Cheyney Ryan — Pacifism and Just War Theory: With Reference to the Work of Jeff McMahan (c. 2010)

This paper examines the moral foundations of war by analyzing and critiquing just war theory through the lens of pacifism, particularly engaging with Jeff McMahan’s work.

Ryan challenges the traditional view that soldiers are morally permitted to fight regardless of whether a war is just, arguing instead that this belief enables unjust wars.

He introduces the “Argument to Democratic Duty,” which claims that soldiers may be obligated to fight even unjust wars to sustain democratic institutions. However, Ryan ultimately argues that this creates an unavoidable moral contradiction: soldiers are forced into situations where they must choose between moral responsibility and institutional duty. This tension, he suggests, reveals a deeper problem—war itself may be morally incoherent, and societies must begin seeking alternatives.

The “Moral Equality of Soldiers” Is Flawed

Just War Theory Underestimates Individual Moral Responsibility

The “Argument to Democratic Duty” Tries to Justify Fighting Even Unjust Wars

This Creates a Moral Contradiction for Soldiers

War Inherently Places Soldiers in Unjust Moral Situations

Institutional Justifications for War Are Unreliable

Selective Conscientious Objection Doesn’t Solve the Problem

The Burden of Unjust War Is Unfairly Shifted

There Is a Fundamental Conflict Between War and Moral Conscience

Pacifism Emerges as the More Consistent Moral Position

⭐ Star Facts

• The idea that soldiers are not morally responsible for unjust wars is not universal—it’s historically constructed
• Soldiers can still be morally responsible for unjust killing, even if they follow orders
• Democracies can and do fight unjust wars, despite claims they are more moral
• The “support the troops” mindset separates soldiers from moral accountability
• Soldiers face a “terrible dilemma”: obey orders or follow their conscience