learntoquestion ltq discussions

Questions to Consider:

Please craft a well written response that incorporates what we have discussed as a class and your own views on Just War Theory. You should also refer directly to the readings linked below as well, including at least one quote for reference to at least one of the readings in your response. You can choose to focus on one of the question sets, or to incorporate several of them into your response.

1. Is war always wrong or can the use of large-scale, organized violence sometimes be justified? Is the intrinsicism model (war is morally wrong) or the consequentialism model (war is not morally wrong if the outcome is just) more realistic for the modern world? Does Just War Theory, particularly the permissible reasons for war (jus ad bellum), act as a bridge between the two philosophical ideas? How?

2. 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?

3. 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?

Word Count Requirement: 500-750 words

Readings to Reference:

Please refer to the ideas, either using a quote or paraphrasing, from at least one of the readings in your response.

Excerpt 1: Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum (Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Excerpt 2: Just War Theory-Jus In Bello and Jus Post Bellum (Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

In Between War and Peace (Facing History and Ourselves)

Rubrics to Review:

I think the belief that war is not morally wrong if the cause, actions during, and outcome of war are just is appropriate for our world today. In my opinion citizens should always be able to have a say in whether or not they want to participate in war efforts, no matter if the reasons are just or not. Considering that many in the military are killed during war, I believe participation should be left for individuals to decide as their lives are on the line. If members of societies are forced to engage there is a possibility of them dying for a cause they don’t even believe in, which doesn’t make much sense. With this however also comes the risk of a smaller or incomplete army, lessening the likelihood of success. If completely necessary, I think a smaller scale draft could be understood but it should be left for extreme cases. Fighting in a war (as your existence is at risk) and refusing to fight for something your morals go against both require courage, which is necessary because of the negative social response in which one would be met with if they went against the set societal expectations. People could have various reasons for a desire to not engage in war, that being religion, morals, injury, economic stability, and more. From what I have seen there is a belief that if one opposes war then they do not care for their country, but this is often not the case. In the article Between Peace and War, Philosopher Bertrand Russell who refused to fight states that he is "tortured by patriotism" and that the strongest emotion he feels is love for his country. This goes to show how refusers can still have a deep sense of patriotism and care for their nation, maybe even more so than willing fighters since they believe their country is above the reason for war and should not entertain the situation. I think this also relates to who should be targeted during times of war, as not everyone might support the faults of their nation. It is unjust and undeserving for people to die if they themselves objectively did nothing wrong. Selective killing of only the proven guilty is obviously more acceptable, efficient, effective, and reasonable than unproportional acts such as bombing a random enemy hospital for example. I agree with McMahan’s idea that reassuring soldiers who act permissibly in an unjust war is a bad idea because actions should not be separated from the reason behind the actions. Even if honorable conduct is displayed, soldiers are ultimately contributing to the destruction and death of countries for an unjust reason. On a different note, in the reading Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum, the point that the ethics of the Just War Theory “aim to retain a plausible moral framework for war” makes me wonder if there could be a set of rules that should be followed by everyone for every war. I think that there is no one right answer and that having one strict program for everyone to abide by in war wouldn't work because it truly depends on the specifics and would be too broad to apply to every instance. All in all though, despite one side eventually having to be named the victor and the other the defeated, I believe no one wins in war even if it is necessary at times.