learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by igtvycrgfghyjjjh on October 15, 2025 00:53

Upon learning about Just War Theory and Jus in Bello, or the international standards for countries at war, I concluded that there are many different viewpoints and ideologies that one can possess about the moral ethics of war. I agree with Jeff McMann, who argues that “we must stop reassuring soldiers that they act permissibly when they fight in an unjust war, provided that they conduct themselves honorably on the battlefield,” but only to a certain extent; there are unavoidable consequences to the flaws of the human condition that have always, and I think will always, persist.

Although the idea of killing other human beings is morally wrong, in order to discuss the ethics of warfare itself one must accept the idea that war is a nagging aspect of the human condition and will likely exhibit its presence as long as we are around. To paraphrase the article “Just War Theory,” judgements on war must instead be made on the intent that the killing accompanies, and who soldiers’ violence is aimed at. The article develops the idea that some wars are fought for just causes, while others cause unnecessary dying. In addition, it discusses the killing of civilians compared to soldiers, and if a civilian aiding soldiers incorporates them into the conflict.

McMahan’s idea returns to the concept that killing others is never morally correct because it is a taboo to take another human’s life. I think that soldiers should be aware of the harm that they cause to others humans, even if they are fighting for a just cause and act according to the international laws of war. However, I think the separation of nationalism and waging war is very important to soldiers in war. If a soldier understands the gravity of taking human lives, but is choosing to fight for their nation in order to defend it or help bring peace to surrounding areas, and they truly believe in the cause they are fighting for, I think it is acceptable to engage in battle. However, the nationalistic fervor which has provided soldiers and fueled unjust or unnecessary wars should not replace true belief in fighting for a cause. In this way, I agree with McMahan - soldiers should truly comprehend the harm they inflict on others and be motivated to do so through the right intentions. There would also be less war if more time considering these ideas was spent by citizens thinking of enlisting in armies. However, my opinion does not apply to countries where unfortunately soldiers are drafted to fight, because then they are not given the privilege to decide for themselves if they would like to engage in violence.

In places where soldiers are drafted, it is fully the responsibility of a nation’s leader to choose to engage in a just war, or to wage an unnecessary one. Jus in Bello should be promoted in these cases so that soldiers may act as morally as possible in this unavoidably violent situation, and this allows soldiers to act honorably even in an unjust and forced war. The rules of Jus in Bello are international and attempt to mitigate civilian harm, with intentions of just harming other armies for the most part. To conclude, though there are different viewpoints that accompany the ethics of war, one should truly believe in a cause that they choose to fight for, and if they don’t have a choice they should act as morally honorable as possible using the rules of Jus in Bello.

The most compelling part of my peer’s response was that it is the full responsibility of a nation’s leader to decide to engage in a war, when the nation has a draft system. I agree with this; in a situation when people don’t have the ability to decide whether or not they want to participate in a war, the rationale for starting or joining the war itself is up to the leader of the nation. I also agree with their point that in this case, jus in bello is the most important of all — the war has already been decreed and there is nothing that can be done to prevent it; acting justifiably in war is necessary. This is interesting because in class, we didn’t spend a lot of time talking about the Just War principles in a society with a conscription system. What happens if there is no way to prevent soldiers from participating in the war? I also think it was interesting how you compared nationalism to the belief in a war. This is something I haven’t really thought about before and I didn’t see too many other students analyzing nationalism, so nice job creating a unique argument there.

One part of my peer’s response that corroborated my response was the student’s opinion that war will always, however unfortunately, be a part of human society. The student states that “there are unavoidable consequences to the flaws of the human condition that have always, and I think will always, persist”. I think that this is a well-thought out statement and acknowledges the natural injustices of war. However, in my opinion, attributing injustices to the “human condition” takes away responsibility for committing these actions. If we are wired to be morally corrupt at times, how will this allow for any responsibility to be taken in war? Just War cannot occur if blame is deflected to human psychology. Finally, I think that some more care could have been taken in shortening the summaries of the readings and adding some more opinions to the response. Overall though, good job and I liked the points you made.

Originally posted by sillygoose617 on October 14, 2025 18:29

If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, should citizens refuse to participate in the war effort? Does it take more courage not to fight in defense of your nation or is it cowardice to fight in a war you believe is morally wrong? What are the consequences though if each citizen acts only according to his own moral compass when a nation is at war? Are those consequences realistic for a nation to endure?
The philosopher Jeff McMahan has argued that “we must stop reassuring soldiers that they act permissibly when they fight in an unjust war, provided that they conduct themselves honorably on the battlefield.” Do you agree or disagree with McMahan’s idea? Can soldiers act morally and honorably during wartime, even if the greater cause they are fighting for is unjust? Do the rules of war (jus in bello) assist soldiers to act morally? How?

If a war arises that is supported by unjust reasons there should absolutely be choice for who participates in the war. In general I think that war should not just be a choice made by the government but a choice for the people to decide if they want to volunteer. No one should be forced to participate in a war if they disagree with the cause just the same as if they cannot fight for religious reasons. I think it takes courage to refuse to participate in war and to go into battle, both are different kinds of courage but each should be respected as an individual's personal choice. There is no measurement for courage but it should be allowed for each person to make the decisions for themselves and to be respected and not ridiculed by either side for their decision. I think oftentimes the idea of which choice is more courageous comes from either side as propaganda trying to convince individuals to refuse or enlist in the military. Each side wants people to agree so therefore leaders will obviously congratulate those who enlist/go to war, while non-supporters of the war will congratulate those that resist. But this begs the question of if everyone decided to simply not participate. worse? In certain situations that would seem to be the case because at some point we need a strong defense. But maybe if wars were conducted with more information to the public on the specifics of why they are fighting the war and what would happen if people did not fight truthfully more people might willingly participate. What is wrong with this “education” strategy is that propaganda also exists and makes it easier for people to be involved when they see convincing propaganda all throughout their media. Additionally each soldier has at least some kind of responsibility in their decisions as they are now in charge of possibly taking lives from the enemy and this can lead to the confusion between orders and war crimes. In wars that have little to no rules, like guerrilla warfare, the gruesome nature of combat can be hard to measure what is the soldiers decision and what is the decision of their superiors. Also nuclear warfare has a great impact and can be argued that after the effects are understood it is everyone's individual choice and responsibility for what is to happen. Finally, McMahan’s idea that you should not be allowed to reassure soldiers that their actions are permissible even if the what is not just or that they are being honorable is an important distinction because if we were to make soldiers believe that atrocities they might commit are a just way of war, psychological problems could arise. There is also simply no way to fully act morally in war because it is my thought that killing is simply not moral unless it is an act of immediate defense, such as someone directly trying to kill you. How can soldiers look at another crowd and fire first while looking into the eyes of another human, I simply cannot understand.

I strongly agree with the claim that involuntary drafting should not exist because soldiers should be allowed to choose what causes they would like to fight for. I also touched upon this in my response. In addition, I think the reply added depth that my response didn't have about opting out of serving in the military for religious reasons. Because some people value religion more than others, and religion is a way to justify and associate one's moral ethics with a group of people, opting out of a war for one’s beliefs, even if not associated with a religion, should be permitted. To add onto this idea, the idea of nationalism fueling war could be discussed. Nationalism should be love for one’s nation, but not the constant endorsement of all of its decisions, because leaders of nations can make mistakes as well. If war is on the horizon, a nation’s people should be able to rise and declare that they do not think there is a just cause for fighting - if people are allowed to opt out of armies, and enough do, a war cannot occur. This response discussed ways in which a nation’s people could protect themselves from war with the power of personal and unjudged choice.

Originally posted by juice_lover on October 14, 2025 23:00

War has always raised alarm around the world in terms of morality and necessity, forcing individuals, like us Facing History students, to question whether or not organized violence can ever be justified. The just war tradition attempts to navigate this dilemma by creating a moral framework for when and why wars can happen. It attempts to contain the atrocities of war, not glorify them. Through the principles of jus ad bellum, the moral conduct during war, the theory strives to bridge the gap between intrinsicism and consequentialism. Intrinsicism views war as inherently wrong, while consequentialism judges moral worth based on the outcome. In the modern world, there is a greater amount of political and humanitarian movements that are gaining traction and being seriously considered. However, just war theory remains one of the few frameworks that allows the individual to question the true motives around causes and conduct of war.

From the intrinsicist point of view, war is always a moral failure, no matter the rhyme or reason, and should never in any circumstance be justified. However, the consequentialist model argues that it is necessary to consider the outcomes before completing moral evaluations. If war can serve as a tool to limit greater atrocities, such as mass genocides or the oppression of minority groups, it may be permissible and morally required at the same time. In this way, just war theory can be seen as a bridge between the two ideologies. It acknowledges the horror of the possible violence, but understands that war may be necessary despite these atrocities. This dual recognition makes this theory relevant today where terrorism and humanitarian cries blur the line between necessity and moral idealism.

The philosopher Jeff McMahan challenges those who stand in the middle group by focusing on the moral responsibility of the individuals who are actually fighting in the wars. He argues that society should stop reassuring soldiers when they fight in an unjust war. This statement from McMahan makes me question the moral autonomy that soldiers have. In most military positions, you must complete the orders that you are given without a second thought, but do soldiers really have a moral obligation to people around the world other than physically fighting? According to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, jus in bello traditionally allows for dissociating “the judging of acts within [a] war from [the war’s] cause”, which can feel morally hollow if the cause itself is profoundly unjust. Despite soldiers having to do completely as they are told, many still bear some responsibility for the harm they inflict.

Ultimately, just war theory does not provide the solution or answer to every single issue, but it provides the framework that allows society to decide if the harsh consequences are worth waging the war. The intrinsicist reminds us that violence is always tragic, while the consequentialist reminds us that the outcome determines whether something can be considered immoral. Just war theory, by holding individuals responsible before and during conflict, helps nations and individuals navigate this tension. As long as society as a whole continues to wrestle with the moral weight of warfare, the principles of jus ad bellum and jus in bello will remain vital tools in ensuring the safety of our shared humanity, even during the harsh times of war.

The most compelling idea in the post is how the just war theory bridges the gap between intrinsicism and consequentialism by acknowledging the negatives of violence while also recognizing that war may sometimes be necessary. I agree with this idea somewhat, as it reflects the moral complexity of conflict: whether war is entirely wrong or entirely right, and even if someone thinks that it is wrong, sometimes it is unavoidable. The way morally is described as a moral framework rather than a justification for war is insightful ,as it reminds the readers that moral reflection should precede action. It definitely helps state clearly which things are blatantly wrong to do during a war, finding the common ground between the intrinsicist view and the consequentialist one. Soldiers do still somewhat have responsibility over their action,s but what about when the price for disobeying orders ends up in their deaths? especially if it wasn't their choice to fight in the war in the first place. When fighting in an unjust war, the only thing left to do is try to conduct oneself according to the rules of Jus in Bello. If a soldier purposefully goes against those rules, then he is likely abiding by his own morals and is worse than just compliant; they are complicit. One aspect that could be improved in the post is to present a more connected view of the intrinsicist and consequentialist moral codes by sharing their own opinions on each and whether they believe in one more than the other, instead of solely focusing on the information in the sources and what we learnt in class.

Originally posted by seltzersareawesome on October 14, 2025 22:49

Based on the readings and the discussions we've had in class, the morality of war forces us to balance our duty to our country with our personal sense of right and wrong.Just war theory tries to solve this by setting rules for when war is acceptable and how to fight fairly. The story of World war I shows us that this is never a simple choice for the individual soldier or citizen.

When World War I started we saw how people who were against war quickly changed their minds. The reading "Between Peace and War" shows how the German Social Democratic party immediately switched to supporting the war once it was declared. They said how they had to focus on defending their country and help the citizens who were swept into disaster.This shows the powerful pull of patriotism and the pressure to stand with your nation.

This all leads to the difficult question that if your country is fighting for a wrong reason should you refuse to fight? Is it brave to stand by your morals or is it cowardly to not defend your home? The reading gives 2 sides. A writer Artifex argued that those who refused to fight were selfish and lacked a sense of duty to others. On the other hand the philosopher Bertrand Russell disagreed strongly. He defended the people who were conscientious objectors saying that their refusal came from a deeper love for humanity. As he wrote "The conscientious objector does not believe that violence can cure violence...” He believed true courage was feeling solidarity with all people, even those called enemies. Russell admitted that this was incredibly hard saying he was tortured by patriotism. This shows the inner conflict isn't about being brave or cowardly but about choosing between two different kinds of duty.

This problem connects directly to a modern idea from Jeff McMahan. he argues that we shouldn't tell soldiers it's morally okay to fight an unjust war as long as they follow the rules of battle. I agree with this. The traditional view separates justice in the war from justice of the war. Which means a soldier can be honorable for fighting in an aggressive war if they don't commit any war crimes

The rules in war are still very important. They protect civilians and prevent needless cruelty and they help soldiers make more moral choices in the chaos of battle. A soldier who follows these rules is absolutely acting better than one who doesn't. But these rules don't erase the basic wrong of participating in an unjust cause. A soldier can follow all the rules and still be on the wrong side.

In the end the soldiers in World war I whether they enlisted or refused like the objectors were caught in an impossible situation. Just war theory provides a useful framework for nations but we should also empower people to think critically. We shouldn't create a system where following orders or fighting honorably is enough to excuse fighting for an unjust cause. While it is difficult for any country if every citizen acts on their own moral beliefs, a system that discourages this questioning can too easily lead people to blindly support unjust wars. True morality in war must involve the state’s reasons and the individual soldier's conscience.

I found your post on Just War Theory and the morality of WW1 to be very compelling, especially the argument that “true morality in war must involve the state’s reasons and the state’s reasons and the individual soldier’s conscience.” This stood out to me as it really captures the tension between obedience to authority and personal ethics. I agree with you that moral responsibility can not fully stop people from following orders and authority. It is also about thinking for yourself and what is wrong or right. Soldiers should think deeply about the justice of the cause they fight for. Your use of evidence, especially with the contrast between your uses of evidence, was very thorough throughout. I thought that the use of the reading “Between Peace and War” and the ideas that were formed by you were very strong. You explained both sides clearly and showed how hard it is to make moral choices during war.

Your post reminded me of another classmate who wrote about how patriotism can sometimes make people ignore the differences between what is right and what is wrong. Both of your ideas were well incorporated and connected well with the reading. I also agree that courage does not always mean fighting; instead, courage can mean refusing to do something that is wrong, disobeying commands.

One small suggestion is to make the transitions between each of the paragraphs a little smoother so that each of the ideas can flow smoothly. A good way to work on this is by creating a clear roadmap, which helps create smooth writing. To help connect the paragraphs a little better and make the writing overall stronger. Overall, though the post was amazing, easy to follow, conscience, and very captivating.

Originally posted by user9348665472 on October 14, 2025 16:13

Just War theory is used in many different ways to justify the reason a war should be brought on or to justify the outcome of a war. There are many different views of this theory including self defense when attack is brought on by another force, having war to claim peace between two different parties, all other options have been used and war is the last resort, or the government making it their call to start a war, and soldiers are made to fight. These reasons of Just War can be a say in if war is wrong and that if a war fits under one of these categories, it is alright for it to start and happen. Both models, intrinsicism as well as consequentialism have strengths and weaknesses when it comes to proving if a war is morally wrong or not. Intrinsicism states that a war is morally wrong no matter the circumstance, and this really emphasizes the idea that humans shouldn’t suffer without a just reason. This model does have its cons though, by not allowing war to happen even if it has many good reasons to. Consequentialism takes into play the Just War theories and thinks about what the outcome of the war might be before actually saying no and not allowing the war to happen. Most of the time, if the war situation fits under a category of Just War, people will think that it is alright to start it and the outcome will be positive in the end. With this in mind though, it’s hard to predict what the main outcome of a war will be as wars are very aggressive and unpredictable and it can go in so many different ways in the end. When you think of wars in modern times, there are so many new challenges that are brought into play because of all the other global conflicts going on. I feel as though intrinsicism would be a better model to use because of all the problems going on in the world right now, it would be better to not have a war happen in the first place then try to decipher whether it would be a Just War or not. I believe the permissible reasons for war including Jus Ad Bellum can act as a bridge between the two philosophical ideas of war which include pacifism and realism. By changing the point of view on pacifism, Jus Ad Bellum argues that although the end result may be sad and innocent people may be killed, war is definitely necessary no matter the circumstances. Similar to that point, realism is seen as a different, less brutal war tactic where there is a limit on how much force is used. Based on the excerpt from Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Jus Ad Bellum is described as a way to prove that when following the moral if war is just or not, there are many different ways of how the outcome of a war could result in and in the society we live in right now, almost all wars should follow this moral to follow decent humanity.

I like how you address everything and you simply explain the models. I like how you’re aware that there are both pros and cons to consequentialism and intrinsicism. We both agreed how yes, war is very aggressive and unpredictable. Especially in modern times, I agree with how you how even more challenging its gotten because of its so many global conflicts all over the world. When it comes to my views, though, I’d have to disagree. I find myself leaning more towards a consequentialist and I believe your actions are right or wrong based on their outcomes, but only if its a good outcome. If lying could save someone’s life, I’d say lying is okay because it is saving somebody’s life and the result is good because if telling the truth hurts someone it might be wrong because the consequence is bad. I think we could agree we both lied to someone to protect them and spare them pain and the outcome most likely was positive.

I think you should’ve leaned more towards your beliefs and really get deep in there because when I read your reasoning to why you’re an intrinsicist it feels like you’re treading water and picking the most politically correct option. I’d want you to go more into depth into why you chose it.

Originally posted by BlueMermaid on October 15, 2025 09:16

The rationalization of war is tied to the human tendency to overexplain our actions as to not divert too much from our moral code. When looking at the morality of war in terms of consequentialism and intrisicism I can agree that there is an “inherent problem with both models” as consequentialism is too open ended and intrinsicism too restrictive, but how else can something as outright terrible as war be looked at other than inherintely bad. Putting aside whatever good comed out of the war or whatever bad the war may be against, the act of war in itself is cruel. The Just War Theory in itself looks at things in a more consequentalist manner as it provides reasons why a war can be waged more morally but it can be argued that it acts as a bridge between the two philosophical ideas as it emphasizes how all other resources must be exhausted before resorting to war, painting it as something that is ultimately inevitable given the innate tendency towards violence that people have.. I would say I have a much more intrinsicist view on war inspired by Marxist ideas of war being rich man wars fought by the poor. It is easier for polititians to come to resort to war when they are sitting up in their mansions, the only thing they really pay any attention to being the amount of money the war will cost. Only due to the economic aspect of war, do leaders really use war as a last resort. If, during a diplomatic dispute, all peaceful methods of combatting the issue are exhausted, I do agree that it is important to have clear, written out lines of what behavior is permissible during war. The just war theory attempts to bring a sense of order and logic to war. If a nation goes to war for unjust reasons, I feel that the reasons a citizen refuses to participate does play a role in the level of couragenouss exhibited. A person should not be blamed for not wanting to die in a war for a country or a cause that they do not believe in, but if they are doing it for the sole reason of not dying I don’t think it can be called couragous in particular. They are even more in their rights to refuse to fight if their country is starting a completely morally unjust war. If each citizen only acted according to their own moral compass then there would be no clear standard of what is right and wrong. People would be a lot more divided and it could cause a lot more tension to rise between people in a country. The concept of whether or not soldiers are acting permissibly if they fight in an unjust war becomes more complex when considering that if they were obligated to fight in this war, the only thing that is in their hands is how they act on the battlefield. I do agree that every soldier who’s fighting in a war is complicit in some way to their countries cause but war can often blur people’s moral codes as they see all the death and destruction that they do. There are defintely ways for soldiers to fight completely dishonorably during an unjust war.

I really like your point about how the rationalization of war is connected to the human desire to explain and defend our actions. People will put themselves, their own wants, and their own image above all else. We see this in leaders who possibly make their country fight in an unjust war while also knowing they are most likely to win. It is interesting to consider how something so horrific as war is commonly talked about and even justified in society. It is vital that there be rules and regulations put in place so that any war never gets out of hand. There is also a problem in defining rules of war, because I agree with the idea that the two models commonly compared when evaluating war are the extreme sides of each opinion and do not provide a clear moral compass. War to some seems inevitable so these guidelines and restrictions remain essential. It is also such an important question regarding what would happen if everyone acted by their own moral compass. It would go back to the chaos that would erupt if everyone acted as they so pleased. Rules and regulations, even in the most violent and complicated scenarios, remain crucial in helping solidify the safety and well being of all parties involved in war.

Originally posted by NLE CHOPPA on October 14, 2025 18:47

In my opinion, war is the worst thing that happens in our world, and it is always wrong. However, in defense of a nation’s own civilians, there are cases where war is able to be justified. There is no reason that war should even take place. The elite class of different nations is most typically the one to ignite conflicts, yet it is the poor who usually have to fight such conflicts out. The benefits of winning a war don't help the poor, and the poor are obviously harmed if they lose a war; it is a lose-lose situation. War, whether it is able to be justified or not, ultimately always reveals a society’s social injustice.

With that said, to survive in a world where war exists, I nevertheless believe that a consequentialistic view is the most realistic model in our world. While the intrinsicism model is theoretically ideal, it doesn’t take into account real-world situations. To quote the article, Between Peace and War, “Social Democracy has done everything in its power to fight this disastrous development and has worked to the very last minute to uphold peace by organizing powerful demonstrations in all countries.... Our efforts have been in vain…Now we must think of the millions of our fellow countrymen who are drawn into this disaster through no fault of their own. It is they who will suffer the most from the horrors of war” (Facing History and Ourselves, n.d.).

Relating this quote to a real-world current situation, intrinsicism says that you should never bomb a hospital. It is obviously immoral to bomb a hospital. However, if the enemy group is aware of this strict law, they could easily take advantage and hide inside a hospital and launch attacks from inside such as happened in the Israel-Hamas conflict. Hamas uses hiding in hospitals and other places where war should not take place as a tactical strategy. Hamas understands that if Israel attacks them while hiding in a hospital, they will be put in a negative spotlight for the world to see.

So if Hamas is about to launch a devastating missile towards Israel’s civilians from inside a hospital, is it okay for Israel to attack them before the attack is carried out? Intrinsicism says that Israel should never attack them, even when they are using a hospital as a shield. Hamas could technically build its base there and repeatedly fire missiles with no consequence under the intrinsicism model. Alternatively, the consequentialism model would say that a defensive attack at even a hospital, attacking hundreds of civilians but also neutralizing the threat for thousands of others, is permitted. The quote from the article between Peace and War supports this hypothesis.

Consequentialism and intrinsicism clearly have their flaws. The rules are too loose, and nations can make up justification if they want to and fabricate numbers. To bring it back to the Middle East conflict as a real-time example, Israel has carried out many attacks where they aim for Hamas members but also hit innocent civilians at the same time. Consequentialism allows for the possibility that a high number of civilians can be murdered with justification. While consequentialism is a tragedy, as long as war exists, with a responsible government, consequentialism is a more realistic model to ultimately and in reality preserve social justice.

Since both consequentialism and intrinsicism have flaws, I believe that Just War Theory acts as a bridge between these two concepts, offering principles that compensate for their flaws. Just War Theory, specifically jus ad bellum, offers a moral basis for war by listing criteria that, if met, allow the option to go to war and transcend immorality. For example, a symptom of consequentialism is killing too many civilians, but Just War Theory morally resolves this. In the article from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it says, “the second principle of just conduct is that any offensive action should remain strictly proportional to the objective desired. Jus in Bello requires… [minimizing] destruction and casualties” (Mosely 2). Some of the other conditions of jus ad bellum that form a basis of morality, even if having to decide to go to war, include: good intentions, violence must be proportional, and for a just cause. Just War Theory ultimately takes into account real life situations, upholding the moral foundation of intrinsicism while recognizing the reality of consequentialism.

Works cited:

• “Between Peace and War Facing History & Ourselves, updated 2 Aug. 2016, www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/between-pea...

• Moseley, Alexander. “Just War Theory.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by James Fieser and Bradley Dowden, 2004,

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10kdQB2XnXA3U-bbM_...

I do agree with everything said here, save for maybe the assertion of the first paragraph's hook: I believe that "war is the worst thing that happens in our world" is a position that may be contended by the existence of pure genocide. Otherwise, however, my qualms are very few.

It is here said—and I would agree—that both consequentialism and intrinsicism are not without their flaws, but that, from intrinsicism in particular, the emergence of uneasy (if not outright paradoxical) moral dilemmas is a common sight: the relevant post acknowledges such by giving the example of a hospital-turned-military-base during wartime. Because intrinsicism posits that bombing a hospital is always wrong, it likewise lacks a morally acceptable response to a situation wherein a hospital is being used as an enemy missile silo and/or launch base. Consequently, intrinsicism is weakened by an innate shortcoming: in certain situations as that above, the lens would prefer that one side of a conflict not retaliate against an enemy’s assault at all. For this reason, I too found intrinsicism problematic.

Overall, the post is both thoughtfully written and well-structured. Having read two other posts, I have begun to notice an according opinion where intrinsicism and consequentialism are concerned—namely, that the middle ground of these two views is where a best balance between optimality and practicality resides.

Originally posted by mwah_thequeen on October 13, 2025 11:08

War has always raised difficult and awkward questions about right or wrong. Can violence ever truly be justified, or is that our way of excusing moral failure? Just War Theory is the start of this discussion. The theory creates a structure for the question of when and how war should and can be fought. There are two perspectives in this discussion, intrinsicism, which says war is always wrong no matter what, and consequentialism, which says war can be justified if only it leads to a good outcome. So what does that mean if war leads to bad outcomes? Just War Theory recognizes that war is tragic, but that does not mean it is always immoral; there can be factors which make war necessary in order to prevent greater harm.

The Encyclopedia of Philosophy Just War Theory-Jus In Bello and Jus Post Bellum explains that war can only be justified if it meets a certain criteria. It states that war is only ok if the reasons for going to war outweigh the harms that war will cause. This idea shows that Just War Theory is a middle ground for those who fully believe in war and those who fully do not. It does not exactly excuse violence, but it does admit that there are some cases where war might seem unavoidable, where it may be necessary in order to defend and protect the lives of innocents. An example of this could be if a country is being invaded, war could be defended, or ok if it is to protect people and restore peace to the country. There needs to be no interior intentions to war.

Even when war begins, how it is fought matters, the weapons used matter, and the amount of force used matters. In jus in bello, it emphasized that soldiers must follow moral rules even in war. They must try their best to avoid harming civilians and even treat prisoners as well as they can. In the reading, it says that we need to stop comforting and telling soldiers that it is okay to fight in an unfair war as long as they behave well and act honorably. I agree with some of this because being honorable does not erase the fact that fighting for an unjust cause still contributes to wrongdoing. Some soldiers may believe they are serving their nation, but if the war is unjust, it becomes very complicated to excuse their actions. But at the same time, I feel for the soldiers who are called by their nation to fight; some have no choice but to fight, to ignore their morals. I recognize that this eats up at many.

With that said, it is not easy to expect every soldier or citizen to follow their morals, or to ignore what they are told to do. As many who refuse to fight or are viewed as cowards by society, there are real risks to denying the government, to standing up against the governing. But individuals do have the ability to challenge their leaders and act accordingly to their morals. But this, of course, can be difficult to do, especially when you are the only one who wants to challenge said leader. As history has shown, when people challenge their leaders or question order, terrible things happen to them.

Lastly, Just War Theory helps us to think about the moral limits within war, which was a difficult discussion. It does not exactly glorify violence or say that war is good or even ok, but it does allow for there to be a middle ground when the discussion is brought up, whether war is morally ok. The theory reminds people that justice in war is not about who wins, but it is about the intentions behind the fighting, the choices made during war, and whether people tried their best to protect the innocent as hard as they could.

I agree with this persons idea that war can be necessary at times but it is important it follows main rules. The fighting still needs to have humanity in mind and not over do it and at the same time there can be no ulterior motives of the battle because that can create a skewed idea of what is a moral war and what is not. My own views are similar because I also believe that war is sometimes necessary in defense and needs to also be confined to certain rules so that it does not get out of hand. I discussed how in self defense war may need to happen and I view that as a moral cause. This person also delved into that talking about how nations sometimes will need to protect themselves from other nations attacking. I don’t see having a war as a good thing but sometimes I view it as necessary. I think that this person went very deep on why war can sometimes be justified and at the same time why it is very bad but I would love to see them go deeper about the terrible effects that it has on people both physically and mentally.