----- Original Message -----
From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: Conscription Re: They gave their lives....
> I've been following this thread for a while. It seems to me that there
> is a VERY fine line here, and I'd like to see that line explored more
> precisely than it has been.
>
> So, I have a question for those who support conscription. Well, make
> that two.
>
> Under what conditions do the ends justify the means?
>
Well, the short answer is that when the ends and the means are both
considered, and all the positive and negative repercussions of both using
the means and forgoing the ends are considered, that hard done by forgoing
the ends exceeds the benefits of forswearing the means necessary to achieve
those ends. It is certainly a judgment call, and one on which reasonable
people may differ.
> Under what conditions does one man have the right to make life and death
> decisions for another man, against his will?
>
Well, the answer to the general case question would probably be L5. Let me
briefly discuss, then, the specific case question: when is justified for
the community to require that a member of that community risk his/her life
for the benefit of that community. A given individual should not be singled
out for sacrifice. Rather, a group of individuals who are representative of
the community as a whole should be asked to take the risk.
Now, when I was young the fact that older people could send younger people
to war was a sticking point for my generation. Actually, the real sticking
point was that 19 year olds could be drafted but couldn't vote. That was a
very reasonable point. But, the more extreme among us said that older
people shouldn't have a voice because they aren't going.
I don't think that's a correct assessment. I think older adults do tend to
consider sending the youth of the nation into danger quite seriously. Most
adults have children in their families. Further, all older adults were once
younger adults. Indeed, in many cases, older people will make a more sober
judgment of risks than younger people.
So, in the case of war, the nation decides that the risk to the nation is
high enough to require some of its younger people to join the armed forces
and put their lives at risk. As long as the population at risk is a
representative cross section of the draft eligible population as a whole,
then it is fair to assume that no one ethnic or social group is singled out.
When the risk to the community/nation is considered sufficient so that the
majority of the people feel that the risk to the nation is sufficient to
require that some of the young people of that community at risk in order to
defend the community/nation, a draft would be called. In a democratic
county, this is the decision made by the elected leaders of the country.
For the sake of argument, we can assume that their vote represents the will
of the people that elected them
So, the people of a country feel that the risk is great enough so that they
will be willing to have their young people drafted. But, person A who gets
a draft letter was one of the folks who didn't think the tradeoff was
worthwhile. Particularly for them.
Let us also, for the moment, assume that this person is not a conscientious
objector. Their objection is that they don't want to risk their own life.
They would much rather have someone else risk theirs. Indeed, you can even
argue that this person doesn't really buy into the majority's assessment of
the risk.
So, why is it moral for the majority to enforce their will? Well, it is for
the same reason that the community can enforce its will on the individual in
terms of all the other laws that place burdens and responsibilities on the
individual. A community that totally relies on voluntary effort would fall
apart, victim of the tragedy of the commons. One cannot assume that
everyone will work towards the mutual interest out of the good will of their
heart. Indeed, knowing that some people are getting away without pulling
their share of the load decreases the probability that other folks will
continue to carry their share of the load. No one likes to be made to look
like a chump.
So, if you agree that the government/community has the right to impose
taxes, then it seems to follow that they have the right to draft people. If
the community understanding is that the risk to the members of the community
that follow from not drafting people is greater than the risk of being
drafted and killed, then the same reasons why one cannot simply refuse to
submit to the community decision while paying taxes holds for why one cannot
refuse to be drafted.
Now, this assumes that the people who make this decision are risking
themselves and/or family members in making that decision. Thus, it is a
shared risk. If the community cannot require that the members of the
community share in the cost of maintaining the community, including taking
personal risks in order to reduce the overall risk, then it will have a near
impossible time sustaining itself.
Dan M.
