Military Debate: Is Conscription Moral?

[Abhorsen]

I increasingly don't see positive vs negative rights as a particularly useful distinction: the positive vs negative right issue is the sophistry and nitpick, though a slightly lighter term may be more correct: there may be a bit of a difference, but not as large as often assumed, and not as crucial to arguments.

First you completely get it wrong, now you try to hide the mistake behind saying that it doesn't matter anyway. No, it's not sophistry, it's a crucial moral difference. It's the difference between aggression and self defense.

NAP, especially with how broadly aggression seems to get defined, and the general softness of its use, its generally seems to devolve into a teleology as we mean linguistically where your just saying the same thing twice. "Wrong things are wrong". Bad=Bad might be a logically correct statement, but it doesn't advance anything either. And as a statement I'm not sure its even actually foundational enough to be an axiom.

It isn't a tautology. It says aggressing against another is morally bad. This is no more a tautology than the statement that killing someone is bad. And a whole ton of stuff can be derived from this point. For example: taxation. Taxation requires initiating force against others. Therefore it is morally bad. Same with shooting an arbitrary person for no reason, but not self defense.

Perhaps your argument is that 'aggression' is I'll defined, and can mean anything to anyone? Fine, I'll define it. It's forcefully interfering with another (or their property) without their consent. I've no doubt there is a better, more precise definition, but this works well enough to deal with the problem at hand, conscription.

(as an aside, this is one of the reasons I consider NAP not really axiomic in and of itself: it jumps the shark a bit by assuming moral realism. This is a common thing though in regular conversation, so not an immense hit against it per say.)

This is a fair point, but note that by its moral realist definition of what is and isn't moral, it doesn't need the added statement of moral Realism as an axiom. It basically includes the principle for what it covers.

As for your statement of what constitutes a well reasoned morality, I'd say it's pretty decent, but you still are very vague on what your morality is. What are the duties? What are the virtues?

Also, I'd say that the idea that "a theory that fails in the real world isn't a real theory" is flawed. All Christians but Christ (and Mary in catholicism) are sinners according to christianity, and to that extent it fails. It doesn't mean that trying to live up to the ideal is worthless despite being hopeless. I'd say the same thing about the NAP, and really any moral system.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

That means that yes I think women should be subject to the draft too.

You may note that a significant number of women's rights groups agree with that, to the point of filing civil rights lawsuits to be included in the draft. SCOTUS ultimately quashed that argument by ruling that the military's official determination that women are unfit for combat service was an exercise of sovereign authority and thus incontestably axiomatic in the eyes of the law.

In this state your not allowed to vote, hold any political office or have any job with the government but your not subject to the draft.

So basically the citizen-civilian system from Starship Troopers. That works in the SST-verse where every civilian has the absolute right to earn citizenship, the exact opposite of the precedent the Supreme Court set for draft service.

While it's easily lost in the background because the plotline focuses on characters in the Mobile Infantry, the Starship Troopers novel makes it absolutely clear that while citizenship must be earned by service, the opportunity to complete service is an absolute right and not restricted to those fit for military service. In fact, the novel explicitly states that earning citizenship through civil service is far more common than by military service.

 

[Cherico]

You may note that a significant number of women's rights groups agree with that, to the point of filing civil rights lawsuits to be included in the draft. SCOTUS ultimately quashed that argument by ruling that the military's official determination that women are unfit for combat service was an exercise of sovereign authority and thus incontestably axiomatic in the eyes of the law.



So basically the citizen-civilian system from Starship Troopers. That works in the SST-verse where every civilian has the absolute right to earn citizenship, the exact opposite of the precedent the Supreme Court set for draft service.

While it's easily lost in the background because the plotline focuses on characters in the Mobile Infantry, the Starship Troopers novel makes it absolutely clear that while citizenship must be earned by service, the opportunity to complete service is an absolute right and not restricted to those fit for military service. In fact, the novel explicitly states that earning citizenship through civil service is far more common than by military service.

In this case I am in aggreement with said women's rights groups. And I am pissed off at the military for this.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

In this case I am in aggreement with said women's rights groups. And I am pissed off at the military for this.

Note that when the military under Obama rescinded its official determination that women are categorically and inherently unfit for combat roles, there was a *lot* of uncomfortable heming and hawing over whether this meant that the SCOTUS precedent now meant women could serve, or merely that a civil rights challenge was no longer *quashed*.

Thus far, the Selective Service administration has pretty much bunted on the issue by saying they're not going to change their registration procedures until instructed by Congress, and Congress has. . . refused to actually pass anything that officially addresses the matter.

 

[Cherico]

Note that when the military under Obama rescinded its official determination that women are categorically and inherently unfit for combat roles, there was a *lot* of uncomfortable heming and hawing over whether this meant that the SCOTUS precedent now meant women could serve, or merely that a civil rights challenge was no longer *quashed*.

Thus far, the Selective Service administration has pretty much bunted on the issue by saying they're not going to change their registration procedures until instructed by Congress, and Congress has. . . refused to actually pass anything that officially addresses the matter.

if you have the right to vote you have the duty to serve if things go tits up.

It doesn't have to be on the battlefield, cleaning, support and other stuff is all important if your countries in a fight for its very survival well then the people who have a say in how that society is fun have a duty to fight.

 

[JagerIV]

First you completely get it wrong, now you try to hide the mistake behind saying that it doesn't matter anyway. No, it's not sophistry, it's a crucial moral difference. It's the difference between aggression and self defense.

No, I disagree.

It isn't a tautology. It says aggressing against another is morally bad. This is no more a tautology than the statement that killing someone is bad. And a whole ton of stuff can be derived from this point. For example: taxation. Taxation requires initiating force against others. Therefore it is morally bad. Same with shooting an arbitrary person for no reason, but not self defense.

Perhaps your argument is that 'aggression' is I'll defined, and can mean anything to anyone? Fine, I'll define it. It's forcefully interfering with another (or their property) without their consent. I've no doubt there is a better, more precise definition, but this works well enough to deal with the problem at hand, conscription.

It generally morphs into a tautology because of how Libertarians use it. It also requires smuggling other ideas in, like asserting its the only moral axiom. If duty is part of morality, then the conscription is not so clear.

This is a fair point, but note that by its moral realist definition of what is and isn't moral, it doesn't need the added statement of moral Realism as an axiom. It basically includes the principle for what it covers.

As for your statement of what constitutes a well reasoned morality, I'd say it's pretty decent, but you still are very vague on what your morality is. What are the duties? What are the virtues?

What is a spacecraft? There's a lot of parts to it. What I do know is that its not just an engine.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/images/basicdesign/spacecraftDesign.jpg

All I need to argue is that liberty is not everything. Which is what I've done.

Also, I'd say that the idea that "a theory that fails in the real world isn't a real theory" is flawed. All Christians but Christ (and Mary in catholicism) are sinners according to christianity, and to that extent it fails. It doesn't mean that trying to live up to the ideal is worthless despite being hopeless. I'd say the same thing about the NAP, and really any moral system.

Christianity however has existed for 2,000 years, and produced fairly effective civilizations. Socialist ideals often fail immediately, and if not immediately on decades timeframes.

Plus, well, Christian theory aligns with reality pretty well: Christianity doesn't suggest its ideals are easy to implement, or that they'll even bring victory to Christians. In fact, it often promises failure and martyendom on earth, not wealth and power. And when Christians do succeed, it may be such an unlikely outcome that it requires divine intervention to bring about. In some ways its almost a failure of Christian theory and moral sentiments how successful and rich some Christians' get!

 

[Bassoe]

…if things go tits up.

Nuclear MAD means we literally can’t lose an existential war with a foreign power actually invading us. We’re under greater threat of being enslaved and sent off to die in some pointless war than we are of the consequences of losing such a war.

 

[Simonbob]

Interesting thread.

I, personally, put it in a local cultural framework. As such, when it's an accepted part of the local culture, understood and beleved in by the people, it's reasonable. Not great, perhaps, but not a great evil in of itself.


However, I also have a comment, on the subject of Rights.

"Fairness and justice are human concepts. They do not exist in nature or in any magic of my kenning. I call it a redeeming quality of your species to try to rise above its environment, especially when considering all your limitations." - Baron, red dragon of the Dire Straits

"Take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. and yet... and yet you act as if there is some ideal order in the world, as if there is some... some rightness in the universe by which it may be judged. -Terry Pratchett




There are no rights, natural or otherwise. There are only results of actions. The NAP is a lovely idea, but the simple fact is many, perhaps most are either unwilling or unable to defend themselves. There are many, most even, who do not want to choose much for themselves.


Seriously. I used, for a few years, to be a Libertarian, who's main limit was kids. The reason I got over it was the sheer number of people I met who'd prefer to be almost slaves, or even actual slaves, rather than have to make the hard choices themselves.

 

[Agent23]

No, but morality is an abstract concept and the need of monkeys to make packs and fight other monkeys from other packs, and form sub packs within the pack for who gets to run it is a concrete, biological adaptation.

 

[Abhorsen]

There are no rights, natural or otherwise. There are only results of actions. The NAP is a lovely idea, but the simple fact is many, perhaps most are either unwilling or unable to defend themselves. There are many, most even, who do not want to choose much for themselves.


Seriously. I used, for a few years, to be a Libertarian, who's main limit was kids. The reason I got over it was the sheer number of people I met who'd prefer to be almost slaves, or even actual slaves, rather than have to make the hard choices themselves.

Morality is about what you do, not about what others do. Your actions' (sometimes judged in response to others' actions, but still your actions) morality is what makes you moral or immoral.

It generally morphs into a tautology because of how Libertarians use it. It also requires smuggling other ideas in, like asserting its the only moral axiom. If duty is part of morality, then the conscription is not so clear.

First, smuggling other ideas in is a feature, not a bug, and common to axioms. Like the axiom of choice being equivalent to the well ordering principle and Zorn's Lemma.

On top of that, again, if it smuggles other ideas in, it cannot be a tautology. Nothing can be concluded from a tautology, that's one of their problems. So if it conveys more than one idea, definitionally it cannot be a tautology.

As for 'that's how libertarians use it', I've already given evidence against, that, evidence that you've ignored.

Third, Even if you add other axioms, as you seem so eager to do, and they contradict the NAP, then you no longer have a reason based system of morality. Everything becomes subjective, based on what the moral actor believes to be more important. You can base a morality system on that just fine, but you cannot call it a reason based system, or even a rules based one. You also cannot call it an objective moral system.

Meanwhile, you can add axioms to the NAP if you so wish (many do), but they must be beneath the NAP if you are a libertarian. For example, NAP + Duty is fine, but would not give one authority to force another to follow their duty, only the obligation for that person to follow their own duty. You can socially stigmatize and ostracize those who do not join the war efforts all you like (for example, women handing out white feathers in WW1), but once you put a gun to their head, you've violated the NAP.

No, I disagree.

Again, you seem to just ignore any argument that you don't like, so what's the point with arguing with you? Why do you disagree? On what basis?

Christianity however has existed for 2,000 years, and produced fairly effective civilizations. Socialist ideals often fail immediately, and if not immediately on decades timeframes.

Plus, well, Christian theory aligns with reality pretty well: Christianity doesn't suggest its ideals are easy to implement, or that they'll even bring victory to Christians. In fact, it often promises failure and martyendom on earth, not wealth and power. And when Christians do succeed, it may be such an unlikely outcome that it requires divine intervention to bring about. In some ways its almost a failure of Christian theory and moral sentiments how successful and rich some Christians' get!

So your judgement on a morality is if it works for a group then? Then you've quit arguing about a morality, and begun arguing about a society/governance system. Obviously, compromises are necessary in reality, and people will not live up to perfection.

And that is irrelevant to the question at hand: is conscription morally evil? And it obviously is, you put a gun to a mans head to force him to work. Even your attempt to add duty fails, as a) it doesn't justify forcing another to follow their duty, and b) if it does, that would make it a necessary evil, as you still included the NAP which your actions violate.

 

[JagerIV]

Interesting thread.

I, personally, put it in a local cultural framework. As such, when it's an accepted part of the local culture, understood and beleved in by the people, it's reasonable. Not great, perhaps, but not a great evil in of itself.


However, I also have a comment, on the subject of Rights.

"Fairness and justice are human concepts. They do not exist in nature or in any magic of my kenning. I call it a redeeming quality of your species to try to rise above its environment, especially when considering all your limitations." - Baron, red dragon of the Dire Straits

"Take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. and yet... and yet you act as if there is some ideal order in the world, as if there is some... some rightness in the universe by which it may be judged. -Terry Pratchett

There are no rights, natural or otherwise. There are only results of actions. The NAP is a lovely idea, but the simple fact is many, perhaps most are either unwilling or unable to defend themselves. There are many, most even, who do not want to choose much for themselves.


Seriously. I used, for a few years, to be a Libertarian, who's main limit was kids. The reason I got over it was the sheer number of people I met who'd prefer to be almost slaves, or even actual slaves, rather than have to make the hard choices themselves.

Ah, an anti realist perspective. The NAP being insufficient I don't think disproves it. Moral Realism I think still have a strong claim though.

Fairness or justice being human concepts doesn't logically I believe suggest they are not real. 1,2 and 3 could be said to be human concepts in the broad conception of such things, but its a bit silly to suggest 1,2 and 3 don't exist. Claiming they don't exist in nature also seems a bit of a stretch. Even fairly simple social animals often seem to have some basic sense of such things. And certainly a sense of fairness and Justice seem pretty innate to human nature. I'm not sure you can raise a person without those concepts manifesting. Is human nature unnatural?

As to there being no mercy molecule, there's no joule or momentum molecule either last I was aware. Yet we can see it in the universe. Plenty of abstract, mathematical concepts describe the universe quite well.

Truth is a human concept, but we can say many things we agree is true, and those truths can be handled with logic to produce true statements. If logic and math exist, why not morality?

Finally, there is the raw practical concern. People can make many arguments against free will. All reasonably logical and seemingly persuasive. But, how does society work without practical free will? How do any of us think of what were doing here without reference to free will? We can argue about how limited free will is, how consciously people work their free will vs default programing, but banishing it completely is not a practical stance.

You can't operate in one's life or society and act as though no one has free will. At best trying just gets you to this meme:

Likewise, you can't live as though morality is not real in some way. Even if your invested in a NPC view of people, people need at least programing on how to think about and react to situations. If you see an opportunity to steal, your choice to do or not is going to be a primarily moral one: it takes a lot of thought and conscious effort to not respond primarily morally!

And once we recognize at least the people's moral program (and in what way could we say a program is not real, when it determines the path from cause to effect, whether that programing is a computer or person?) We can also recognize better or worse programing, because we can if nothing else see various outcomes and logic.

A more logically consistent morality may seem better than a logically inconsistent, if nothing else than the programing is easier: All lies are immoral is much simpler programing, requiring less mental bandwidth if nothing else and thus can be lived as a habit than a conscious thought, which as you suggest people don't like having to do all that much. Thus, as a moral principle training the default to be do not lie, with lies only when something requiring deep thought arrives.

And thus in general, we can judge the morality based on how well it conforms to reality, both of the universe at large and humans. And this can be known to a fair degree of objectivity: A 2020 car and a 1930s car are human constructions, there is no car molecule, but we can quite clearly see which machine is better built, better designed, and better able to fulfill the teology of a car.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

My opinion is this: citizenship is a package deal that includes legal rights, privileges, and duties. If you're unwilling to take on the duties of a citizen, you should not get the rights and privileges either; this is why I'm very judgmental of people who don't bother voting and who try to avoid jury duty.

 

[Abhorsen]

My opinion is this: citizenship is a package deal that includes legal rights, privileges, and duties. If you're unwilling to take on the duties of a citizen, you should not get the rights and privileges either; this is why I'm very judgmental of people who don't bother voting and who try to avoid jury duty.

If you've accepted forcing someone to do a duty as a good, not a necessary evil, you've accepted the key moral basis for communism: "you can owe stuff to people that you didn't agree to, and it's morally right to compel it." The rest is just a question of how much is owed. Why not force citizens to work in the fields to provide food for the populace? How is that morally different from conscription?

 

[JagerIV]

If you've accepted forcing someone to do a duty as a good, not a necessary evil, you've accepted the key moral basis for communism: "you can owe stuff to people that you didn't agree to, and it's morally right to compel it." The rest is just a question of how much is owed. Why not force citizens to work in the fields to provide food for the populace? How is that morally different from conscription?

I'm not sure defining every human society that has ever existed as communist is particularly useful to an anti communist argument.

Its like the self own of accepting "Socialism is just when governments do stuff", which, well, defines all human civilization as socialist.

Duty as a good is only necessary for communism specifically to the degree its necessary for any society to exist. People also need to drink water. That communists drink water is not a good argument against drinking water.

 

[Simonbob]

Fairness or justice being human concepts doesn't logically I believe suggest they are not real. 1,2 and 3 could be said to be human concepts in the broad conception of such things, but its a bit silly to suggest 1,2 and 3 don't exist. Claiming they don't exist in nature also seems a bit of a stretch. Even fairly simple social animals often seem to have some basic sense of such things. And certainly a sense of fairness and Justice seem pretty innate to human nature. I'm not sure you can raise a person without those concepts manifesting. Is human nature unnatural?

Rights are concepts, ones I generally like, but they're not a intrinsic part of reality. Momentum is, in a very real sense. If the conditions arise, as they do all the time whenever anything moves, momentum will do it's thing. Every single time.


Justice? Much as I like it, it requires effort. Belief. Ultimately, if nobody's willing to support or fight for justice, it doesn't exist. And, depending on your culture, it changes. Still good to have, though.


There are better and worse cultures, and having Rights that people beleve in and and are willing to fight for is better than the lack thereov, but the simple fact of, well, all things, is that it requires effort to maintain things. Civilization included.

Truth is a human concept, but we can say many things we agree is true, and those truths can be handled with logic to produce true statements. If logic and math exist, why not morality?

Sure. Valuble and useful, but not written into Physics. That's an issue, because way too many people seem to think otherwise. And, then they don't put in the effort to maintain what is, in many ways, the foundations of a people.

Finally, there is the raw practical concern. People can make many arguments against free will. All reasonably logical and seemingly persuasive. But, how does society work without practical free will? How do any of us think of what were doing here without reference to free will? We can argue about how limited free will is, how consciously people work their free will vs default programing, but banishing it completely is not a practical stance.

Oh, no, I already got over that bit of silliness. Free Will either exists, or it doesn't but we can't fully predict it or truly subvert it, so who cares? It's meaningless.

If you've accepted forcing someone to do a duty as a good, not a necessary evil, you've accepted the key moral basis for communism: "you can owe stuff to people that you didn't agree to, and it's morally right to compel it." The rest is just a question of how much is owed. Why not force citizens to work in the fields to provide food for the populace? How is that morally different from conscription?

There's a cost to all things. And, being a part of a society has advantages, and costs. If you want a society to continue, people have to pay the upkeep.




Ultimately, that's why the West is failing. People are being punished for paying the upkeep on the culture, instead of being rewarded, so the foundations are vanishing.

 

[Robovski]

My opinion is this: citizenship is a package deal that includes legal rights, privileges, and duties. If you're unwilling to take on the duties of a citizen, you should not get the rights and privileges either; this is why I'm very judgmental of people who don't bother voting and who try to avoid jury duty.

Oh yeah, I'm super plussed at getting $60 for a week of my time at the courthouse next month. Oh and maybe $10 in travel expenses. In southern California.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Oh yeah, I'm super plussed at getting $60 for a week of my time at the courthouse next month. Oh and maybe $10 in travel expenses. In southern California.

Jury duty isn't supposed to be a money-making job, it's your *duty* as a citizen. Getting travel covered is already pretty generous.

 

[Abhorsen]

I'm not sure defining every human society that has ever existed as communist is particularly useful to an anti communist argument.

I'm not saying they are communist. I'm also not talking about societies but moral systems. I'm saying that a moral system that holds "forcing others to do nonconsensual work by calling it a duty" as a moral good, not a necessary evil, has lost the key moral argument against communism. That's to say: "No, it's not yours, you are a bandit." You can't make that argument if forcing duty is a moral good.

Also interestingly, again, no one is debating me on what I'm saying, they are just having issue with the implications of it.

Duty as a good is only necessary for communism specifically to the degree its necessary for any society to exist. People also need to drink water. That communists drink water is not a good argument against drinking water.

And again, this argument doesn't work. I'm not saying it's bad just because communists do it. I'm saying it's the core moral argument of communism. What's morally bad about communism if you allow forcing duty to be a moral good? Seriously? Where's the moral evil?

Obviously, it doesn't work in practice, but that's not a moral argument, that's a practical argument, and a useless argument to make that gets one nowhere.



Seriously, no one here has really argued that conscription isn't slavery, they've just spent time going 'but duty' and 'muh social contract'.

There's a cost to all things. And, being a part of a society has advantages, and costs. If you want a society to continue, people have to pay the upkeep.




Ultimately, that's why the West is failing. People are being punished for paying the upkeep on the culture, instead of being rewarded, so the foundations are vanishing.

Sure, call it a cost. As long as it is considered a bad, but necessary thing, I'm fine in regards to this conversation. But the glorification of slavery as a moral good by calling it duty is deeply wrong. That's been the entirety of my point in this thread.

Oh yeah, I'm super plussed at getting $60 for a week of my time at the courthouse next month. Oh and maybe $10 in travel expenses. In southern California.

See on the one hand, it is very wrong that California is forcing you to do this against your will. It's an evil. On the other hand, if California (or any state) is to ever have a working justice system, it needs a jury of peers (no, judges are shit at this), and force is the only way to guarantee a truly cross sectional selection. There is simply no other possible substitution. That makes jury duty a necessary evil: It's evil, but the evil cannot be substituted or lessened or removed without causing a greater evil (people not getting a fair trial).

 

[Simonbob]

Sure, call it a cost. As long as it is considered a bad, but necessary thing, I'm fine in regards to this conversation. But the glorification of slavery as a moral good by calling it duty is deeply wrong. That's been the entirety of my point in this thread.

Ok.

I'll buy that (for a dollar!)

 

[Robovski]

Jury duty isn't supposed to be a money-making job, it's your *duty* as a citizen. Getting travel covered is already pretty generous.

Fuck that, pay minimum wage. I need to earn money and my time has value. I'm not working at my job while I'm at the courthouse and I should be paid for the time I am not able to work. Instead it's supposed to be fine that $15/day starting the second day and $0.34/mile one-way.