learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by bunnyenthusiast123 on October 15, 2025 07:45

War and violence as a whole are morally wrong and deplorable acts; however there can be understanding as to why it happens and sometimes the outcome can be for the greater good. You should not start violent conflict without just cause ever and I do think people resort to violence far too quickly. In a case like WWII I think the violence against the Nazi’s was justified as they were already committing violent acts against innocent people. Generally I think the intrinsicism model is more realistic for the modern world as war is morally wrong and honestly will not solve our current issues in a productive way without unnecessary bloodshed. However there are certainly situations where the outcome is better than not having fought but that still does not make war morally right. Just War Theory does connect those two models in some forms but I believe it aligns much more with a consequentialist model as war is mostly permissible due to cause and not morality.

If a nation wages war for unjust reasons I do think it is extremely important to be critical of the cause and dissent if it goes against your morals but you have to have an argument for why and actively fight against the war. People don't think critically enough about their own opinions or view things as they can be quiet about it but that's not true. I think it's courage but you need to speak out. It is difficult finding realistic and unbiased facts about war and conflict. If we all act in accordance with our own morals then of course some people will go to war if they find the cause just but I do think that if most people follow their morals there will not be enough support to fight an unjust war. Soldiers can act morally in times of war even if the cause is unjust because it is survival of the fittest but that also means not using senseless violence when it is unnecessary. The rules of war create general grounds in what violence is acceptable but it does not outline what is not acceptable clearly enough. Using the outline of Just War Theory from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy I do think it is clear that the rules are not comprehensive or clear enough to show acceptable moral standards. Acts committed in war are often immoral and unacceptable but when clear rules are not defined it allows too much space to justify one's actions. Of course some people will feel cognitive dissonance by their acts in war but I do think a lot of people do not have a strong moral ground to stand on or justify their actions by saying they fought for their nation while knowing their horrific acts can not be traced back to them.

I think that my peer has a compelling idea with some consequentialist elements, for instance against the Nazis because they were killing Jews and other people during WWII. But they also make the point that people often resort to violence too frequently. However they agree most with intrinsicism that war is not the answer, despite certain outcomes being better through war. I disagree with this, I think that if the ends justify the means, and it is done for the greater good, war could be permitted. I also agree with speaking out or abstaining from a war that you don’t agree in, but I think you should if it doesn’t put your life or others in immediate danger, I think that there is a difference between speaking out and immediately getting silenced or killed versus being able to live and carry out your opposition to the war while surviving, because it wouldn’t be beneficial if you were dead. I also agree with the sentiment that soldiers who fight for an unjust cause can still act morally in war, by having standards of war it allows soldiers to act accordingly and commit less acts of violence when not necessary. I think that my peer could make their stance on the “justification of people’s actions in war” clearer. I think that no matter what people will always try to justify their actions, especially if they killed somebody. But I also think that people will find different ways to cope and as long as they aren’t hurting themselves or others or making something blatantly false about their time in war I think that it’s a part of human nature and that we all try to justify things and actions to varying degrees.

The conflict between loyalty to one's country and one's conscious is one of the most difficult challenges a person can face. When a nation goes to war for unjust reasons, each citizen has to make a tough decision: should they support their country no matter what, or follow their moral beliefs? Based on just War Theory and historical examples, I've come to believe that refusing to fight in an unjust War does not make you a coward. It takes moral courage despite the problems it may create for the nation.

Just War Theory gives us a useful way to judge Wars fairness. It says there must be a just cause, like self-defense, and that war should be a last resort. The government starts a war for selfish reasons; a citizen has a strong reason to believe the war is unjust. To participate in a war like that means that you are participating in a moral wrongdoing. and this situation, the person who refuses to fight shows courage. As well as soldiers seen as brave, their choice is often easier socially. they conscientious objector faces public anger and prison, making it much harder to stand up for their beliefs against popular opinion. Fighting in a war you believe is wrong isn't courage; I believe it's giving in to pressure.

Of course, I understand we must consider the consequences. If every citizen only listened to their own moral compass, and nation's ability to defend itself could be compromised. If too many people refuse to participate in the war could become weak. The reading “Between Peace and War” shows this problem. German political party that had opposed the War quickly changed its mind once fighting began, stating, “Now we face the inexorable fact of war… we must decide which means are necessary for the defense of our country.” This reveals how powerful patriotism and fear can be, getting people to set aside their beliefs for national survival. I recognize that a country cannot function in a crisis of every individual can reject its decisions.

Even with these risks, I still believe that you have a moral responsibility to object to an unjust war. The philosopher Bertrand Russell made a great point. He argued that objectors are not selfish, but act from a deep sense of connection to all people. He wrote, “ the conscientious objector does not believe that violence can cure violence… he persists in feeling ‘solidarity’ with those who are called ‘enemies,’ and he believes that if that feeling were more widespread… it would do more than armies and navies can ever do to prevent the growth of aggressive imperialism.” To me, Russell's words mean that an objector's loyalty is to a higher principle: Humanity itself. Well, descent might cause short-term problems, but I believe that the long-term result of citizens blindly following their leaders into unjust Wars is far worse. Therefore, refusing to participate in an unjust war is not an act against one's country, but an act for a better and more peaceful world.

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.

The most compelling idea in this post is your defense of the individual soldier, even if they are fighting in a war for unjust reasons. I completely agree with this. It’s really important to make a distinction between the political decisions of a country and the duty of a person who is forced or highly encouraged to fight. In conversations about war, we focus on the big picture of right and wrong, but your point brings it to a personal level. A soldier's role is to follow orders, and their personal agreement with the war's justification doesn't change their difficult position.

This idea is interesting because it adds a necessary human element to a complex topic that can often feel abstract. You rightly point out that these soldiers face unimaginable circumstances and return with deep physical and mental scars. Condemning them for a conflict they didn't initiate is incredibly unfair and damages their ability to heal. Your argument is powerful because it suggests we can praise a soldier’s bravery and personal sacrifice without endorsing the war itself. This is especially important when figuring out if a war is truly "just" can be confused by bias and opinion. It forces us to have compassion and separates the warrior from the war, reminding us that the people on the front lines bear the heaviest consequences, regardless of the politics behind the conflict.

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.

I think the most compelling idea in the post is that most of the time war is morally wrong, even looking at it with nuance. I can see where this person is coming from and I agree with their ideas. It is interesting because they do not focus on the general idea of a war’s justification, rather they focus on the personal impact war has on a soldiers’ lives. I think this is an important angle for war that is often not considered. Even in the consequentialist and intrinsic, the personal impacts of war is an afterthought. I also agree with the idea that it is hard to define what “just cause” is.

I disagree with their idea about McMahan’s quote. Yes, soldiers are expected to listen to their leaders, but following orders is not an excuse for injustice or immoral behavior. I feel that there is also a lot of grey area surrounding the idea of soldiers fighting to defend their own people. For example, something such as a preemptive strike could be considered defending your people, but that does not make that action justified, especially if there is no sign that the other people were going to attack.

Originally posted by Seven_Gill on October 14, 2025 23:07

War in history has been controversial in regard to its necessity and validity. Many people may point to the Second World War as an example of how war is important, and can be used to eventually gain peace. However, others may point to the destruction caused by the Vietnam War, which garnered much controversy and pushback from U.S. citizens. Overall, it can be argued that the circumstances in which war is waged is an important determining factor in whether or not participation is even worth it. In the context of WWII, the United States intervened for several reasons: the fact that the United States needed to keep its representation of freedom and democracy (which the axis powers were working against), to stop the spread of the axis powers, and to punish Germany for breaking the Treaty of Versailles. Another controversial aspect of WWII is Just War Theory, and if it’s ok to utilize immense force in order to eliminate a threat. Many people cite the usage of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima as a reason for Just War Theory’s invalidity, as it had largely decimated innocents, but was succesful in ending the war. This particular event needs to be treated with nuance, as it could definitely be said that neither side (Japan and the United States) were right in their actions. The thing that is brought up the most in regards to the atomic bomb is how it can be considered a warcrime, as it has decimated hundreds of thousands of innocents (including women, children, hospitals, etc.), with the final death toll being over 140,000 people. Was the U.S. in the right for this attack? Most argue that they were not, however this highlights the importance of warcrimes in war, and how they reflect on the country. The reasoning that the United States had for the attack was to end the war as soon as possible (as well as retaliate for the bombing of Pearl Harbor), and they meant to do this through deadly force. Additionally, the Japanese were especially ruthless during the Second World War. The Rape/Massacre of Nanking was arguably one of the most deplorable examples of how one nation can exert power over another. The entirety of the Nanking province was destroyed indiscriminately (regardless of whether they were hospitals or orphanages), with women being dragged out into the street (regardless of age) to be sexually assaulted, killed, kidnapped, etc. Even the generals of these Japanese armies had so thoroughly dehumanized their Chinese enemies that they had set up contests to see who could behead more Chinese people, with them eventually losing count. All this to say that this is the representation of Japan that many saw as the war progressed, with their actions and crimes of war being comparable to the infamous Holocaust. It’s only natural that the United States (the at-the-time beacon of democracy for the world) would step in to end the Japanese once and for all, regardless of the destruction it may bring. When in war, the army represents the country, and when the army rapes, pillages, and murders innocents, than that reflects very poorly on the country. Unfortunately, the same can be said with the Vietnam War, as the United States armies demonstrated a level of incompetence that reflected very poorly on our previously strong global reputation. Overall, Just War Theory is good in theory, but the circumstances of war are ever changing, and the winners may not always follow this ethical criteria for war.

I agree that war is fundamentally necessary in our modern world, but I disagree that the indiscriminate killing of an entire city through atomic warfare is completely unacceptable. Regardless of the brutality of the offenses committed by the nation of Japan during the Second World War, it is still similarly immoral to commit a comparable level of devastation. Again, I agree that the offenses of the Japanese were horrific, but the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were similarly devastating. The core of my statement is that the annihilation of two Japanese cities is not “natural” course because it is inherently retaliatory. For instance, if someone you know were to punch you, one may argue that the “natural” next step is to hit them back. But what if they arm themselves with a knife, and then yourself with a gun? This idea that escalation is natural, or that horrific acts should be met with the same level of volatile behavior, is wrong. It leads to more unnecessary death. Were the Japanese entirely innocent? Absolutely not. They commited unspeakable and horrific things. However, that does not excuse, nor justify innocent Japanese children, women, men, culture, monuments, and life being entirely destroyed. The lucky among them killed instantly, but the remnants of the people, broken down atomically and horrifically. These acts (the rape of Nanking and the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima) are not to be compared as to which is worse, but we should analyze and say, very simply that both acts were bad, and absolutely not “natural course.”

Originally posted by coolturtle on October 12, 2025 23:09

The action of going to war is morally wrong. The definition itself, is the act of going into an armed conflict against an opposing force. This action usually involves large scale violence and is caused by a number of factors that are physical, mental, or ideological. The Just War theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. It essentially centers around a set of mutually agreed rules of combat between two culturally similar enemies. In a way war is wrong because it involves killing the lives of many people, both soldiers and civilians. There are countless examples of war in history: World War II, American Civil War, Vietnam War, etc. Society is molded in a way so unique that it is inherently impossible to have everyone agree on one topic at the same time. I believe that the consequentialism model is more realistic for the modern world. The idea that societies are so unique contradict the intrinsic model of solely thinking war is morally wrong. Since humans have their own social identity; their own beliefs, war cannot be thought of as solely wrong because of such implicit factors surrounding each individual war. One of the most notorious types of war are wars fought in self defense, most commonly thought of as the most justifiable war. It is these types of wars that prompt a nation to defend their people, thus making the action justifiable. In some ways, I understand that the art of self defense contradicts this idea because they also result in killing lives as a result of defending themselves. That is why Just War Theory provides somewhat of a bridge between both ways of thinking: intrinsicism and consequentialism. In the Encyclopedia of Philosophy on ‘Just War Theory’ Excerpt 1, Jus Ad Bellum, brings to the table the moral aggression of going against an opposing side while considering the just cause for committing an action in war. The idea that the desired end should be proportional to the means used further supports this. The principle itself is useful for providing guidelines for reviewing morality going into war. It is the same idea as providing international rules for committing a war crime. Though both ideas may not completely be adhered to, it provides a structure to execute actions in war. On the other hand, Just War Theory does not address the complexities of modern warfare. The traditional principle of the theory was developed for conflict between states. It does not address the rise of non-state actors like terrorist groups or revolutionaries as stated in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy on ‘Just War Theory’ Excerpt 2. Furthermore, the principle states that war can only be addressed by a legitimate authority. The problem is when that authority is questioned based on their own moral actions and choices. It then becomes a much bigger problem of looking at who is an authority and who is a perpetrator. Another topic to touch on is the decision of the individual themself. In times of war, it is citizens who choose to fight for their country. On one hand, there is a moral obligation to fight for your country. On the other hand, if the cause is unjust then fighting the war would be contributing to the negative cause itself. I think that the most courageous act of duty to your country is to consider your options. The act of not fighting in a way to defend your country may be seen as cowardice, but it is accepting that the cause of fighting is unjust that is truly courageous. There is a certain fear of social punishment, of exclusion when choosing not to fight. It is these factors that must be considered. In command economies or dictatorships, many young men are brought into the army not of their own accord, but their duty to protect their country. Regardless of one’s beliefs they are still dragged into a war. This once again correlates back to Just War Theory. There are so many factors to consider when looking at going to war then the action itself, making it complex to justify. War is a nuanced subject and it is extremely difficult to classify it one way or another. There are so many perspectives to be considered, moral beliefs to be judged, and defining actions to characterize it. In turn, theories like Just War Theory provide a basis for each nation to follow. Although these theories may not account for all factors of war, it is a means of finding sense in the unknown. It is through this that we find purpose in ourselves, our actions, and our history.

I agree with the base of the ideas this person has on war. However the writing itself is overly wordy, way too much summary, and unnecessary. We do not need the definitions of everything listed out or a list of different wars. The person loses the point they are trying to prove because all their writing is so split up and they use so much filler that it is hard to comprehend. There is nothing particularly compelling about this argument to me because of the content being primarily summary which I think definitely needs to be fixed in the future. I like how both sides of the argument for Just War Theory are addressed but I wish it was with their own perspective. The overall base of ideas is good, just the response is over-written and unnecessary with excess information that is covered in the reading. The point isn’t to hit a word count, it is to respond concisely. I had a lot of difficulty responding to this person’s writing because it is dense but not with their own beliefs.

Originally posted by 2233 on October 14, 2025 14:04

I believe that war is not always wrong and that the use of large scale organized violence can sometimes be justified. The consequentialism model is more realistic for the modern world. I do think that war should be a last resort in some cases if diplomatic solutions aren’t working. In Just War Theory it says” War should always be a last resort.” I think war is justified when you are acting in defense of your country, you are stepping in to protect allies, and you are trying to prevent more bad from happening, like stepping in to stop the Holocaust. Those are, in my opinion, the only justifiable reasons for war. War shouldn’t be used to settle small problems like border feuds. The Intrinsicism model isn’t applicable because in the real world, there will always be war. After all, countries are accustomed to settling their disputes through fighting, and sometimes it is necessary to resort to force. It also goes back to the question of whether or not people are inherently violent. I agree with the intrinsicism model that war is bad, but it is sometimes needed. I do believe that there are lots of wars that were not justified. If a nation wages a war for unjust reasons, I think that people should refuse to participate. For example, if your country invaded a smaller country for no reason, the people of that country should refuse to fight in that war. However, if your country is engaged in a justified war for its safety, I think people should help out even if that help isn’t directly fighting. An exception to this would be if your religion is against war, then I think you should be exempt from participation. If you are a believer of the intrinsicism model and your country is fighting for self defense, I think you should help out and support the war. If everyone acted according to their own moral compass, countries wouldn’t have an army to defend themselves because most people know that killing people is wrong. It is not realistic for a country not to have a means to protect itself. People put aside their moral compass to help their country. I sort of agree with Jeff McMahan’s statement because if a country wages an unjust war, sometimes people don’t have a choice whether they fight in it or not, and the consequences of not fighting could be very severe. Either way, it takes lots of courage to serve and not serve your country. I think the soldiers who willingly participate in an unjust war aren’t necessarily bad people, because sometimes people join the military to help pay for school, as an example, and don’t have a choice. Soldiers can act morally in an unjust war, but these moral decisions are overshadowed by the fact that the war is unnecessary and immoral. In conclusion, war is a very confusing time that has lasting impacts on the nations involved, which is why nations need to try to work situations out diplomatically instead of going right to war; however, some fighting is justified, even with all the destruction it causes.

Post your response here.

In this response, the idea that was the most compelling to me was how soldiers who willingly participate in unjust wars, aren’t necessarily bad people. I feel like I understood the message, but it was a bit contradictory. Ultimately I think anyone who willingly participates in an unjust war, is someone I would consider a “bad” person. Although whether things are just or unjust depends on the perspective of the individual, I feel like it doesn’t matter if the soldier is acting “morally” during the war, if they willingly participated in the war, they are morally wrong. However, because all of us don't act on the same moral compass, I can see how when people willingly participate in unjust wars, it doesn't necessarily mean they are “bad” people. Another idea that I agreed with in this response was how the modern world generally follows the consequentialism model regarding war. I think that as humans with different feelings and morals, we always find a way to justify our actions for other people with those different feelings and morals. I agree with the idea that war is not always wrong and that the use of large scale organized violence can sometimes be justified, and I like how you added your own reasons regarding your morals as to why this violence can sometimes be justified. I think it’s interesting how you mentioned lesser feats like border feuds, while small and maybe insignificant to us, can be another person's biggest problem in a way, leading to these crazy wars. I also think that we should consider the information that is given to us, like as citizens fighting or not fighting in wars. We could consider that the entire story wasn't shared, so the reason why a war is starting could potentially be just, but we didn't think it was because the entire story or whatever the truth is wasn't told. There are so many variables to war that we need to consider, so it is hard to answer these with a solid yes, or no.