|
Post by henry on Jun 2, 2007 16:32:58 GMT -5
"The difference is in that I was not forced to kill the fat man. I did it by free will. " That's why I said "from the perspective of a political leader". I wasn't comparing you to a soldier. I was comparing you to the politician who determines whether or not to conscript. (Just clarifying.) One could also apply the train analogy to the individual conscripted individuals, but we're talking about conscription, not the actions of the conscripted. The perspective of the political leader or any other person is irrelevant. My words can easily apply to his perspective, though. Replace statements of immorality referring to acts of war with statements referring to the choices of the politician. It's the same thing. I'm glad that we maybe agree. The Bible is clearly with us.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jun 2, 2007 17:07:08 GMT -5
The issue of whether or not conscription is moral (or "acceptable", if you prefer) depends on whether or not forcing x number of people to commit immoral acts is moral -- a decision that ultimately rests on the political leader.
Hence, it makes sense to compare his or her decision with your decision on the train.
(...nevermind. It really has no bearing on the argument.)
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Jun 2, 2007 18:17:42 GMT -5
Sorry, henry, misread that last post. 'Threat of force' is rather ambiguos though, and not very accurate.
I'd argue that the conscientious objector system allows for those not wishing to be enlisted in the army to keep from being forced to commit acts against their will.
There's also the issue of things like WWII. My history is totally fuzzy, but I believe conscription was used by Europe if not the US as well. I don't think drafting in a war where the stakes are so high (fighting against a dictator bent on world domination and genocide) can be considdered morally wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Jun 2, 2007 23:42:33 GMT -5
what is the conscientious objector system?
Really conscription has 2 defenitions. Conscription isnt just a method of forcing people to go to war, but it can also be a system of deciding who goes to war and who fights as a soldier in the war. I think any time it forces a large percentage of people to go, it is wrong to conscript, but the second defenition, when the aim is to choose who goes to war, is a good idea.
I also disagree with you guys who say war is immoral. I think going to war to subject and subdue another set of people is actually alright.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Jun 3, 2007 0:00:07 GMT -5
I'd argue that the conscientious objector system allows for those not wishing to be enlisted in the army to keep from being forced to commit acts against their will. I'm curious at what one has to do to object. Conceptually, it is easy to abuse, so authorities probably have made it very hard. I think any time it forces a large percentage of people to go, it is wrong to conscript, but the second defenition, when the aim is to choose who goes to war, is a good idea. What would your critera be for being forced to go?
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Jun 3, 2007 0:06:25 GMT -5
What would your critera be for being forced to go? Someone who doesnt want to go to war being made to go? I dont understand what youre asking, it seems pretty self evident to me. Although, I take exception to people who dont want to go just because they dont want to die, or because they can make more money at home. My point, in case I wasnt clear, is that conscription can be a tool to decide who goes off and fights in a war, and who stays home, makes guns, makes food, makes cotton, etc. Modern Armies dont actually need that many people. They are based more on weaponry now, so it would be stupid to have everyone go off and fight. This is assuming that many people support the war.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Jun 3, 2007 0:11:00 GMT -5
Someone who doesnt want to go to war being made to go? I dont understand what youre asking, it seems pretty self evident to me. Although, I take exception to people who dont want to go just because they dont want to die, or because they can make more money at home. My point, in case I wasnt clear, is that conscription can be a tool to decide who goes off and fights in a war, and who stays home, makes guns, makes food, makes cotton, etc. Modern Armies dont actually need that many people. They are based more on weaponry now, so it would be stupid to have everyone go off and fight. This is assuming that many people support the war. I still don't understand how that is different from the normal definition of conscription. No country has sent everyone to fight in the past. There were always people in factories. In fact I imagine that in the past, the percentage of people working to support troops was a higher ratio due to lack of industrial efficiency. I thought what you meant was that it would be a system that chose which individuals would go rather than some universal one where everyone serves for X amount of years (not necessarily fighting)
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Jun 3, 2007 0:22:39 GMT -5
Conscientious objection often works by forcing the individual to do civil service instead of spending time in the army. You're also always welcome to do jail time, but this is a rather unpleasant option. You can also get a deferment by being in school (so get your ass educated) or being employed in certain types of jobs (mostly government oriented stuff). I did a report on it Sophmore year of HS, bo I'm a bit fuzzy on the details. I also have no clue what it's like in other countries.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jun 3, 2007 1:01:18 GMT -5
Which reminds me... I should really sign up for Selective Service. The military already sent me a warning letter.
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Jun 3, 2007 2:53:57 GMT -5
Um, yeah, better not to get arrested before they start a draft.
|
|
|
Post by Evilduck on Jun 14, 2007 2:20:45 GMT -5
I signed up for selective service right away. Maybe that is why I got an award from the US Marine Corps.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Jun 18, 2007 15:13:50 GMT -5
Sorry to bump this again, but what do people think about lottery systems vs. universal ones?
Should everyone be forced to serve in some way that does not necessarily include the military? Or should only a random selection be forced to do something? I feel that the lottery was always unfair. Some countries have everyone do something for two years excepting severe disability.
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Jun 18, 2007 19:03:40 GMT -5
The lottery isn't completely random, they select from certain age groups one at a time. I think it's also there to keep there from being a huge influx of troops.
|
|
|
Post by Evilduck on Jun 18, 2007 21:23:09 GMT -5
But then how do those countries choose who gets actual military duty and who gets the something else?
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Jun 19, 2007 0:36:17 GMT -5
It might be voluntary with easier jobs requring more time. But then that still might be difficult since they might have too many in one place and the time penalty would be prohibitively high.
In Taiwan, they had a draft where every male serves for 2 years from 18 and they had a lottery just for chosing which branch you went under.
|
|