learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by 1000 on October 15, 2025 23:23

Throughout our discussions on this topic I haven’t been able to find my footing in where I stand as much as I expected too. Naturally I can’t stomach any kind of violence, but does that mean I think there shouldn’t ever be war? I think in an ideal world that’s exactly the case but realistically war is inevitable and working to make it less brutal is more worthwhile than arguing to stop it all together. Intrinsicism is a very black and white view of war and one that doesn’t quite work in the realistic world. While it’s true that no act of violence is necessarily “good” there are other means of justifying it than whether it’s good or bad. Consequentialism, on the other hand, allows for consideration of the outcomes of the violence that takes place. As seen in the “Encyclopedia of Philosophy”, “This provides just war theory with the advantage of flexibility, the lack of a strict ethical framework means that the principles themselves are open to broad interpretations. Examining each in turn draws attention to the relevant problems.” The problem with consequentialism is that there is too much room in the justification of the violence to twist a situation to one's needs. This can give way to unjust wars as well as unjust behavior within a war that can be dismissed if argued that they aided in a greater cause of good. What can be done to limit the possibility of an unjust war? I think that ideally citizens should refuse to participate in the war if it is unjust. If a large majority of citizens successfully refused to join the war chances are their government is less likely to follow through. This doesn’t realistically apply to the real world unfortunately because it takes courage to go against the authority of the government. Not necessarily more courage than it takes to go to battle, more mental courage than physical courage. Not only does it take courage to act in opposition with an authority figure, it also takes courage to not conform to the majority of people who don’t refuse to join the war. Hypothetically, if the majority were to flip towards people refusing to join, and it would have to be a large majority, then it would be more likely that others would start to refuse as well. While this would be useful to stop a nation from waging an unjust war, if a nation had to go to war for the safety of its people and everyone refused then how would the war be fought. Here is where the line gets fuzzy because talk of war brings a sense of nationalism that can fog the lense through which citizens see the cause as just or unjust. If it’s difficult to decipher between a just and unjust war the answer to whether war is good or should one refuse to fight becomes almost impossible to answer in one way. How do we create rules when to every perspective and level of knowledge the same war takes many forms?

I agree with your point about how Consequentialism allows for too much interpretation. All of our decisions are based on perspective and knowledge. You could have opposing sides each with their own officials telling them what is ok and not in war and they could each have their own definitions which causes varying strategies and violence. While having rules in war may help to prevent mass killings, it still does not protect nations from interpretation about how they can be attacked. It would be really interesting to go deeper into the idea of how we reach a place where we all have the same definitions of how we classify things in war. My first idea would be to have non biased judges making final decisions however is anyone truly unbiased?

I liked how you introduced a different perspective by thinking hypothetically. It was interesting to think about how if the majority refused to fight whether the nation would wage war or not. I feel that we will never reach this point where the majority does refuse to fight, but if we do I feel it would be in a certain situation where the war is so unjust. Your writing was easy to follow and really allowed me to see your line of thinking through your word choice. I also liked how you are still figuring out what stance you are leaning towards as it is nice to know I am not alone in feeling unsure.

Originally posted by dudeman18 on October 14, 2025 21:49

I believe that war is not always wrong and the use of large scale violence can sometimes be justified. When thinking about this I thought over the risk and reward of going to war and often it is in self defense which I see as necessary at times. However I do not think that it is always justified and it can be a slippery slope when it comes to justifying large scale violence. I think that in today’s modern world, just like in the past, we must follow the consequentialism model because some wars do happen and some of the attacks are justified. I think this is the right way of thinking about it because although war is always terrible there are some times when it needs to happen for self defense or another large scale threat. Jus ad Bellum sort of acts as a bridge but also is just consequentialism because under intrinsicism war is not justified for any reason but Jus ad Bellum is justifying war in some cases. If a nation wages war for unjust reasons citizens should resist it because war for unjust reasons is not good for anyone. People should not have to lay down their lives for a cause that is unjust or wrong. However, I believe that it is more courageous to be on the battlefield because it is more dangerous for your life. The Between War and Peace article goes deeper into this discussing themes about membership in society and owing certain things to your country however I believe that if the war is for an unjust cause it is very courageous to be a conscientious objector. If each citizen acts for their own moral compass things would not be able to get done because certain people view specific things as wrong vs right. These consequences are not realistic for any nation to endure because this would extend to things beyond war like basic disagreements which would remove the idea of them being a nation instead they would just be a group of people. I disagree with McMahan’s idea because the fact is, in many nations young people are forced to be soldiers in these wars and they really do not have a choice wether to fight or not. Being able to be a conscientious objector is a luxury not all nations have so we cannot put all the blame on these soldiers who are forced into an unjust battle considering the fact that they act honorably in the war. I do believe that soldiers can still act honorably in an unjust war because acting honorably in the war is separate from wether the war is just or not. Following the honorably code of war is something that is done regardless of the cause or motive of the war itself, so a soldier should still act honorably in the face of an unjust war. The rules do assist soldiers in acting morally because the things that are prohibited are clear immoral actions that no one should be taking during any war, just or unjust.

Post your response here.

The most compelling idea in this post is the argument that soldiers can still act honorably in an unjust war. This is interesting because it separates morality and conduct. This raises a question: can someone do the right thing even when participating in something fundamentally wrong. This shows real-life situations where soldiers might not have a choice but still act with integrity.

Originally posted by CapeCod2343 on October 14, 2025 19:15

I believe that war is always wrong because the majority of the time, when countries are at war, the citizens are the ones who are paying the price, because countries decide not to resolve their issues diplomatically, resulting in innocent lives being lost at the expense of the government. The consequentialism model is more realistic for the modern world because many government officials and other people argue that there are multiple benefits of war, like territory, natural resources, etc, but many of these things are only accomplished with bloodshed, because at the end of the day, there is a winner and a loser. In these modern times feeling of patriotism is very popular, hence why when a country, especially your country, is at war, you are going to have huge feelings of patriotism to represent your country, because during those times, the need to prove and demonstrate to everyone that your country is at the top is crucial because it has become part of your identity. In the article Between Peace and War philosopher Bertrand Russel states that “In other letters, Russell continued to defend his position even as he described himself as ‘tortured by patriotism.’ ‘Love of England,’ he wrote in one letter, ‘is very nearly the strongest emotion I possess, and in appearing to set it aside at such a moment, I was making a very difficult renunciation.’” This quotation talks about how patriotism has become such a potent emotion that it can't be repressed/ignored. This is true for many things in our modern world; it is not limited to a country being at war. We also see this when our favorite sports team is playing. During this time, you are more likely inclined to wear the team's jersey, researching their stats, etc. The mass movement of patriotism moves/ inspires everyone to do crazy things to protect their things, in this case, to protect and serve your country. If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, citizens should refuse to participate in the war effort, especially when the cause goes against their beliefs and morals, because if you are going to risk your life for you are going to risk your life for your country and a cause, then it should be something that is worth fighting for. I believe it takes courage not to fight in defense of your nation because there is so much momentum to go to war and fight for your country this is where mass movement comes into play where everyone is enlisting and you're not, it is very courageous to not enlist because you are going to need to be strong enough to deal with the criticism of other people and society. The consequences if each citizen acts only according to his own moral compass when a nation is at war consists of people acting to the extreme, like extremist actions, movement, people would make more irrational actions all of which can make wars more cruel. A good example of this is the war with Palestine and Israel.

I agree with your statement that in the majority of wars, citizens are the ones who pay the price. I would go further to say that in all modern wars citizens are the ones that suffer the most. As we learned in class, this is the reason some socialists are against war. They believe that the proletariats (common citizens) suffer at the decisions of the bourgeoisie (leaders calling civilians to war). It is also why leaders often perpetuate the idea to their soldiers that enemy civilians are evil, dangerous, and therefore worth killing. This dehumanization is what leads to mass civilian death in wars. So I completely agree with you that civilians pay the price in wars, but I don’t agree that all wars are wrong. I do wish that wars wouldn’t have to be necessary and that everything could be resolved diplomatically, but realistically, this is not the case. Leaders and activists should make efforts to end wars, but it is simply not where the world stands today. The reason I differ from your claim that all wars are wrong is because in the case of many civilian revolutions, revolutionaries see violence as the only answer to overcome the daily violence and oppression they face from their colonizer/imperialist. They often believe that fighting back will result in peace in the future. If revolutions led by oppressed people were removed from the definition of war, I would 100% agree with you that war is wrong.

Originally posted by user0702 on October 14, 2025 10:19

War is not in all cases morally wrong because the situation of each war determines whether the cause is just or unjust. The consequentialism model is more realistic for the modern world because some countries are more powerful than others, and those powerful countries will take advantage of others weaknesses. It is absolutely essential that once in war all methods of warfare remain proportional. The only way that violence in a war can be justified is if any form of violence used is proportional to the opponents (jus in bello). Although it is almost unrealistic to eliminate the practice of war all together, it is important that Jus Ad Bellum and Jus in Bello are applied. In my opinion, the only permissible reason for war is for the purpose of self defense. It is important to defend your country to prevent the attacks from becoming out of hand. It is a hard distinction to make to decide if self defense is permissible and if an attack can be anticipated. There is a lot of gray area within these rules that it becomes harder and harder to determine if war is permissible. It is important to remember that all wars are circumstantial and that all of the specific factors of the country's resources, means of self defense, and government be taken into consideration before waging a war. The Just War Theory does act as more of a defense for why war is waged and what happens once it does, but nothing can justify the deaths and violence that occurs during the war itself. It does give reason and justification to why war must happen but it also does not completely prevent unjust practices in the war to occur, causing it to not be fully justifiable.

If the origins of the war come from unjust reasons it becomes much harder to justify fighting in the war and gives more space for people to become conscientious objectors. If everyone in the country is a conscientious objector it becomes almost impossible for the war to actually be fought. If it is the case that everyone in the country is a conscientious objector it gives reason for the country to reflect on the reasons of the war and if it should really have been waged in the first place. A war cannot be successful if they have no one to fight or if the morale of the soldiers is so low that they have no willingness to fight. If that is the case it also violates Just War Theory because they now know that success is not probable and therefore, must end the war. It takes courage to become a conscientious objector but it also takes a different kind of courage to fight in the war, especially if you do not believe in the cause. Putting yourself directly in harm's way to defend the citizens of your country is admirable and must be admired. The courage it takes to go against the social norm and prepare yourself to face the criticism that comes with going against the majority.

If soldiers follow their own moral compass, knowing that they are defending the people of their country their acts can be seen as courageous and rooted in helping the greater good. It also does not fall directly on the fault of the soldier if they have received a direct order from a superior that goes against their own moral compass because disobeying an order can in some places be punishable by death. Each soldier has their own scenario and own reasons for either fighting or not fighting in the war. It is not necessarily fair that all soldiers be held responsible for the unjust conditions or reasons regarding the war. People will strive to protect themselves and their families at all costs which can cause people to obey direct orders, even if they do not fully agree. If soldiers strive to follow the guidelines of Jus in Bello, it will cause most to act permissibly and hold on to their own moral values, while fighting in war.

This response offers a well developed examination of just war theory, emphasizing that war is not inherently immoral, but more dependent on the nature of the circumstances and the outcome that comes from it. I think that your most compelling argument is the claim that self-defense is the only truly permissible reason for war. Your idea on this topic aligns very closely with jus ad bellum, which states that war should only be waged to protect themselves. You also touch nicely on the importance of proportionality during warfare. It is vital that the actions taken align with the extent of violence and aggression each side takes.

Another particularly strong part of your writing is the exploration of conscientious objectors. The widespread refusal to fight could make a government strongly reconsider fighting a war, and may even stop the war from happening due to a lack of legitimacy. This idea connects to the idea of just war theory’s emphasis on the need for both a reasonable chance of success and a just cause before people can wage war. People need to come together and collectively decide whether fighting is actually worth it.

From an analytical standpoint, the essay demonstrates a clear under standing of just war theory and I don’t have any mechanical feedback. You flow smoothly through different concepts and ideas. If I had to change anything, I would suggest discussing other reasons war could be considered a just cause other than self-defense, such as a topic like humanitarian intervention. Overall the essay shows strong moral reflection and touches the vital points in regards to the circumstances around when war is just.

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 conscious.

The most compelling idea in my peers' response is that soldiers should not be criticized when fighting in unjust wars when they act morally correct. Seltzersareawesome states that if a soldier fights for their country and acts morally correct while doing so, they do not deserve criticism or any other negative reaction. This is because they fought for their country and the protection of its people, and for that they deserve respect and gratitude. Furthermore, they also talk about the concept of conscientious objectors and how they are essential to every nation to fight for what's right. Conscientious objects receive a lot of negative attention due to the fact that many believe they are cowardly by not fighting in wars they disagree with, leaving their peers to fight alone. However, in the response, my peer talks about how it also takes a lot of courage to be a conscientious objector, due to the fact that it causes many people to look down on them and criticize them. Many other students wrote about the need for conscientious objectors and how they are essential to keep a nation focused on their ideals, and when the nation strays from those ideas, conscientious objectors force them back on track. I agree with everything stated in my peers' posts and the flawless grammar and techniques only convey their thoughts better.

Originally posted by humanrights07 on October 14, 2025 22:46

Ever since history was recorded there was always some record of fights between opposing people. This is why it is rooted in our beings. War is such a difficult topic of discussion as it is difficult to comprehend all of the details. War is so large that we can miss the impacts it has on every individual. I believe that violence can be justified in certain situations for example if you are being attacked and are defending yourself. That is justifiable as it could result in more casualties on your side if you don’t fight back. Despite this, there is the counterargument that no matter what violence on this level is never acceptable. I feel encouraged to lean this way as in Between Peace and War it is discussed how “the conscientious objector does not believe that violence can cure violence". This stuck with me as I had to really think, will violence really make things better or does it just create more tension and hate between the opposers? My answer to this question was it will cause more hate and tension as once people act more violently towards your people or “one of us” it creates a strong us vs. them mentality even if you don’t realize it has happened. Despite these thoughts, the consequentialism model for war is more realistic for modern war because that is how we base our wars on today and it is difficult to change people's mindsets.

Whether war is justifiable or not is all based on opinion. Just like the rules of war, it is up to interpretation whether someone has broken the laws of war or not. Similarly, many arguments can be made for both for and against war and I believe it is up to the individual whether they believe violence can be solved with more violence or not. The other argument is who the violence is directed at. In Principles of Jus In Bello it is discussed who is a civilian and who is not. This again highlights how much interpretation is included in war and who is really to blame for certain things. It is difficult, however, to have these opinions when the leader of your nation makes all of the decisions which leaves little room for your own thoughts. While you can think your own opinions it is difficult to express these publicly if they disagree with what your leader has decided.

It takes immense courage to go against the majority and choose your own morals. This takes great strength so if someone does decide to not fight I would think they have thought about it long and hard as it is not an easy decision. In addition, I feel that we cannot blame people for choosing not to fight due to religious or moral obligations; however, if they are getting out of war just to get out of it that is just incorrect. While these conscientious objectors don’t have to physically fight I do still think it is important that they help in some way even if it is really small. No matter what it is still important to show even a little support for your nation. In addition, if we set the norm that anyone can choose to not fight it creates less unity and distrust in our nation.

The most compelling thing about the post is that it brings up the topic of whether violence can resolve violence, especially when it uses the quote from Between Peace and War. I agree with the idea because throughout the year, when countries went to war and the war finished, the violence in those countries continued, and in many instances, the violence and hate became worse, making the war useless. This idea is interesting because it brings the idea of us vs them and how the fear and resentment someone had against someone else can easily and quickly turn into violence. I agree with their statement that it is up to interpretation whether someone committed a war crime. This is because many countries and people have different opinions on the extent to which war actions are permissible based on the outcome. If the outcome is good/ victorious, people would say that it was a means to an end and that it does not matter now because they won, while other people that people that lost and the people who see the whole picture state that a country/someone committed a war crime, hence why the other country was victorious.

Originally posted by rubycirce on October 13, 2025 11:32

The consequentalism model is much more realistic than the intrinsicism one, even though this reality is deeply depressing. In a perfect world, diplomacy triumphs over violence and war is never viewed as the solution. However, we are nowhere near that perfect world, and thus the intrinsicism model fails to recognize the reality of global conflicts. International law and the Just War Theory thus tend to follow the consequentialism model. In drafting and enforcing laws, state parties have found it impossible to 100% apply the intrinsic theory. Some wars are seen by the majority of the international community as necessary to establishing peace, such as the Allies’ response to Germany’s genocide. If these countries had not stepped in, Germany may have never stopped its Nazi violence. However, other examples of war throughout history are not viewed in the same way. By the 1970s, the US’ violence in Vietnam was seen by most American citizens as an overexertion of brutal force, but in the decade before, many Americans were onboard with the war, influenced by American nationalism and anti-Communist propaganda. In these more conflicting examples of war and jus in bello, the philosophies of intrinsicism versus consequentialism are put in the spotlight. Oftentimes, it seems, nations make justifications for their own actions in war but speak strongly against war crimes committed by other countries. I think this is another reason why consequentialism is more accepted by the international community. The consequentialism model leaves more wiggle room for nations to abuse their power and allies.

Despite the emphasis on abiding by jus in bello, war crimes continue. In my opinion, this is because the laws are far too vague, and manipulation of the laws and exertion of force in the name of power or democracy or religion is common. In the institutions that govern peace, such as the UN, NATO, and the ICC, the West tends to have superiority. In the last 50 years of American history, we’ve seen a strenuous relationship between the US and these international institutions. America has repeatedly left certain UN agencies with the claim that they don’t honor the American value of individualism or that the state parties involved are not our allies. This has led to a lot of criticism from the international community. Why can the US refuse to join UNESCO agencies and the ICC, and allow war crimes to happen by our allies, but still pride ourselves on the values of freedom, peace, and democracy? It is because we abuse the consequentialist philosophy. We tend to ignore war crimes when they’re committed by us or our allies. This is not just true of America, but many other countries in the world—countries that continue the death penalty and torture, block humanitarian aid, hide its soldiers behind citizens, and support their allied countries when they commit the same crimes.

The damages of manipulation from selective choosing of when a war is just or unjust is seen in excerpt 1 from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy on ‘Just War Theory’. What is “honorable” and “justifiable” is often leveraged by countries in war. For example, the rule that “a nation waging a just war should be doing so for the cause of justice and not for reasons of self-interest or aggrandizement” is extremely vague. What does justice mean and how can an international convention define justice for a specific country in war? Going to war in the name of “honor” and “justice” can be a coverup for underlying motivations. Therefore, countries can and often do manipulate those values and laws to work in their favor. Because the consequentialist approach is so vague and up to interpretation, nations and international organizations tend to favor it because it can give them advantages in war.

I completely agree with this person’s choice and point about consequentialism. I like how they are getting at that in this world, consequentialism is the right choice, but ideally it shouldn’t be. I think that is important to think about because you can choose whichever model you think might work better, but you have to make sure you are taking into account the circumstances and the context surrounding our world as it stands. I think the discussion they talked about concerning vagueness of laws being the reason for war crimes continuing is an interesting point. While I think that does have some affect, I feel like war crimes is just something that has been and will be a constant in war for a long time. I think humanity will see to it that there is always a group or a person who is willing to go to the extent of war crimes. People are so tempted by power and wealth, that they will be do so many things to gain or keep it. I agree with a lot of their statement, and I think the end of their statement puts it all together. I think that all these countries are able to manipulate the meanings of war crimes so much, that they really can avoid the laws.

Originally posted by Pinkie Pie on October 15, 2025 21:29

War is mostly wrong because it causes too much pain, destruction, and innocent deaths. I believe there are no justifications for it. There are some situations where it might be understandable, like self-defense. If a country is attacked or people’s lives are at serious risk, defending themselves can be justified. Still, war should always be the last option after exhausting all other options, such as peace talks or negotiations. The intrinsicism model says war is always wrong, which sounds good in theory, but doesn't really fit how the real world works. The consequentialist model is more realistic, but it can also be dangerous, as it allows people to excuse wars by claiming they'll lead to good outcomes. That's where Just War Theory comes in; it acknowledges that war is bad but says it can be acceptable in rare cases like self-defense. The idea of jus ad bellum, which is: the right reasons for going to war,” helps make sure war isn't used for power or greed, but only when it's truly needed. So, overall, war is wrong, but in some self-defense cases, it might be the only way to stop something worse from happening.

Post your response here.

I think your post does a great job showing that morality in war isn’t as simple as it seems. You described just war theory as a being in between saying war is always wrong and saying it can be justified depending on if it leads to good outcomes for your country . I agree with what you said because it shows how awful war is but it also admits that sometimes war might actually be necessary based on the situation. The mentioning of jus ad bellum was good and it really shows how people can twist their moral ideas to fit what they want to happen.Your post also connects well with what other people think about how moral theories sound great but dont always work in real life when they are put to play. I agree with you that war should always be the last option. But the thing is there are definitely situations where it is hard to avoid.If you wanted to make your post stronger you could add a quick example to show a time when war might actually be justified. Overall your post was thoughtful and easy to follow.

Originally posted by CapeCod2343 on October 14, 2025 19:15

I believe that war is always wrong because the majority of the time, when countries are at war, the citizens are the ones who are paying the price, because countries decide not to resolve their issues diplomatically, resulting in innocent lives being lost at the expense of the government. The consequentialism model is more realistic for the modern world because many government officials and other people argue that there are multiple benefits of war, like territory, natural resources, etc, but many of these things are only accomplished with bloodshed, because at the end of the day, there is a winner and a loser. In these modern times feeling of patriotism is very popular, hence why when a country, especially your country, is at war, you are going to have huge feelings of patriotism to represent your country, because during those times, the need to prove and demonstrate to everyone that your country is at the top is crucial because it has become part of your identity. In the article Between Peace and War philosopher Bertrand Russel states that “In other letters, Russell continued to defend his position even as he described himself as ‘tortured by patriotism.’ ‘Love of England,’ he wrote in one letter, ‘is very nearly the strongest emotion I possess, and in appearing to set it aside at such a moment, I was making a very difficult renunciation.’” This quotation talks about how patriotism has become such a potent emotion that it can't be repressed/ignored. This is true for many things in our modern world; it is not limited to a country being at war. We also see this when our favorite sports team is playing. During this time, you are more likely inclined to wear the team's jersey, researching their stats, etc. The mass movement of patriotism moves/ inspires everyone to do crazy things to protect their things, in this case, to protect and serve your country. If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, citizens should refuse to participate in the war effort, especially when the cause goes against their beliefs and morals, because if you are going to risk your life for you are going to risk your life for your country and a cause, then it should be something that is worth fighting for. I believe it takes courage not to fight in defense of your nation because there is so much momentum to go to war and fight for your country this is where mass movement comes into play where everyone is enlisting and you're not, it is very courageous to not enlist because you are going to need to be strong enough to deal with the criticism of other people and society. The consequences if each citizen acts only according to his own moral compass when a nation is at war consists of people acting to the extreme, like extremist actions, movement, people would make more irrational actions all of which can make wars more cruel. A good example of this is the war with Palestine and Israel.

I really agreed with many of the points made in this post, specifically the individual right to refuse to fight in an unjust war and the part on patriotism and how that affects mass movements. I like the emphasis on the individual right to refuse to fight in a war you do not agree with because that is something I talked about in my post and I think that it is a very important way of respecting citizens beliefs and recognizing them as individuals. I also agreed with the comment on patriotism and how that plays a large role in mass movements. I think this was important because it highlighted how prone we as humans are to such patriotic views on life because it makes us feel seen and heard. By joining such movements, people who might often feel left out or separate, can finally feel like they belong to something and that their life has meaning. Overall I thought the post had some very good points but some of them could have been a little more fleshed out. Like the last point about what would happen if everyone followed their own beliefs on war, I thought you made a great start but the idea could be taken to another level with more evidence from articles we have read or just a more in depth discussion on it.

Originally posted by Pinkie Pie on October 15, 2025 21:29

War is mostly wrong because it causes too much pain, destruction, and innocent deaths. I believe there are no justifications for it. There are some situations where it might be understandable, like self-defense. If a country is attacked or people’s lives are at serious risk, defending themselves can be justified. Still, war should always be the last option after exhausting all other options, such as peace talks or negotiations. The intrinsicism model says war is always wrong, which sounds good in theory, but doesn't really fit how the real world works. The consequentialist model is more realistic, but it can also be dangerous, as it allows people to excuse wars by claiming they'll lead to good outcomes. That's where Just War Theory comes in; it acknowledges that war is bad but says it can be acceptable in rare cases like self-defense. The idea of jus ad bellum, which is: the right reasons for going to war,” helps make sure war isn't used for power or greed, but only when it's truly needed. So, overall, war is wrong, but in some self-defense cases, it might be the only way to stop something worse from happening.

I agree with your point that war is mostly wrong because of the suffering and destruction it brings, especially to innocent people. Your view that self defense can be a justified reason for war makes sense because sometimes protecting lives and freedom might require force when all peaceful options fail. I also like how you mentioned the balance between the intrinsicism and consequentialist models. The intrinsicism model sounds ideal but doesn’t fully fit real world situations, while the consequentialist model can be risky since people might use it to justify harmful wars.

1. Originally posted by Iluvpickles on October 20, 2025 04:21

When a nation goes to war for unfair reasons, citizens face an important moral choice. Blindly following the government is often seen as patriotism or nationalism, but history shows that obeying without thinking helps injustice continue. People have a responsibility to make their own decisions and refuse to join wars that are wrong. Choosing not to fight in an unfair war is not cowardice. It takes real courage because it questions the power of the government and protects innocent people. Just War Theory helps people decide if a war is right or wrong. According to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “jus ad bellum specifies the conditions under which it is morally permissible to resort to war.” These conditions include having the right intentions, proper authority, fairness, and using war only as a last choice. Wars fought to take land, gain resources, or increase power clearly do not meet these standards. When governments ignore these rules, citizens cannot rely on the state to decide what is right. Joining an unfair war makes people part of violence and injustice, while refusing to fight allows them to stay morally responsible.

History gives many examples of people who refused to join unfair wars. During the Vietnam War, many draft resisters and conscientious objectors spoke out against a government that misled the public and caused suffering, especially to poor communities. Muhammad Ali refused to be drafted because he did not want to help the United States harm people in Vietnam while Black people in America were still denied basic rights. His decision shows that refusing to fight an unfair war is an act of bravery. Standing up for what is right often means going against social pressure and facing punishment. Some people say that if everyone followed their own moral judgment, the country would not be safe. While individual resistance can make organizing the military harder, history shows that blind obedience causes more harm. Wars fought without thinking about ethics have led to genocide, forms of oppression. Refusing to fight is not betraying the country. It is refusing to support immoral policies. True patriotism means holding the nation to moral standards, not supporting it blindly. Acting according to conscience protects people and challenges unfair authority. Citizens should refuse to participate in wars that are morally wrong. Not fighting may have consequences, including legal punishment or criticism, but morality is more important than comfort or fear. Resisting an unfair war shows courage, protects human life, and supports justice. Joining an unjust war is accepting the moral responsibility, which means refusing to take part.

Post your response here.