ABSTRACT
In order for the moral equality thesis to be defended, the norms of obedience must outweigh any countervailing duties that would be triggered by the advent of an unjust war. Conventional combatants have overriding positive moral reasons for deploying to any war because a norm demanding obedient service to all lawful orders, including deployment orders, is consent-worthy to all affected parties as an expression of military duty. The norm of obedience is caveat-free because adherence to a caveat-free norm is the only way to protect any political entity over time in the event that selective conscientious objection is practically untenable and no just and effective global government exists to keep the peace. The regular institutional practice of military service and just warfighting could not endure under these circumstances if the norm of obedience had a caveat against service in unjust wars—in which case, justification would only accrue to the just side of a conflict. Unilateral justification for one side in the conflict would require a norm of obedience contingent on objectively just outcomes. Professional duty is instead expressed in fallible proceduralist norms because professional norms must be action-guiding, and fact-relative standards geared toward correct outcomes are not action-guiding. Bilateral justification for combatants on either side of a war is then possible because consent accrues to the results of consent-worthy procedures.
