Introduction Can soldiers be justifiably ignorant to moral consequences of war? Invincible ignorance is Francisco de Victoria’s defence of soldiers in war. It is a defence of morality involving an inability to change or understand decisions. The opposite of that is vincible ignorance, which can be changed or understood. A Victoria-described leader is held to higher standard of morality with exponentially more access to necessary informative sources. In comparison, required obedience to authority and inaccessibility of knowledge gain soldiers the defence of what is invincible ignorance. Soldiers were unable to access the same information as a leader. As a result, the true meaning of a conflict was left in a moral limbo for soldiers. However, if a man found proof of unjust activity during conflict, then it was recommended he stop fighting. If he did not leave, he was held accountable for his actions. If a soldier chose to enter a war knowing it was unjust, that soldier could be held accountable for his actions. In cases, a soldier used to be not at fault for a leader not informing his nation of his intentions nor at fault for not being able to find information to discredit the morality of war. Though, over the course of just-war theory development, theorists have designed ten ways to measure what is truly invincible and vincible ignorance and adjusted means to modern times.
Explanation of Forms of Ignorance
Religion and Its Doctrine The first two ways to measure