learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by PeanutButterBoy on October 14, 2025 21:51

In my opinion, the idea that all war and fighting is morally wrong, but I think that is unfair to many groups. Fighting and uprising has always been a way for different groups to protest and battle against oppression, and this type of fighting is just in my eyes. With the world that we live in now, it is important to carry with you a consequentialist view. Looking at conflicts in today’s world, is it not right for Ukraine to return fire against Russia, who has been fighting for land and oppressing the Ukrainian people? I think that there are too many wars about too many different ideas for us to dismiss them all as immoral. I think the core ideas of the Just War Theory are very important in war, but only as concepts. I think these ideas support the consequentialist view, but when they are actually put into action in a war, they seldom work. They stand in for actual laws, proving to be much more flexible and circumstantial. Its very hard to set up a system that is supposed to decide how people behave, yet have those laws become obsolete under specific circumstances. If you view these laws as more of a bridge, as suggested, it become much more clear and understandable instead of having them framed as laws. These rules, at the most basic level, create a clear understanding of what is morally right and wrong in war. But as you dig deeper and look into the more complex issues of war, you see that there are justifications for many acts. This logic combines both sides of the argument and forces you to see morality of war from two different viewpoints, so as to allow for people to form their own ideas about how moral war can be. I believe that if a nation goes to war for unjust reasons, there should be an choice for people to fight. Forcing a person to go against their beliefs is unjust in itself, and this forced cooperation can lead to bigger problems. In our own history, we can see the problems that arise from trying to force citizens to go to war. There are many ethics concerns with forcing people to fight in wars they don’t believe should be fought. I think that standing up for your beliefs takes a lot of courage, especially when wars come around and there is more nationalism and pride within your country going around. By sticking to your beliefs and refusing to go against your morals, you are demonstrating a strong sense of identity against the overwhelming pressure of nationalism and groupthink. However, if you do fight in a war that you don't believe should be fought, I don’t think you are a coward. It is important to acknowledge how hard it is to go against a majority, and being a dissenter in a crowd of supporters takes more courage than most people really have. Morals are different for every person, and the moral compass that everyone carries reflects different views. I disagree with the point that Jeff McMahan makes with his statement. I think that for many people, fighting in war is not a choice, and to hold them accountable for the fighting that happens during wartime is unfair. I believe that the soldiers who have limited options in what they are allowed to do, and because of that commit violence, are not to be held responsible. If a soldier goes out of their way to commit violence against an enemy, that is a different story. But like the rest of the rules surrounding morality in war, this is all circumstantial.

I find your point about resistance movements very interesting and compelling, and I’m inclined to agree that revolutionary violence is sometimes morally justifiable. After all, we are sitting in the city that spawned one of the most famous revolutions in human history, breaking away from an oppressive empire. I do take some issue with your adherence to consequentialism. While I agree fully that Ukraine, for example, has the right and the moral obligation to defend itself from Russia, I don’t think it has the right to do so by underhanded or “dirty” tactics (not to imply that the Ukrainian military is fighting unfairly, just a hypothetical). I think the Just War principle of proportionality is extremely important for this exact reason; sure, an act may end war quicker, but is it proportional to the crimes of your enemy? If not, I think that’s a war crime that should not be tolerated. But again, I acknowledge that that’s a very grey area. As you correctly point out, these principles are very hard to make into proper hard and fast laws because there is so much nuance and so many grey areas. I also agree that people shouldn’t be forced to fight for a war they don’t believe in, and I do think that there are circumstances where fighting in a war one knows to be unjust isn’t cowardly, even if I think there are scenarios where it is. Ultimately, your last point sums it up best: “this is all circumstantial.”

Originally posted by BrokenTile on October 15, 2025 02:30

1. War isn’t always wrong and can sometimes be justified, but it must be a strong reason that most people could get behind, such as retaliation for a previous attack or a direct threat to a country. It isn’t justified if it is to gain more land or eliminate people of a certain religion or ethnicity. The consequentialism model is more realistic for the modern world because even now, nations still go to war, but they feel the need to have a justification for it, for instance, the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 or the Iraq war over the claim that Saddam possessed chemical weapons. The Just War theory and jus ad bellum act as a bridge between the two philosophical ideas of intrinsicism and consequentialism because they set boundaries that wars can be fought, self-defense, as a last resort, and with a good chance of success. For example, as referenced in the reading, the Allied and Central powers both had a decent shot of winning in World War I. This shows that not all wars are justified, while on the other hand, choosing not to fight in a war is wrong because sometimes war can be justified.

2. If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, citizens should refuse to participate in the war effort as long as it doesn’t put them in direct danger for doing so. I think it takes more courage not to fight in defense of your nation than to fight in a war you think is wrong, because it takes courage to be the outlier and bear the consequences of doing so than just going with the majority and being complacent. Some consequences if each citizen acts only according to his own moral compass when a nation is at war would be that you have dissenters who pose a threat to the general war effort and might protest or do other things to hinder the war effort. These consequences are realistic for a nation to endure because it’s happened before, for example, the Vietnam War protests as a response to the draft and people refusing to fight because it went against their beliefs.

3. I agree with the argument that soldiers can act honorably during wartime even if the cause they’re fighting for is unjust. I believe that it comes down to perspective and that what you view as just the other side, you’re fighting might view as wrong, and you can still treat each other with respect on the battlefield. The rules of war (jus in bello) assist soldiers to act morally because they lay out clear rules and boundaries for war. For instance, the targeting of civilians during wartime isn’t permitted, and holds soldiers to only target certain industrial buildings and combatants. Having a standard that people can be held accountable to makes war more transparent and saves lives, regardless of soldiers fighting for the “right side” or the “wrong side”. We should also think about the human side of war, people physically die in war, whether or not they believe in what they are forced to fight for, so yes, people can still choose to act morally even if what they’re fighting for is unjust.

Post your response here.

I agree with your main idea in the first paragraph that war can sometimes be justified, but only for strong moral or defensive purposes. I agree with the distinction of wars that are fought for defense and those that are fought just for power. It's interesting that you connected this idea to the modern era with Iraq and Afganistan showing how nations still justify violence through moral reasoning. I like how you used both intrinsic and consequentialist and described them as a bridge for the Just War Theory. Your second paragraph about citizens refusing to fight in unjust wars was interesting. You made me think in a different perspective when you connected it to the Vietnam War protests. I think to help your point out even more you could have connected it to modern examples like in your first paragraph. Your third paragraph was strong as well as it connects moral behavior to the rules of war. I agree that soldiers act honorably when fighting for an unjust cause, as long as they follow guidelines. Overall I liked how you answered all three questions with great evidence and connections.

Originally posted by dunkindonuts on October 14, 2025 23:42

I don’t think that war is always wrong, although extreme and unnecessary violence and targeting specific groups of people is morally wrong. I think that sometimes, we need to fight these wars to put issues to rest. In other cases, we might involve ourselves in a war because it is our obligation to support our allies who are currently fighting in war. I think that modern society leans towards the consequentialism model. I think there are many benefits and consequences of war. From one perspective, war might be good for one side because it results in unity and order. It could also reduce further tensions and prevent any escalation of future conflicts. Moreover, some wars have resulted in an authoritarian or oppressive power to be defeated, leading to the benefit of the majority. For example, although World War II was a tragic event, it ultimately led to the defeat of the Nazis. On the other hand, war often results in massive loss of life, trauma, instability, and destruction. It is important for leaders and countries to determine whether or not engaging in war would help lead to benefits for the greater majority, or if it will lead to detrimental consequences. I think the Just War Theory aligns more with the consequentialism model. The Just War Theory provides different types of criteria for determining whether or not a war is justifiable. It is divided into three main parts: right to go to war, justice in war, and justice after war. The consequentialism model states that war is not morally wrong if the outcome is just, which is similar to what the Just War Theory suggests. Ultimately, the intrinsicism and consequentialism models, war, and the Just War Theory is nuanced and not specific enough. This makes it hard for us to take into account different scenarios of the causes and outcomes of war. There are numerous factors of war and many different perspectives on either side of the war. If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, I think the citizens should have an opportunity to state their opinions on the war and decide for themselves if they would like to participate in the war effort. However, citizens are not always bound to follow their true beliefs and values. Since war usually encourages a sense of national pride and unity, the majority of people will support their country’s best interests, even if that means going to war. Another example of this is if you are drafted into the war. You cannot refuse a draft, which means that you will have to go to war even if it goes against your morals. In the document “Between Peace and War”, the author indicates how only a few men refused to fight. These people were called conscientious objectors who were usually “an extreme individualist with little sense of the solidarity of mankind and of our membership with one another”. These types of people who reject outside influence and opinions are very courageous and have a strong sense of self.

I think that the provision of your opinion was pretty thoughtful and thorough to the questions we’ve been discussing. Personally, I like your engagement with the consequentialist model with Just War Theory. I would argue that jus ad bellum is neither consequentialist nor intrinsic in its model, rather casts a light more glaringly on the nature of wars’ causes, and I think given your analysis you could also agree. You also gave a good analysis on the nature of conscientious objectors. I think you offered a good point: that conscientious objectors are often forced by the nature of their surrounding society to engage in war even if it opposes their values. In a way, you could argue that this causes cognitive dissonance, which we’ve discussed earlier in class. I want to focus on a specific example: nationalists in world war 1. As nations were stockpiling up arms before the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, there were undoubtedly discussions on whether one should be self-sacrificing for their own nation. The question of whether a war would come had an unresounding yes, I think, regardless of whether Ferdinand was assassinated; these nationalist sentiments were growing into radical movements that were almost forcibly impressing their ideology, causing an outgroup of those conscientious objectors. Overall, you had a great response!

Originally posted by lemonloaf on October 14, 2025 21:04

The majority of the time, wars are unnecessary. I believe that there is always another way to resolve issues other than violence and negatively impacting numerous innocent people who did not wish for war. The only times when I see that it is justified are if it's purely out of defense. I do not expect nations to bear the violence and destruction of another country simply because there were other ways that the issues could be resolved. Some may argue that not going to war just pushes back the inevitable and decides to fight it out sooner rather than later. In “The Principles of Jus in Bello,” describe the term Jus post bellum is described, which states that after the war, “ compensatory claims should be tempered by the principles of discrimination and proportionality and, controversially, the need to rehabilitate or re-educate an aggressor should also be considered.” This means that justice after war should focus not just on prevention or repayment but also on fairness and peace that will last in the long term. People might look at this and say that a war is necessary to happen sooner rather than later to create a peace that will last longer than the war itself. The consequential model is more closely related to the modern world and how leaders justify their war-based decisions. Even though I think that war is unnecessary, if it were to break out, I would align myself more with this model because it means that they are getting closer to ending the war. With the intrinsic model, it feels unproductive and prolongs the inevitable. And I do think that war itself is unavoidable because of the philosophy behind evangelism and the human instinct to spread one's own beliefs and values. People are so eager to spread these ideas and values that they would fight for them. This raises a bigger question: whether I still think war is morally wrong if it is caused by human instinct. Is everything the subconscious does moral if that defines what we see as moral? People have different views on what is necessary and what is not, making it impossible to pinpoint precisely which philosophical idea is morally just over the other. The creation of international war laws was put in place to protect these philosophical ideas. They support the same ideas of fairness and restraint and exist to limit the brutality of war and ensure that human rights are protected even during conflict. It is our responsibility as humans to preserve natural human rights, and the striving to uphold them is the most moral thing we can do, even in times of war.

I mostly agree with your claim that wars are mostly unnecessary, and one of the only justifiable wars is purely out of defense. However, I believe a war could be justified if you are stopping an evil power. I thought it was interesting how you posed the question, is war a part of human instinct? This question relates to our discussion about whether or not people are inherently violent. I liked the quote from The Principles of Jus in Bello. I thought it was good you included a quote that talked about what post-war can look like and what should be done. I agree with it and think that after a war happens, looking back and thinking about what could’ve been done to prevent this war, along with war reparations. Another important thing that needs to happen after a war is what can be done to make sure there is lasting peace. I liked how you compared the consequentialist and intrinsic models, and I agree that the consequentialist model is more applicable to the real world. I like how you ended your post by talking about the rules in place to make sure war is fought correctly, and that these rules need to be enforced to prevent unjust activties in war.

Originally posted by ABC123 on October 14, 2025 20:17

War is not only wrong if occurring for the correct reasons. The most realistic way to view it is the consequentialism model. Reasons such as an attack on a country's civilians and freedoms or an event or group of people that pose a risk to the freedom of one's country are strong reasons to go to war. This is because events and people with bad intent can lead to further and worse damages to a country and its people. Just War Theory makes sense as a bridge between ideas as it compromises based on certain circumstances. If a nation wages war for unjust reasons, I think citizens should have the option to fight. But sometimes figuring out if reasons for war are just is hard because opinion and bias have significant weight in people's views. If reasons for war are just and a country's freedom is at risk, forcing people's hand into war is sometimes necessary. If people don’t fight for their country, their country is at risk of attack. I disagree with McMahan’s ideas as I believe that many of these soldiers came to war against their will and were forced into it. I believe even in an unjust war if a soldier had been forced to go to war or even highly encouraged, the soldier's actions should be praised or at least protected. These people travel a thousand plus miles to go fight in a war that they didn’t ask for against people whose goal is to try to kill them. If bravery like that gets condemned then I wouldn’t understand. These soldiers can come back from war physically, mentally, and emotionally scarred, with PTSD, lost limbs, ect… I’ve had relatives that have gone off and fought in war and deployed in battle and to me it is nothing but bravery, strength, and courage. Fighting to the death especially when you don’t inherently want to can leave a person with severe scars physically and mentally and if soldiers are immediately condemned after they come back it could be extremely detrimental to their recovery. Every citizen can’t always just resort to their own moral compass in times of war. This can lead to large divides and conflict at a time where a country and its people are so vulnerable. When some people truly want to fight and defend their country and others resist, flee, and protest; it causes turmoil, political issues and physical conflict when unneeded. There will always be some sort of conflict internally within a country when in war. There will almost never be a situation where everyone agrees and everyone wants to go along with it. But many wars are fought to save us from what’s possible in the future. It’ts like climate change, a lot of the things we do to save our environment will not affect us right now in any positive ways, but the future generations will be at risk if the actions aren’t taken early enough. Just like war where current consequences are sometimes necessary to prevent later, far worse consequences.

I thought that it was an interesting and compelling idea to use a consequentialist model to represent war and conflict. I also thought that it was important to at least mention the fact that the intentions of the soldiers can often get in the way of war’s intirinsics. I agree with the fact that war is a necessity for many countries, but I must also say that I believe that citizens have a right to not participate in a war if the conflict isn’t in the best interest of the people. An example of this would be the Vietnam War, in which we only participated in order to stop the spread of communism. Most importantly, while Communism could theoretically pose a threat due to its great influence, it is unanimously agreed upon that it threatened people in higher positions of power much more. This made people believe that the government was acting in its own interest as opposed to the interests of the people. I also found it fascinating that the author took the mental state of the soldiers into account, and how war can often traumatize/cause PTSD within people. As people begin to care more about mental health, this may play a part in how people participate in war, and whether people believe war is even worth it or not. To me, I don’t think the author needs to change anything about how this is written, and I think the points were clear.

Originally posted by snoopythedog on October 14, 2025 20:24

That war be necessarily grouped into the moral discussion is yet another tendency for us to categorize what may not be readily categorized. By its nature, war itself is a complex discussion. Like any other abstract concept or -ism, the fight to categorize it amidst our weight constructs of morally good or morally evil is often in vain; that is, war is a much more broad and complex topic than we can evaluate at face value. Irrefutable, we should concede, are the mechanisms of self defense that nations may aptly and with correct measure apply in times of uncertainty to suffice as morally good (or if the pacifist must extend, morally neutral). Indeed, in common and modern law, if an individual seeks to cause some damage to another, it is only justifiable with “self-defense” For our purpose, we may scale conflict on the individual level to those between nations -- in which case, we may claim war to be good only in times wherein the aggressor is already in imminent danger. That, of course, lends to further discussion of what we classify as “imminent danger.” It could suffice to claim that if the military forces or civilians of a nation are inappropriately and intentionally put at life-or-death risk by the governors of another nation, then we may classify that as grounds for retaliation. I feel that the intrincisim model and the consequentialism model are both inappropriate models to qualify international conflict. Both fail to address the causes of the war and the extenuating circumstances that may involve a nation at danger. An intrincisim model fails to recognize nations at imminent risk, and the consequentialist model is inherently blind to the causes of the war. For our study of war, Just War Theory offers a more contentious model that I feel could be more applicable in times of war -- however, it still lends to great interpretation. In a way, a nation seeking to conduct a large-scale massacre of another can still be found justifiable through the many loopholes in Just War Theory.

In my opinion, it’s hard to say whether it requires more bravery to engage in war or subvert war. In a way, you have to consider that there’s a sense of physical bravery -- a bravery to engage in acts that might be detrimental to your physical life, but there’s also a psychological or ideological bravery to NOT subvert your morals. In a way, we all definitely think that we could feasibly never join a war effort. But at the same time, you have to consider that we live in a different scenario then the people in WW1; I believe people during that period in the western hemisphere were more willing to give their lives for a war effort. According to the Between Peace & War reading, with the following quote from Artifex, we can see that people were often viewed negatively as being a conscientious objector: “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.” We must remember that conscientious objectors also experience societal pressures like the ones we’ve discussed. In the case of WWI, mass movements were manifest in how quickly people allied in nationalist movements. To veer off from this ideology that you would die for your country in a short-lived war was seen as disgraceful and ‘unmanly’. That allows the ingroup to appeal to the outgroup’s fundamental values (in this case, the ingroup is the homogenate of people who side with the country party). I think that means conscientious objectors have to choose between societal interpretation of their values coming at a challenge to their own values.

I agree with many of the views presented in this peer’s writing. The point that stood out to me most and that I also touched upon in my response was the idea that war cannot be specifically categorized because it's too complicated and depends on the specific situation at hand. Relating to this, I agree that the Just War Theory serves as a good in-between for the intrinsicist and consequentialist models, but is still too broad to apply to every conflict. We agree that it is hard to determine when war might be necessary, revealing possible issues or gaps in the method used to provide a basis for a just war. There are different types of bravery required to engage in war and to stand against it. To reiterate what this person said, enlisting in war entails a more physical sense of bravery as you are putting your body on the line, while opposing war typically results in societal effects because the person is rejected for their opinion (something I also mentioned in my own response). One last solid point I found was that war is most easily justified when it occurs from a country defending itself as it is not done out of hatred or ulterior motives, but simply in an attempt to conserve the existence of their nation. To conclude, this post is extremely well written, contains no mechanical errors, and gets valid points across.

Originally posted by anonymous on October 14, 2025 07:54

The morality of war has long divided philosophers and citizens. Is it just inherently wrong or can it be justified under the right circumstances. The intrinsist stance is that war is morally wrong because it entails killing, destruction, and the breakdown of human solidarity. The consequentialist stance on the other hand states that war is justified if it results in a greater good, such as saving more innocent lives or freeing from tyranny. In today's world, where humanitarian crises and aggressions continue to threaten global peace, the consequentialist theory would seem more realistic. War to stop a genocide or defend a countyr being invaded as usually seen as necessary despite everyone dying on both sides. However, the danger of consequentialism is that it will excuse almost any level of violence as long as the outcome is a better world. Just war theory is a moral middle pathway between the two extremes. Its doctrine of jus ad bellum or the right to go to war sets strict conditions for a just cause, legitimate authority, war as the last resort, and proportionality. It recognized war as a moral evil but is realistic enough to know it will happen. During World War I, many Europeans switched from anti war protest to patriotic soldiers, especially after the neutral nation of Belgium was invaded. Even the initially anti-war German Social Democratic Party declared that “the horror of hostile invasion threatens us… now we must think of the millions of our fellow countrymen"(Between Peace and War Reading). Their moral priority quickly changed from peace to defense, a case of jus ad bellum thinking, where the moral priority became to defend instead of seeing it as a fight for the ruling class's benefit. If a nation does wage war for unwarranted reasons, should citizens refuse to fight? History shows that doing so takes courage as although you remained safe, in the case of WWI, you would be jailed, excluded from society, and seen as a traitor. Betrand Russel defended the conscientious objectors of WWI saying that "the conscientious objector does not believe that violence can cure violence… he still feels 'solidarity' with the people who are called 'enemies'" (Between Peace and War Reading). In Russels view moral courage meant opposing the dehumanization of the enemy and preserving compassion amid collective hatred. Whether fighting or not fighting takes more courage is a personal opinion many will disagree on, and it is very dependent on the circumstances and repercussions for making either choice. If all citizens followed only personal morality, national defense could crumble as a result, and a healthy democracy must balance autonomy and civic responsibility to keep the nation safe without becoming authoritarian. Philosopher Jeff McMahan goes against the comforting belief that soldiers who fight honorably in unjust wars still act morally well, instead arguing 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." (Between Peace and War Reading). His argument is that moral integrity cannot be separated from the justice of the cause. A soldier may follow the jus in bello rules: avoiding unnecessary suffering, protecting civilians, and respecting prisoners but if the war itself is unjust, then even honorable behavior cannot fully justify involvement. Ultimately, war reveals both the weakness and power of human ethics. The intrinsicist reminds us that war shatters lives and ideals, while the consequentialist reminds us that doing nothing can cause even greater evil to happen. Just War Theory tries to hold both views in tension, acknowledging that while war is never good, sometimes it may be a necessity. For the soldier however, decisions of morality are not about whether to start a war but about whether participating in the fighting itself is right, and if blind obedience is truly what is best for society or if democracy would be destroyed by everyone simply doing what they think is best.

I think the something from your post that popped for me was about your post is that when you explained that, “Their moral priority quickly changed from peace to defense, a case of jus ad bellum thinking, where the moral priority became to defend instead of seeing it as a fight for the ruling class's benefit.” I think that I agree with this idea, because many of the European countries had this switch with anti-war. A lot of them switched because of the nationalism and promotion of World War 1. This idea was interesting because it sort of analyzes the shift from European countries having a sense of nationalism and patriotism, to war being justified, only for the reasons that it could possibly help save more people's lives than harm them. For your statement that, “The consequentialist stance on the other hand states that war is justified if it results in a greater good, such as saving more innocent lives or freeing from tyranny. In today's world, where humanitarian crises and aggressions continue to threaten global peace, the consequentialist theory would seem more realistic.” I kind of have a similar viewpoint to it. I think that the consequentialist theory is a good reason for why war, in some cases, should be justified.

Originally posted by D5 Athlete on October 15, 2025 08:02

I don’t believe war is always wrong, though I think it brings out the worst in humanity when it becomes necessary. The idea that violence can sometimes be justifiable if it prevents a greater evil is more realistic than saying that war is always immoral. This aligns with the consequentialist view that war might not be inherently wrong if the outcome leads to justice or peace. Just war theory acts as a moral compass to make sure we question why and how we fight and what happens after.

In the Encyclopedia of Philosophy excerpt, the principle of jus in bello emphasizes that “the means used must be proportionate to the ends sought”. This reminds us that even in war, humanity shouldn’t be lost. A “just cause” does not excuse cruelty or the targeting of civilians. It is not enough for leaders to claim that their motives are right, the methods must respect moral limits. The reading also notes that those who “merely possess the uniform” are not automatically responsible for all acts of war. This humanizes soldiers who may not have chosen to fight but still act under moral rules.

What I find most powerful is how Just War Theory bridges the intrinsicist and consequentialist perspectives. It acknowledges that war is tragic and destructive, but it also recognizes that refusing to act against aggression or injustice can be equally wrong. The principles of jus ad bellum such as right intention and last resort, force nations to think carefully before taking action. And jus post bellum, highlights that moral responsibility doesn’t end when the fighting stops. As the reading notes, the conditions of peace must not humiliate the defeated but instead promote stability and reconciliation.

For me, just war theory doesn’t make war good or even fully justifiable. It just sets moral boundaries in a world where total peace is not always possible. It’s an uncomfortable truth that sometimes justice and freedom demand defense, but Just War Theory reminds us that even when we fight, we must be held accountable for humanity to later reconcile.

I agree with the way you explain the balance of belief brought by Just War Theory. Not only saying that it bridges intrinsicist and consequentialist, but it views war as tragic but sometimes necessary. I also agree that peace shall not humiliate, but rather stability. When concluding war, if it ends on bad terms it leads you wide open to enter into another war. If you create stability and balance post-war it can greatly help a country in its future. War will never not be “bad”, but bad and necessary are two very separate things. Death is inherently a bad thing, but limiting death is sometimes what war is about, risking lives today to save them tomorrow. Throughout my response I provided many similar ideas. I centered my response on the balance of war as this one is. One thing I think we both left out is how blurry the line on war can be. You’ll never really know if the decision for war is right because you can’t play out both situations. War is a critical thinking situation and is major risk taking, trying to save lives later, to preserve more lives in the future of one's country or even empire.

Originally posted by Thequeen3 on October 14, 2025 22:22

I believe that if a nation wages war for unjust reasons, the citizens should refuse to participate in the war effort. I think that since the war is unjust, citizens should come to realize that they shouldn’t be engaging in such wrongs, but instead fighting against it. As we see in class, many people refuse to participate in war because of their religious beliefs. These people are called Conscientious Objectors. Conscientious Objectors refuse to fight in war, or sometimes engage in any military service based on religious beliefs or moral objections. Conscientious Objectors do this because they have this belief system that killing is wrong. I think that it is cowardice to fight in a war you believe is morally wrong. I believe that it is because being in a position where you can not fight for something that you think is wrong, but doing it anyway because of others, is being a coward of your own personal beliefs.

Your post shows a clear argument that people should not participate in wars that they believe to be unjust. The most compelling argument you shared is that fighting in a war that goes against your morals is an act of cowardice because it is not what you truly value or believe in. I agree with the idea that it requires strength to stay with what you believe is right, even when society tries to pressure you to conform with them. Your post also relates to discussions we have had about individualism and choosing to act morally during times of war. We have talked about how personal values should influence participation in war which is closely related to your point. My view is quite similar to yours but I think that people sometimes choose to fight in wars due to fear or propaganda rather than being cowards. If you wanted to strengthen your work, you could try to talk more about examples of Conscientious objectors in order to help your argument. You could also try to use better sentence structure and flow your ideas better. Overall, your writing is very thought provoking and does a good job in proving your point.

Originally posted by microwavedpizza on October 12, 2025 13:08

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.

I really liked the use of Bertrand Russel's quote about being "tortured by patriotism", and I think it does a good job of conveying what you're trying to say. I think it's a really good point that those who oppose war for moral reasons can still be considered courageous, as not only do they risk prison time if they are drafted, but they also face the social reprecussions of refusing to fight for a cause they consider unjust. I think some other posts, as well as mine also talked about how concientious objectors can face social pressures and punishment due to their choice. I think it's interesting how concientious objectors can be viewed as non-conformists, and face social pressures due to their refusal to conform. It's interesting how that ties into the social psychology stuff we covered in unit 1. I agree with most of the post, but I disagree that soldiers should be held responsible for the unjustness of a war even if they conduct themselves honorably during it. I think that the government leaders who start a war should be the ones held responsible, not soldiers just doing their job, especially if they were forced to fight due to a draft. I agree strongly with the point that no one wins in a war, despite war sometimes being necessary.

Originally posted by microwavedpizza on October 12, 2025 13:08

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.

I also agree with the fact that in the modern world, war is not morally wrong if the causes, actions, and outcome of the war are just. I think that citizens have the right to protest and to speak their minds about their feelings on any type of war. They should get to decide whether or not they want to participate in the war. However, I think that it can be very hard for citizens to choose and make a decision for themselves. It can be very difficult for citizens to openly speak out against a war that the majority of people support and accept. I also believe that it takes a lot of courage to refuse to fight and participate in a war that goes against your morals. I agree with your point about how you can refuse to engage in an unjust war, but also still have a strong sense of patriotism and take pride in your country. This connects to the “conscientious objectors” in the “Between War and Peace” reading. I found your opinion about McMahan’s ideas similar to mine. I really liked how you pointed out that actions shouldn’t be separated from the reason behind them. Overall, I could follow your ideas really easily and they were really interesting. I also appreciated how you provided some examples to support your arguments.

Originally posted by lordofthenumbers on October 15, 2025 07:38

I personally believe that war is more often then not, wrong. There are points in time and in history where war was obviously needed, but even looking at it with nuance, I think that people shouldn't be allowed to command others in battle. They are knowingly being sent to their death, or to kill others, which leaves consequences that will appear in their daily lives, throughout their daily working experiences. The model of consequentialism, despite its technically utilitarian view, is much less realistic considering that our society has no way of truly being able to define what is actually "just cause". This is why jus ad bellum is necessary, even though even that has to be interpreted even further. Specifically, according to the article explaining this, jus ad bellum has to be agreed upon by both sides to an extent, which is difficult considering cultural differences. Who gets to define what is "just"? That definition usually is defined by more powerful nations, which distorts this view much more.

For citizens, fighting in a war that they don't believe in is in a way, less courageous than deciding to abstain from it. That doesn't mean deciding to fight in a war that they don't believe in is entirely their fault. There are outside influences, propaganda, nationalism, and that pressure is difficult, if not impossible, to avoid. This doesn't absolutely absolve the soldier of their cowardice, but it does allow for a bit more leniency before casting your judgements onto them.

There are many consequences if people only act according to their own moral compasses, including, but not limited to the actions of people that don't feel sympathy or don't think beyond their situation when acting or killing in a war. Additionally, that sort of excessive individualism hurts the overall nation's social climate. The more active voices begin to grow angry with each other, and there begins stronger social tensions back inside the country. A weakened central power weakens the outside war effort, which makes defense its own kind of difficult. These consequences are unable to be held by nations, especially those at war. Some wars have to be fought, and so if they aren't, at times there's risk of even more killings in war in all different kinds of places.

I disagree with McMahan's idea, because I think there are more things to consider. There is always nuance in regards to war, different situations, sort of utilitarian ideas in order to “save more people”. The soldiers have a necessity to follow their leaders, to try and help defend their own people when they’re around, when they can be saved. Their morals is what keeps the overall consequences of the war from extending too far, from hurting civilians and people that are just overall more vulnerable than others. It doesn’t mean that their actions are completely okay, their actions in an unjust war can cause more injustice, but it limits that injustice to an extent. The rules in war make sure that people’s cruelty or their own thoughts can’t hurt people too much, in the end.

Your main points that I found compelling were the ideas that war is wrong because it inevitably leads to death and that if people act only according to their moral compasses, there will be conflict and anarchy.

However, I feel that you made contradictory points in your response. First, you said that people shouldn't be allowed to command others in battle, and that people should abstain from war if they don't think the cause is just. But later you said that people should not act only according to their own moral compasses because it will weaken the central government and cause instability within the nation that makes it harder for it to defend itself. If people should be allowed to make enough of their own choices that they can choose not to fight in a war or not to do things in a war that their commander tells them to, where do you draw the line? Where is too much free will?

Additionally, you did not cite evidence from the text in any of your arguments.

Overall, I think your response was very interesting and had a lot of good points, but there are a few things you could think about to make your argument stronger.

Originally posted by snoopythedog on October 14, 2025 20:24

That war be necessarily grouped into the moral discussion is yet another tendency for us to categorize what may not be readily categorized. By its nature, war itself is a complex discussion. Like any other abstract concept or -ism, the fight to categorize it amidst our weight constructs of morally good or morally evil is often in vain; that is, war is a much more broad and complex topic than we can evaluate at face value. Irrefutable, we should concede, are the mechanisms of self defense that nations may aptly and with correct measure apply in times of uncertainty to suffice as morally good (or if the pacifist must extend, morally neutral). Indeed, in common and modern law, if an individual seeks to cause some damage to another, it is only justifiable with “self-defense” For our purpose, we may scale conflict on the individual level to those between nations -- in which case, we may claim war to be good only in times wherein the aggressor is already in imminent danger. That, of course, lends to further discussion of what we classify as “imminent danger.” It could suffice to claim that if the military forces or civilians of a nation are inappropriately and intentionally put at life-or-death risk by the governors of another nation, then we may classify that as grounds for retaliation. I feel that the intrincisim model and the consequentialism model are both inappropriate models to qualify international conflict. Both fail to address the causes of the war and the extenuating circumstances that may involve a nation at danger. An intrincisim model fails to recognize nations at imminent risk, and the consequentialist model is inherently blind to the causes of the war. For our study of war, Just War Theory offers a more contentious model that I feel could be more applicable in times of war -- however, it still lends to great interpretation. In a way, a nation seeking to conduct a large-scale massacre of another can still be found justifiable through the many loopholes in Just War Theory.

In my opinion, it’s hard to say whether it requires more bravery to engage in war or subvert war. In a way, you have to consider that there’s a sense of physical bravery -- a bravery to engage in acts that might be detrimental to your physical life, but there’s also a psychological or ideological bravery to NOT subvert your morals. In a way, we all definitely think that we could feasibly never join a war effort. But at the same time, you have to consider that we live in a different scenario then the people in WW1; I believe people during that period in the western hemisphere were more willing to give their lives for a war effort. According to the Between Peace & War reading, with the following quote from Artifex, we can see that people were often viewed negatively as being a conscientious objector: “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.” We must remember that conscientious objectors also experience societal pressures like the ones we’ve discussed. In the case of WWI, mass movements were manifest in how quickly people allied in nationalist movements. To veer off from this ideology that you would die for your country in a short-lived war was seen as disgraceful and ‘unmanly’. That allows the ingroup to appeal to the outgroup’s fundamental values (in this case, the ingroup is the homogenate of people who side with the country party). I think that means conscientious objectors have to choose between societal interpretation of their values coming at a challenge to their own values.

The most compelling argument that this person makes is the claim that war is “too complex” to be evaluated in only the values mentioned. I personally think that this is a bit of a naive thought process, to be honest. There is no denying that all of these ideas, in terms of law, are lacking, however it is also naive to think that there is some “proper” method of dealing with the process of war. It’s mostly interesting in the way that this argument is articulated, specifically in how it mentions the usage of “definitions”, how they are all unable to be defined. This was a more important part of my argument, indicating that there is always further nuance in an argument in regards to war, more terms to define, and the thinking of each situation.

Our ideas align especially when thinking about the natural acts of humans in war time, how people were pressured into joining the war. They focused more on the social aspect, on how people would end up judging any "conscientious objectors”, causing their social lives to become different. They also brought up the difference between personal perception and outside perception of the ideas of the pacifist. The conscientious objector has to find, on what decision they will stand on, whether it be to stick by themselves, or to stick with the crowd.

Originally posted by PeanutButterBoy on October 14, 2025 21:51

In my opinion, the idea that all war and fighting is morally wrong, but I think that is unfair to many groups. Fighting and uprising has always been a way for different groups to protest and battle against oppression, and this type of fighting is just in my eyes. With the world that we live in now, it is important to carry with you a consequentialist view. Looking at conflicts in today’s world, is it not right for Ukraine to return fire against Russia, who has been fighting for land and oppressing the Ukrainian people? I think that there are too many wars about too many different ideas for us to dismiss them all as immoral. I think the core ideas of the Just War Theory are very important in war, but only as concepts. I think these ideas support the consequentialist view, but when they are actually put into action in a war, they seldom work. They stand in for actual laws, proving to be much more flexible and circumstantial. Its very hard to set up a system that is supposed to decide how people behave, yet have those laws become obsolete under specific circumstances. If you view these laws as more of a bridge, as suggested, it become much more clear and understandable instead of having them framed as laws. These rules, at the most basic level, create a clear understanding of what is morally right and wrong in war. But as you dig deeper and look into the more complex issues of war, you see that there are justifications for many acts. This logic combines both sides of the argument and forces you to see morality of war from two different viewpoints, so as to allow for people to form their own ideas about how moral war can be. I believe that if a nation goes to war for unjust reasons, there should be an choice for people to fight. Forcing a person to go against their beliefs is unjust in itself, and this forced cooperation can lead to bigger problems. In our own history, we can see the problems that arise from trying to force citizens to go to war. There are many ethics concerns with forcing people to fight in wars they don’t believe should be fought. I think that standing up for your beliefs takes a lot of courage, especially when wars come around and there is more nationalism and pride within your country going around. By sticking to your beliefs and refusing to go against your morals, you are demonstrating a strong sense of identity against the overwhelming pressure of nationalism and groupthink. However, if you do fight in a war that you don't believe should be fought, I don’t think you are a coward. It is important to acknowledge how hard it is to go against a majority, and being a dissenter in a crowd of supporters takes more courage than most people really have. Morals are different for every person, and the moral compass that everyone carries reflects different views. I disagree with the point that Jeff McMahan makes with his statement. I think that for many people, fighting in war is not a choice, and to hold them accountable for the fighting that happens during wartime is unfair. I believe that the soldiers who have limited options in what they are allowed to do, and because of that commit violence, are not to be held responsible. If a soldier goes out of their way to commit violence against an enemy, that is a different story. But like the rest of the rules surrounding morality in war, this is all circumstantial.

I agree with this person's ideas. Sometimes war is inevitable and the pros of going to war outweigh the cons of going to war. It would be silly to say that going to war should be avoided at all times because some things are just never going to get resolved and people's characteristics won’t let them stop doing the wrong they are doing without a fight. People in power tend to be egotistical and think they cannot be beat. This goes with the archetype “ruler”; people in power often lose touch of reality and the ability to see that what they are doing isn't right. Letting someone continue the wrong that they are doing just because you think people shouldn't fight one another is just as wrong as “keeping peace”. I also agree that if someone truly morally isn't able to fight in a war they shouldn't have too. Just because one person/group of people think that the pros of war out weigh the cons doesn’t mean they other people don’t have their own opinion on the matter, and if someone feels it isn't a cause they feel they should or would ever fight for they shouldn’t; because in the end of the day if they do die, that death will be just a statistic in the war they didn’t even want to be a part of.