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.
I agree that the two theories of war are vital in keeping the conversation of the ethics of war alive. It is also so important to understand both sides of the argument. There is no perfect solution to justifying or even getting rid of war but the two theories are a great attempt at making war as humane and just as possible. Human nature is unlikely to ever change and because of this it is not likely that war will ever be completely rid of. It is almost the government's instinct to go to war when there is any sort of conflict whether it is because they want to feel dominant or they want to protect their country. It is also important to ensure that whenever a war is waged, it is waged as a last resort. There are so many people beyond the soldiers themselves who are hurt or endangered from the war. The soldiers' lives are put at risk and they are even asked to carry out orders that are absolutely brutal. In the soldiers' scenario in particular, I think that it is unfair to hold them responsible for the death and destruction of war because it is not their intention or their fault that the war is occurring at all. The nature of war is unavoidable once the conflict has started, so the responsibility really comes down to the government who started the war. It is important to keep referring to Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello as a moral and ethical guideline for war.