|
Post by BlueDolphin on May 31, 2007 16:07:46 GMT -5
When is it acceptable to conscript people into the military? What would your policy be on conscription and who should go if at all?
I think that conscription is a special case of forced labor but is justifiable if the nation needs it. I'm thinking in terms of WWII where the entire nation's resources are used to fight the war.
Otherwise forcing people to fight in situations that are not "dire" misuses their lives and should not be allowed. The Vietnam War is a good example of this since the country was not in a total war situation. It turns out it wasn't justifiable even if it was since the reasons for entering was exaggerated.
Also the people who were drafted were treated unfairly. Medical deferments and political connections saved people from having to serve. College policies were also odd. Doing badly in a class or switching majors made you eligible (from Mr. Squellati's lecture in 12th grade). The burden seemed to be distributed unfairly.
This might be odd for me to say, but a system where everyone has to go for a certain amount of time might be better than anything a lottery system could provide. It might also discourage reckless use of drafting if the system is expensive to maintain.
What do others think?
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on May 31, 2007 17:15:48 GMT -5
Self defense. I think that pretty much sums it up to me. If a nation is under threat of being invaded or attacked then I think it's acceptable. It is necessary to have a consciencious objector system in place like in the US.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Jun 1, 2007 0:03:01 GMT -5
If a large majority of the country actually wants to go to war.
Self defense can be misleading Nick. Is pre-emptive self defence still self defence?
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Jun 1, 2007 0:43:21 GMT -5
'pre-emptive' I've found to be pretty much BS like with the 'war on terror.' It's true there's a lot of interpretation involved, but direct hostility isn't hard to recognize. Usually when a country goes to war to get a pre-emptive strike on the enemy, it's usually just jumping the gun and leaping to conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Jun 1, 2007 9:11:04 GMT -5
just because it happened to be in the last couple cases the US went to war, doesnt mean thats how it usually is.
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Jun 1, 2007 14:06:43 GMT -5
Then could you present a counter-example?
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Jun 2, 2007 0:56:12 GMT -5
Its not easy, since once someone pre-emptively attacks, then the defender is quick to call it an act of agression, and deny any plans of their own attack, but Isreals attack on Egypt during the Six Days War is a good example.
|
|
|
Post by henry on Jun 2, 2007 1:11:16 GMT -5
It is always immoral for a man to be made to commit immoral acts by threat of force.
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Jun 2, 2007 2:02:35 GMT -5
@ Ali: not familiar with that one. I'll concede since I'm not expert on such things. I'd still would say conscription should be avoided in instances where the initial aggression originated with the nation in question.
@ Henry: What are you saying? I can't figure out what you mean nor how it relates to the subject at hand.
|
|
|
Post by henry on Jun 2, 2007 13:12:12 GMT -5
The question at hand is when conscription is acceptable. I propose that it is never acceptable.
It is immoral to kill. Some might argue that it is sometimes moral to kill. Supposing that this is true, in war, it is inevitable that some people will be killed immorally. It is true that some who go to war will never directly kill others; they will certainly do so indirectly. One example might be a cook, who never shoots anybody, but without whom people would not be shot. Thus one who is sent to war will likely/definitely commit immoral acts.
I think that this shows the relevance of my statement well enough. What say you of it?
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jun 2, 2007 15:33:07 GMT -5
And yet -- you would push the fat man out of the train in order to save five people.
From the perspective of a political leader, how is this any different than sending someone to commit "immoral acts" in order to save a country? (assuming there would be heavy casualties to said country)
|
|
|
Post by henry on Jun 2, 2007 15:58:23 GMT -5
With the fat man scenario (a very strange one indeed), the killing of the fat man is done to avoid killing the 5 slender people, it is the lesser of two immoral acts. hmm. this is a tough one. *smokes* The difference is in that I was not forced to kill the fat man. I did it by free will. Even if in the big picture the act of war may seem moral due to it negating a worse evil, the individual acts of killing etc within the war remain immoral. Killing the fat man, too, is clearly immoral. That it is the lesser of two immoralities does not make it moral. Killing invaders to keep them from killing other people is immoral, as killing is immoral. It may be the lesser of two evils, but it is still wrong. I recognize that some will disagree, and say that killing to prevent killing is moral. This is a reasonable idea. It all depends on what code one subscribes to. Many, such as good Judeo-Christians, will agree with my rather absolute statement that all killings are immoral.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jun 2, 2007 16:12:05 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.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jun 2, 2007 16:18:34 GMT -5
For the record: I haven't thought about the issue enough yet, but I think I agree with you. Conscription should not exist.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Jun 2, 2007 16:31:20 GMT -5
I think if the cause is truly just, then there should be no problem getting volunteers.
Forcing people to fight seems to be wrong since killing, as Henry said, should be a personal choice, not something forced on you.
Many nations use conscription because they fear the volunteers won't come in fast enough even if they are "right"
|
|