree with. I believe that many issues happen from selfishness and a lack of understanding of all. I could suggest that this person could work on some of their transitions from point to point. Another thing is that this person could give more background about intrinssicism and consequentialism. This person was talking about moral hazard and brought up a valuable point about how society continues these bad trends and kills people, and not accepting the morals of all when bad things happen, but are not seen as wrong or right always. This is a moral hazard. I see the connection and I agree with the point about how war is bad, but I think that point could be developed more. Overall, this is a great reflection and conveys a good understanding of this topic.

Originally posted by perfectbug on October 14, 2025 11:34

Yes, morally, war is always wrong, but war is necessary. On a large scale, when there is no other way, war is therefore necessary; this is the unfortunate truth. When two or more massive countries disagree on a religious, political, moral, or territorial issue, wars start. To decipher between the intrinsicity model and the consequential model, I looked at World War II What Adolf Hitler did was morally wrong to everyone except himself and a few others. So, how do the morals of war affect an immoral idea, such as Hitler's attempts to take over the world? In this case, war is necessary and more morally right because the outcome is right? Well, yes, but when Hitler was completely disregarding the laws created post World War I that disallowed Germany from growing its Army, no country stepped in or said a thing, as all these countries were benefiting from the growth of the German economy, which is immoral, and all the countries were bystanders as Germany broke many laws. Overall, what I am trying to say is that yes, war is morally wrong, but there are times when things need to be done so that a World War II does not happen again, as this could have been prevented if countries stepped in earlier. I also think that the citizens of a country, even in the United States, are not completely responsible for unjust and immoral violent actions. The United States government is elected by the people as it is a democracy, which is good. But, even though the government that decides to or not to participate in a war makes a poor decision, and they are an elected government, they are elected for reasons, but a decision they make years into their service as a governing body should not be held accountable by the citizens. I somewhat agree with Jeff McMahan that the soldiers should not be held responsible for an unjust war. I partly agree because in some cases, many people go to the army as they believe they have no other option, which is sometimes the case, and therefore, they should not always be held responsible. However, some of the commanders and scientists who helped Nazi Germany achieve what they achieved were not held responsible, as some geniuses from the Nazi attack on the world were taken without punishment to the United States to help NASA, and that is why I do not completely agree with Jeff McMahan. One quote from The Principles of Jus In Bello states: “victory is so often associated with the greater right when one’s own country vanquishes its enemy”. This is saying that sometimes the act of victory takes over the real immoral fact of war. This is a bad problem as the world should be focused on how bad war is, not the victory. Overall, this was a great discussion as I learned many new things about a Just War, and I also learned a lot from my peers as they had great perspectives on this topic and war.

Post your response here.

The most compelling idea in my peer's post is that they emphasized that war should not be taken lightly as it's the very last resort, if we pushed for more efforts for diplomacy and peaceful agreements then it would minimize the likeliness that we do go to war. Additionally they made a strong point by using Nazi Germany as an example. Hitler had started his own internal movement that manifested into something dangerous for the entire world and so in this case my peer argued that morally war is just to protect those who did no harm. I agreed that there are always two sides to the matter of war and the conflicting ideals of intrinsicity and consequential and how they said our government although chosen by the people will very often go to war that the people object to. The people and the citizens have to decide how to react to this decision and my peer acknowledged that the people are not responsible for the governments decision, they should only be held responsible when they commit and atrocious act. I think my peer thoughtfulyl integrated nazi Germany into their response as a prime example of when war should start but also knowing that it's morally wrong in some aspects.

Originally posted by ChickenBurger on October 14, 2025 17:07

The Just War theory is a very crucial and notable theory that plays an important role in the topic of war, and murder. War is a very horrible and disgusting thing, and no ordinary or sane person truly deserves to die, and no group of people ever deserves. However, this does not mean that war cannot and has not been justified. War usually is started by two massive nations either to boast the size of their armies, or to collect resources or land for their nation. Within this, the allies and smaller nations that surround these large countries often join whichever nation they perceive as the winner or the most likely that would benefit themselves. Wars are often started for unjustifiable reasons, boasting the size of armies or to collect resources or land for their nation falling under that category. For war to be considered justifiable however, it must be started to protect an oppressed or weaker group or to stop a tyrannical or evil power. This has never truly been achieved in the real world. The nation declaring war may have used this as their reasoning, but behind the curtains, they are joining this battle for reasons that benefit themselves and their people, and helping others is just an accessory of the fact. When a nation wages a war, they often conscript civilians or have a draft. This raises the question, should one willingly participate in war for their country if they know that the war is being fought for unjust reasons? The short answer is yes. The nation will often push a nationalist agenda during this time, looking to fire up its people and get them “in the mood” to fight. This often works, but one must stop and think about what they are doing and why they are doing it. The war often does not even benefit the common folk, and instead makes the higher elites even richer than they were before. The government also often punishes those who refuse to participate or flee the draft, labeling them as “deserters” or “defecters” and preaching that they do not love their country and their people. In reality, it is the exact opposite of what the government is saying. These people actually care about their country and people more than almost anyone, as they know that the war being waged is unjust, and that it will only result in unnecessary deaths for the citizens of their country. In Facing History’s Between War and Peace it discusses the concept of a conscientious objector and the role they play during war, “Only a few men refused to fight. They declared themselves conscientious objectors—people who refuse to serve in or aid the military for religious or moral reasons… ‘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.’ Almost everywhere, conscientious objectors were imprisoned for refusing to fight. Russell was no exception.” This shows how the government and army can stir up excitement for an incoming war and get people to enlist and join the war effort, when in reality the war only makes the elites richer while killing and crippling millions of innocent and unknowing soldiers and civilians.

The first part of your response that sticks out to me is your take on the view of the government in times of war. I agree with the idea that wars are declared more for the power a nation will gain, rather than protecting an oppressed or weaker group or to stop a tyrannical or evil power. The power/nation declaring war may use that claim as a way to make themselves feel better about the harm and disaster they are about to cause on their opposing side, but that usually isn’t their intention when actually going to war. I think that point goes further along with the fact that war is most beneficial to the government and elite, making them more powerful and rich.

The second point you made that stuck with me was your point on how the government calls out conscientious objectors, labeling them as defectors, people who don’t love and support their country. In reality, these conscientious objectors actually are the people who care the most about their country because they know that fighting in an unjust war won’t result in any good for the country or its people. Also, conscientious objectors are punished by the government and imprisoned for not fighting which ties back to the idea that the government only thinks about benefiting themselves in times of war.

Originally posted by abrahamlincoln2.0 on October 14, 2025 22:11

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.

I agree with everything that was said in this post. One particular idea that stuck out to me was the connection between consequentialism/intrinsicism and the outcome of a war. I hadn’t previously considered the role that those ideologies played in the decision to join war or not, and it does make sense that those with a consequentialist approach would be more prone to join. Another point that they made that I also made was that the use of both ideologies are necessary when discussing ethics of war. The consequentialist approach allows you to weigh the positives and negatives of a situation while the intrinsic approach keeps you from taking drastic measures. I also think that their ideas about whether people have the choice to join the war or not are very interesting, and I definitely agree with what they said about people having the right to choose what they want to do. However, I personally feel that the intrinsic ideology is a better approach for the modern world. I agree with your point that it allows people to act more rationally and not act in ways that are too harsh, and I therefore think that in our modern world with technologies that could cause significant damage, being overly cautious might be necessary. However, I still agree with everything you said about consequentialism. Overall, I thought that this was a very good post with many well thought out points that I agree with.

Originally posted by ilovelexi23 on October 14, 2025 16:10

War has always been a major debate. War shapes nations, destroys lives, and raises some of the most difficult questions in humanity. Some believe that no matter what war is evil and wrong, whereas others see it as sometimes the only necessary solution to create peace and solve problems. Whether or not war can be justified depends on either the intrinsicism or consequentialism or Just War Theory model of war. In the intrinsicist perspective, war is always wrong in itself because it involves intentionally causing human life to be put in harm's way, destruction and suffering. There are certain things in war that have to be seen as purely evil, taking someone’s life is evil. I don't think violence can ever lead to peace. Throughout history even just wars have ended in violence and many deaths. Once society accepts killing someone, as a way to solve peace, it will mess with people’s morals and make bad things be seen as okay in different situations. Consequentialism judges the morality of the war by the outcomes. If it ends well, it can be seen as good and justified on a large scale. If violence prevents greater harm, it can be defended as a good thing at times. Many people can see World War 2 as a justifiable war as it stopped genocide. War is not good in itself but it solved a larger issue. Just War Theory combines these two moral rules for when and how war may be fought. That war can be argued as justifiable under certain rules such as having a just cause, for the right intentions and other important rules. It shows the belief that killing is wrong while accepting the idea that sometimes it may be necessary to prevent a greater evil. Overall, I think it is important to see both sides, I believe that overall war is bad and there are other ways to solve big problems but I can also understand that war sometimes is inevitable and can come down to the only solution.

I think this person has really good ideas about the difficult discussions and different approaches to the morality of war. They also compare ideas of Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bellum. The person brings up good ideas about intrinsics or consequentialism too. This persona talks about the debate about morality and justification. Solving a peaceful problem with a deserved outcome is hard to justify. This person also talks about how war can be just based on intentions which is a good point. Depending on the size of war, as well as the reason for it, it can determine the relations and justification of the continuation of said war. Overall this person said that they think war is bad, and that it is hard to justify war because no matter what people are dying. This person believes that there are other ways to solve a problem besides war. For example country leaders meeting individually and creating a peace treaty, in the end no country wants their people to die, this is a good way out for both sides. Overall this person has really similar ideas to me, they believe that war can be justified in reasoning of safety and if it is the best decision for their country, and ensures the best outcome.

Originally posted by applebeesandthesevenseas on October 16, 2025 13:39

Originally posted by purplegiraffe_15 on October 14, 2025 12:45

The battlefield, during times of war, is often viewed as a lawless land where there only exists plunder, destruction, and violence. Just War Theory serves as a mediator between morality and the horrific nature of war, which describes a set of rules that need to be obeyed in order for a war to be fought as ethically as possible. It is split into justices before, during, and after a war: Jus Ad Bellum, Jus In Bello, and Jus Post Bellum. Jus Ad Bellum states that the purpose of war must have a righteous cause, that it is declared by authority, that it has a chance of success, and that the severity of warfare used is proportional to the goal. The rules of Jus Ad Bellum have blurred lines, as any nation can state that their reason for going to war is a just one and therefore morally correct. Realistically, the consequentialist model of war will always rule the world because humans have a tendency towards violence to resolve irreparable conflicts. Although Jus Ad Bellum does appeal to morally correct reasons to permit war, its rules are too ambiguous and need interpretation. Therefore, in the chaos and confusion of war, people will unite under a common cause to destroy the enemy to protect themselves and their cause. Psychologically, humans will focus on the survival of their own in-groups (in this case, their country) and would rather prefer the destruction of other countries for their own self-preservation. In order to act with proper moral intent, it is required that we “think about what is proper and it is not certain that not acting in self interest is necessarily the proper thing to do” (Just War Theory). So, although it is important to leave room for empathy for the enemy, it’s not guaranteed that the enemy won’t attack with the same mindset. Therefore it can be better to act in self-interest to protect your group rather than empathize with an enemy. Just Ad Bellum only scratches the surface of the complexities of going to war, but does suggest insightful ideas into leaning towards a more intrinsic view of a consequentialist-dominated world.

There are conscientious objectors that, no matter the circumstances, refuse to fight in war because they believe that war is inherently wrong. Although they hold this belief, nations still shouldn’t offer citizens the option to participate in the war effort. Specifically, they should require that citizens fight in the war. People are neurologically conditioned to be repelled by killing. If citizens are given an option, rather than required to fight in war, then there will be significantly less combatants. Not only are people scared to kill, but they are scared to be killed in war. The number of soldiers, driven by the cause of the war and patriotic motivations, will pale in comparison to the number of citizens that refuse to fight. As a result, the country will be fighting a war that they have no chances of winning. These consequences aren’t realistic for a nation to accommodate for its citizens because they will be exhausting lives and resources without being able to put up a fight. It takes more courage to not fight in a war you believe is morally wrong because you then face mass public condemnation for avoiding the war. To be able to resist the pressure requires a strong resolve in your own beliefs.

While reading your response I appreciated your straightforwardness alongside the descriptive wording you used. Specifically in the beginning, I valued your description of war as a "lawless land." Your words bring out valuable points about society as a whole and the actions of individuals. However I do think you could go more in depth about the morals behind war and decisions pertaining to war, and possible reflect your own view on these matters. I was interested in the points that you brought up that "humans have a tendency towards violence," but also that "People are neurologically conditioned to be repelled by killing" these are both interesting points and I would love to hear more on how you believe they may work alongside each other in war. I was also further intrigued with your suggestion that everybody should be put to fight despite individual moral objections. This made me wonder if such things were allowed, how would catastrophe and horrid human acts be prevented. Wouldn't silencing these conscientious objectors prevent an important moral outlook on war? My response found importance in these objectors and on individual viewpoints while yours viewed them in a way as a nuisance. Our views in the light of this discussion were very different and I appreciate reading your response. It was well written, but I believe you could go deeper and explain your views further.

I believe your most compelling argument is that Jus Ad Bellum is a bridge between intrinsicism and consequentialism, which highlights the moral complexity of war. I definitely agree with this idea because war ethics can’t fully be understood through one moral lens and balancing both allows for a more realistic approach. You make a strong point that war extends beyond just immediate violence and includes long term social and psychological effects, which helps readers consider morality in a broader sense rather than just military victory.

I also really like your discussion about individual responsibility and moral courage, especially when you connected Die Welle and “Peace and War”. The comparison between collective conformity and individual resistance deepens your argument. It shows that moral strength is not just a theoretical concept but deeply personal and situational.

Your ideas relate to other posts that emphasize the difficulty of moral judgement in war and the tension between personal ethics and national loyalty. Like others, you highlight the struggle between just doing what is right versus what is expected, which is a huge part of the Just War Theory.

If I were to give some feedback, you could clarify your explanation of intrinsicism earlier on and quickly define it before analyzing the limits for the readers who are unfamiliar with the term. Further, maybe refining some transitions when shifting from one theory or quote to another could help the argument flow more smoothly. Overall, your analysis was really thoughtful and really reflective.

Originally posted by ChickenBurger on October 14, 2025 17:07

The Just War theory is a very crucial and notable theory that plays an important role in the topic of war, and murder. War is a very horrible and disgusting thing, and no ordinary or sane person truly deserves to die, and no group of people ever deserves. However, this does not mean that war cannot and has not been justified. War usually is started by two massive nations either to boast the size of their armies, or to collect resources or land for their nation. Within this, the allies and smaller nations that surround these large countries often join whichever nation they perceive as the winner or the most likely that would benefit themselves. Wars are often started for unjustifiable reasons, boasting the size of armies or to collect resources or land for their nation falling under that category. For war to be considered justifiable however, it must be started to protect an oppressed or weaker group or to stop a tyrannical or evil power. This has never truly been achieved in the real world. The nation declaring war may have used this as their reasoning, but behind the curtains, they are joining this battle for reasons that benefit themselves and their people, and helping others is just an accessory of the fact. When a nation wages a war, they often conscript civilians or have a draft. This raises the question, should one willingly participate in war for their country if they know that the war is being fought for unjust reasons? The short answer is yes. The nation will often push a nationalist agenda during this time, looking to fire up its people and get them “in the mood” to fight. This often works, but one must stop and think about what they are doing and why they are doing it. The war often does not even benefit the common folk, and instead makes the higher elites even richer than they were before. The government also often punishes those who refuse to participate or flee the draft, labeling them as “deserters” or “defecters” and preaching that they do not love their country and their people. In reality, it is the exact opposite of what the government is saying. These people actually care about their country and people more than almost anyone, as they know that the war being waged is unjust, and that it will only result in unnecessary deaths for the citizens of their country. In Facing History’s Between War and Peace it discusses the concept of a conscientious objector and the role they play during war, “Only a few men refused to fight. They declared themselves conscientious objectors—people who refuse to serve in or aid the military for religious or moral reasons… ‘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.’ Almost everywhere, conscientious objectors were imprisoned for refusing to fight. Russell was no exception.” This shows how the government and army can stir up excitement for an incoming war and get people to enlist and join the war effort, when in reality the war only makes the elites richer while killing and crippling millions of innocent and unknowing soldiers and civilians.

I found it fascinating how you illustrated war often benefitting only the elite while the common folks bear the consequences. Automatically, this means that the ordinary citizens are fighting and risking their lives for the elite. It makes us wonder why countries go to war in the first place because like you said, there is an underlying motive behind the official reasons presented to the public. We may be told one story, but behind the scenes, there may be a whole different reason. I agree with your idea that wars are declared for the nation’s own gain, rather than from stopping evil tyrants or defending the oppressed.

However, I disagree with your thought that if a nation wages an unjust war, then the people of the nation should still have to fight it. You should act according to your conscience and moral values, whether that means not going to war or going to war. In the end, it’s your decision and the consequences of that choice can shape your future life. Nevertheless, I believe you backed up your claim well, especially in highlighting how a good citizen wouldn’t do anything to hurt another citizen. In conclusion, your response was both pleasant to read and easy to follow.

Originally posted by perfectbug on October 14, 2025 11:34

Yes, morally, war is always wrong, but war is necessary. On a large scale, when there is no other way, war is therefore necessary; this is the unfortunate truth. When two or more massive countries disagree on a religious, political, moral, or territorial issue, wars start. To decipher between the intrinsicity model and the consequential model, I looked at World War II What Adolf Hitler did was morally wrong to everyone except himself and a few others. So, how do the morals of war affect an immoral idea, such as Hitler's attempts to take over the world? In this case, war is necessary and more morally right because the outcome is right? Well, yes, but when Hitler was completely disregarding the laws created post World War I that disallowed Germany from growing its Army, no country stepped in or said a thing, as all these countries were benefiting from the growth of the German economy, which is immoral, and all the countries were bystanders as Germany broke many laws. Overall, what I am trying to say is that yes, war is morally wrong, but there are times when things need to be done so that a World War II does not happen again, as this could have been prevented if countries stepped in earlier. I also think that the citizens of a country, even in the United States, are not completely responsible for unjust and immoral violent actions. The United States government is elected by the people as it is a democracy, which is good. But, even though the government that decides to or not to participate in a war makes a poor decision, and they are an elected government, they are elected for reasons, but a decision they make years into their service as a governing body should not be held accountable by the citizens. I somewhat agree with Jeff McMahan that the soldiers should not be held responsible for an unjust war. I partly agree because in some cases, many people go to the army as they believe they have no other option, which is sometimes the case, and therefore, they should not always be held responsible. However, some of the commanders and scientists who helped Nazi Germany achieve what they achieved were not held responsible, as some geniuses from the Nazi attack on the world were taken without punishment to the United States to help NASA, and that is why I do not completely agree with Jeff McMahan. One quote from The Principles of Jus In Bello states: “victory is so often associated with the greater right when one’s own country vanquishes its enemy”. This is saying that sometimes the act of victory takes over the real immoral fact of war. This is a bad problem as the world should be focused on how bad war is, not the victory. Overall, this was a great discussion as I learned many new things about a Just War, and I also learned a lot from my peers as they had great perspectives on this topic and war.

I think that the most compelling idea of my peer’s post is the comment they made that war is sometimes necessary as a last resort and that there are many things beforehand that can stop this from happening. War is a very gruesome and brutal thing that ends up hurting both sides, and I feel like this should be one of the reasons why it’s only used as a very last resort. I find this compelling because I also agree with this, and I briefly wrote about this in my response. I feel that war should only be used when it is a last resort to protect the lives of many people, or in prevention of causing even more of a problem. I also agree with the part where they mentioned that WWII could’ve been stopped long before the point it got to, since I feel like there were many things that could’ve been done if the nations put aside their greed for benefitting off of the law breaking of Germany. I feel like this connection to WWII helped deepen the understanding of the very few circumstances where war is acceptable, and I liked the fact that they added this to their post.

Originally posted by ilovelexi23 on October 14, 2025 16:10

War has always been a major debate. War shapes nations, destroys lives, and raises some of the most difficult questions in humanity. Some believe that no matter what war is evil and wrong, whereas others see it as sometimes the only necessary solution to create peace and solve problems. Whether or not war can be justified depends on either the intrinsicism or consequentialism or Just War Theory model of war. In the intrinsicist perspective, war is always wrong in itself because it involves intentionally causing human life to be put in harm's way, destruction and suffering. There are certain things in war that have to be seen as purely evil, taking someone’s life is evil. I don't think violence can ever lead to peace. Throughout history even just wars have ended in violence and many deaths. Once society accepts killing someone, as a way to solve peace, it will mess with people’s morals and make bad things be seen as okay in different situations. Consequentialism judges the morality of the war by the outcomes. If it ends well, it can be seen as good and justified on a large scale. If violence prevents greater harm, it can be defended as a good thing at times. Many people can see World War 2 as a justifiable war as it stopped genocide. War is not good in itself but it solved a larger issue. Just War Theory combines these two moral rules for when and how war may be fought. That war can be argued as justifiable under certain rules such as having a just cause, for the right intentions and other important rules. It shows the belief that killing is wrong while accepting the idea that sometimes it may be necessary to prevent a greater evil. Overall, I think it is important to see both sides, I believe that overall war is bad and there are other ways to solve big problems but I can also understand that war sometimes is inevitable and can come down to the only solution.

I really liked how you approached the topic of war with a balanced perspective. The most compelling part of your post is the idea that while war is morally wrong and destructive, it can sometimes be seen as an inevitable last resort to prevent a greater evil. That point felt like something that would be very realistic, and I agree with you that once society starts to accept violence as a normal way to solve problems, it risks weakening our moral values. Your example of World War II works well because it shows how something terrible can still lead to a necessary outcome, which connects to the idea of consequentialism. I also liked that you did not completely take one side but instead showed an understanding of both intrinsicist and consequentialist views. I think my own thoughts are similar to yours. I think war is tragic and should never be glorified, but sometimes avoiding it might allow worse things to happen. I think the way you structured your point and planned out your arguments was good. If anything, you could expand a bit on how Just War Theory decides when a war becomes just. Other than that I think your response covers more than just taking one side.

Originally posted by pinkbluegreen on October 14, 2025 19:35

I don’t think war is always wrong, I think that under the right circumstances it’s strongly encouraged. For example when governments are being oppressive towards their own citizens, they have the right to rebel because they have a right to protect themselves. However, If war is mainly for economic gain or to spread world power then it is wrong, we sometimes use human rights as an excuse to go to war with other countries with an ulterior motive of economic gain. I think that consequentialism model is more realistic to the modern world because there are expected to be differences especially about moral beliefs and fundamental differences between governing bodies. If we were better about the rules and regulations about war crimes and fighting just wars and eventually the outcome is just then it’s morally acceptable and even beneficial to world peace. The Just War Theory does not act as a bridge between the two. They’re so conflicting that it’s difficult to assume that both can be applied. However, I think that it comes from the same moral standing for both sides which mediates the conflicting views.

If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, citizens should be able to refuse to participate. I also think that citizens should have somewhat of a say in whether we go to war or not because the funding comes from tax dollars and citizens are the ones that are effected the most. It takes I would say an equal amount of courage to not fight in defense because you’re willing to accept the consequences while also facing public discrimination, but fighting in a war in defense of your nation also takes a lot of courage because you’re putting yourself on the life for several of reasons such as protecting your family. During drafts citizens would have to go to extreme lengths to even avoid it such as completely moving away from their homes and abandoning everything they had but by complying with your nation who is fighting an unjust war isn’t cowardice. This is because the consequences they’d be facing isn’t worth not going to war. If each citizen acted according to their own moral compass than we would have very little unity. There are issues and morals that we can find middle ground on by rarely how much people are willing to act on that or defend it. The consequences of everyone acting on their own moral compass would not be realistic because the nation itself would probably be more divided and wouldn’t be able to maintain unity or even be able to go to war. I agree with Mcmahan’s idea because if soldiers acted out and defied ordered then they are putting their comrades in danger as well. It would create chaos if someone were to disrupt the order that the military emphasizes. Yes, I think soldiers can act morally and honorably during wartime even if the greater cause is unjust because they will feel less responsible if they convince themselves that they aren’t contributing much to the cause. Also, if the soldiers did not harm to others for example as following with their moral compass they would feel that they aren’t responsible. The rules of war assist soldiers to some extent, although it’s a good moral blueprint, the consequences of defying it aren’t reinforcements enough and a lot of soldiers commit crimes anyways.

I don’t believe that consequentialism is the right moral code of conduct to govern war, because it creates vagueness, and complexities when it comes to associating war with our own moral compass. There’s an individualistic aspect of determining a Juss War which indeed turns objectiveness into subjectiveness. Instead of ruling reason with facts and knowledge, bias permeates into the decision making of associating a state's right to war. I do agree that often in war, political leaders often go to war with an ulterior motive. For example, during the Vietnam war, U.S. intervention was sanctioned to control the spread of communism. While the idea of creating a social contract between citizens and the government is the right to wage war, most countries aren’t a democratic state. I think incorporating a voting system within the UN would be very helpful in determining the right to war. If countries could propose evidence in court cases that would establish a political nation's right to wage war would be ideal. Establishing a process where reason and Jus ad Bellum isn’t just established on moral being and Biasis would be ideal to progressing toward a moral equal plan field of a just war. Strictness is required for ensuring war crimes and complete devastation isn’t being committed.

Originally posted by bigdah7 on October 14, 2025 09:34

In general, I believe that war can be justified. War isn’t a good thing, but sometimes it is necessary to occur. Take the example of wars of self-defense, should countries just roll over and not defend themselves and their citizens, as they have an obligation to do? I definitely think that consequentialism is more realistic for the modern world. For example, would you prioritize the safety of other countries’ citizens over your own soldiers? I think not. Say you kill civilians to save an untold number of your own people and end the war, would you do it? Most often I believe that people would choose to push the button. I feel that the just war theory is kind of a bridge but not really, it feels like an intrinsicist model, it is not as flexible as the consequentialist model. While war isn't great, sacrifices are always required, whether that be from soldiers or other people. Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum, discusses the differences on intrinsicism and consequentialism, and I believe that in the modern world, consequentialism is what we see today in the fighting in the Middle East.

I would like to believe that if I was chosen in a draft to serve my country, I would do it, because it has not happened yet. I believe it is the duty of the citizen to participate in war, whether it be unjust or just. If everyone acts according to their morals, there would be more risk of losing the war, and more tragedy. However I believe that conscientious objectors who object because of their religious beliefs have every right to do so. While nations are built on sacrifice, people who object and don’t participate in the war effort should be forced to partake in it, because while others are sacrificing, they are being cowards. It is not cowardice to serve in a war that you don’t believe in, that makes you more of a hero. If everyone acts according to self preservation or morals, war would be lost, and there would be worse consequences. These would not be realistic because there would be people who are willing to serve and do so, so we don’t have to. In the article “Between Peace and War”, it discusses how nationalism will often motivate those who are on the fringes of not surviving into doing so, it is a powerful force during war.

I disagree with McMahan; they are acting properly and with honor even when fighting an unjust war. In fact I believe that they are fighting with more honor when doing so. I believe that they can act honorably during unjust wars. While they are fighting an unjust war, refusing to serve and fight while being in the military could lead to punishment and ostracization. While in Vietnam for example, soldiers often tried to justify the cause they fought for, even while it was unjust. While some soldiers may have acted dishonorably, the majority acted with moral cause and reason. The principles of just in bello regulate the conduct of soldiers and their behavior, morally and physically. The Geneva Conventions created the rules of war and established punishments for soldiers who act morally reprehensibly, and enacted the rules of war on everyone.

This person very clearly agrees with the consequentialist aspects of the Just War Theory. While the typical consequentialist arguments made have, of course, backing to them, I find it hard to get behind the statement about what is happening in the Middle East. If you are using that conflict to provide backing for consequentialism, I find that to be an open example for how outright consequentialism is disastrous in world politics. Some of the atrocities comitted, which would be excused by consequentialists, are never ever justified no matter what the circumstances. I also feel like the attitude about conscientious objectors is a bit of a dangerous one. It seems to have the undertones of hypernationalism, which is never a good thing within a country. There is a reason that veterans come back and protest wars, realizing that they made grave mistakes in even fighting in the first place. Overglorification of war and its justification through patriotism is an attitude that leaves one on a very slippery slope. On the third point, I thought that the points about jus in bello and the geneva convention were interesting considering the following arguments: What if your country is not following the rules layed out? Is it still right to fight? How can one justify involvement in a force dedicated only to decimation? These questions immediately invalidate the points made.

I believe that war is a terrible thing, as most everyone can agree, but it definitely is sometimes necessary in order to preserve peace or to act as a savior for the oppressed. Saying that war is always wrong no matter what is a little closed minded, even if the statement has good intentions behind it. I think that the idea is that the tragic loss of human life cannot be justified in any way, which I agree with. However, war is at certain times inevitable and necessary to defend human life. Consequentialism is much more realistic and applicable in real life. This is due to the fact that intrinsicism is very restrictive and not able to be used in a real war. Consequentialism allows for more methods to be used to achieve victory, and intrinsicism can get in the way of strategies that otherwise would have worked, but the “moral highground” prevented such an outcome.

Just War Theory does at least try to allow for a middle ground between the two ideologies. It claims that war is necessary at times, but also says that there are ways to be moral and not complete savages during wartime. An example would include the 1949 Geneva Convention, which banned certain methods of war, such as chemical warfare and cruel treatment and torture towards civilians. This is meant to satisfy the desires of the moderate intrinsicist while also appealing to the consequentialist, as it still allows for justification for war.

If a nation is fighting what the citizen believes to be an unjust war, then, for that citizen, the correct decision would be not to fight in it, and I would not consider it cowardice if they truly have moral qualms with the war that their nation is fighting in. The nation would eventually take problem with this, if there are enough citizens not fighting for them, as that would get in the way of the country’s path to victory. If every citizen acted according to his own moral compass during wartime, in certain situations that could pose a threat to their own safety, as enough people not fighting could maybe put them at risk of the enemy invading their lands. Realistically, a nation will try to avoid this issue as much as possible, and implement strategies such as the draft.

Soldiers can act morally in the war even if it’s an unjust one, as means and ends are two different things. It may not happen often, but even with an unjust cause, there are many instances where soldiers have shown mercy to the enemy and offered aid to their citizens