Conscientious Objection

DMark69, I would still be opposed to it, because it's evil to expect citizens to be forced to support the state as long as the state fails in its role to protect all citizens equally. (The United States fails in this regard, as minority citizens do not enjoy equal rights under the law. Further more, the United States is constitutionally constrained from ever doing so, because protection of minority rights are fundamentally and very necessarily anti-democratic.)

A substantial minority of citizens of this country are so evil it's never going to be fair to expect public service from everyone. They don't deserve it.

Anything a person does to support the infrastructure or support public safety is a gift that everyone else should be grateful for, not a civic obligation.

 

My thoughts exactly. Growing up, I used to have nightmares, about getting drafted. Plus, I hate being bossed around, and I'm not good with authority figures/hierarchy...the military would be a nightmare. And, I have never been able to use the words Sir and Ma'am, unless in sarcasm. Me in the service would be a disaster. Plus, I don't like guns, loud noises or explosions, and tend to get really faint/queasy at the site of blood, even in horror movies!

But now my vision is too bad, so I couldn't join even if I wanted to, which is in my case...NEVER!

 

Without delving into how I think selective service shouldn't even be a thing, conscious objectors should not be treated like that for refusing to kill when told to. I hope I'm able to get conscious objector status for being a pacifist.

 

I think it should definitely be an option that anyone can have. Conscientious objectors are not failing to live up to any responsibility. It was not a responsibility they chose to take. There is nothing cowardly about it.

---------- Post added 22nd Nov 2014 at 07:40 PM ----------

^This. ^^ If you do not support the war why should you be forced to get involved in it? That's unethical.

 

No I don't think conscientious objection should be an option in an ideal world. Personally I favor mandatory random conscription (the obvious exceptions being debilitating illnesses) in an idaelized state as the only fair way to distribute duty to the state during wartime.

This, in an idealized form, gets around the issue of people "voluntarily" joining the armed service because their family is in dire socioeconomic circumstances, to escape their own socioeconomic circumstances, or to attain education, which isn't really voluntary and is mostly coercive.

this is the option I see as the lesser of two evils.

I won't pass judgement on if I think Conscientious objection is cowardly or not living up to some duty, because failing to register for the selective service rarely results in any tangible damage to someone, unless you are recieving federal fiancial aid for college or applying for a federal job.

this is your brain on authoritarian leftism when you've read a lot of Hobbes and Rawls

 

I think it should be income based, with the rich having to go first, as they have more to lose.

It'll get them off their asses, and help motivate them.

Send the top 1% first, and so on down the line.

 

German conscription was suspended in early 2011. Still remember because I was drafted in late 2010 and was furious (I told them I feared heights and they still put me into air assault infantry regiment (paratroopers), what the actual fuck).

(got out a few weeks later though because I kept complaining to a medical officer 24/7, call me a sissy, wimp or whatever but those weeks were just horrible with all the screaming and forced sleep deprivation, group punishment and stuff, I felt like crying every day :icon_redf not because I was sad but because my mind was breaking, you had to take all this shit but couldn't talk back even once for fear of you or everyone else getting punished - edit: what's even worse is that to this day not a single person believes me because apparently 'German military isn't like that anymore' well fuck I must have made all of that shit up then)

 

Yep, it certainly is. I have a lot of respect for Rawls, but not this particular view you've concocted with it. I may not be the learned philosopher you are, but I've read my share of US labor history and Cold War military history, and I scored well in Phil Feminism and Phil Law despite those courses being well outside my field.

With great respect, I don't think anything you've described in your idealized state corresponds to reality, and in fact it's so divergent from our reality that I don't feel particularly obliged to discuss my hypothetical obligations as a citizen in your state.

I'm hard-pressed to name a single just war, police action, or "covert operation" fought by the United States since World War II. In fact, I can think of just wars that we refused to fight. And if I could simply fiat that the United States would behave itself on the world stage and actually support human rights like it claims to, that still wouldn't create the political obligation you require to support a policy of random conscription. On my view, in order for political obligation to exist, the social contract has to be consistently honored. Given the racial, gender, economic, and sexual orientation inequality that exists, I don't think it's reasonable to assert that the social contract is being honored across the board in a way that creates an expectation of reciprocity. (Note that this is not an argument against social contract theory. Rather, my argument is that a social contract doesn't just create political obligations in an inegalitarian society. I assert that only reciprocity in upholding human well-being and acting affirmatively to prevent suffering can possibly create political obligation.)

In short, the United States would have to change so radically before randomized conscription could be entertained as a reasonable policy that it would likely obviate the need for conscription in the first place.

 

Pleione, thank you for the update. Last time I was in Germany was the beginning of 2001, and conscription was still in place. I did not know they stopped it.

 

Well rejecting thought experiments on the basis that they are thought experiments isn't valid.

Rawls is pro-conscription, but he thinks that if your moral duty to object to the war (because it is unjust, like Rawls was writing when Vietnam was happening) outweighs the moral duty to participate in the war (like if the country were invaded Rawls would feel differently) then you are morally in the clear to object to the war and not participate.

He, and I, are pro conscription in the extreme circumstance where civil liberties are at risk, like iminent land invasion.

no that doesn't create the moral obligation, a just war where your civil liberties are at immidiate risk creates the moral obligation for Rawls.

Rawls agrees with this. I sort of do, but not with regard to things like taxes.

And that is a historical injustice that needs to be corrected/

but I'm not talking about an inegalitarian society, which is why I phrased this as an idealized state. I don't think you have the moralobligation to sign up for the selective service in real world America if you aren't a cishetwhite male.

so yeah you're in agreement with Rawls that if your civil liberties were in immidiate danger then you would you have a moral (not political) obligation to act in defense of the country.

yeah I agree, which is why I said idealized state. me being pro randomized conscription is simply theorhetical musing that can't be justly put into practice currently.

worth a read: Professional Obligation and Conscientious Objection:

note: I changed your use of political to moral because Rawls frames it as a moral question not a political one.

 

I'm a conscientious objector. I got 172 days of house arrest, 38 days left!

 

Being treated like a criminal just because you didn't want to be forced into military service, dear lord it's so infuriating.

Why were women not drafted? Why wasn't everyone eligible drafted instead of a just random number people? How do they make up for the time lost while all others can go on with their lives? What about freedom, why is it even allowed to force anyone do anything? What about the medical examinations which are purely arbitrary (and sometimes even humiliating)?

What is this, the dark ages?

I am crying tears of rage for you :icon_sad: are you doing alright? (*hug*)

 

I am a criminal, strictly speaking. Declining from compulsory military or civilian service is a crime.

Your questions are the same ones I've been asking this entire time. I'm doing okay, not much left so that's cool.

Things that suck:
– my friends really stopped caring about me like a month after my sentence started. no one really visits me. It sucks because I'm an extrovert and I NEED my friends, but it's not like I can demand them to spend time with me, nor do I want to beg... although I've done that too a couple times.
– I feel alone and lonely all the time.
– I can't not go to school, which I'm tired of and which isn't what I want to do at the moment. Don't ask, it's a stupid "ooh you have to be involved in some compulsory activity so that you're not isolated from society" thing. fuck society
– my freedom is severely limited.
– everyone thinks that this isn't too bad and I have it easy. How about you try being convicted for NOT doing something.

Things that are not too bad:
– Not going to parties and being prohibited from drinking and other substances is actually cool. I've never been a heavy drinker or pothead, nor do I smoke much, but all my substance use has dropped significantly.
– I've had a lot of time for introspection and, in a bizarre way, despite all the pressure I'm under, I'm doing a lot better mentally.
– I've learnt to be more punctual and precise.
– I've become more comfortable with speaking on the phone and calling.

 

Mandatory military service isn't cricket
Longer or non existent alternative service is not cricket
Being imprisoned for refusing isn't cricket
Hell in a lot of these countries some get treated like a second class citizen (or worse) yet you're still expected to take up arms for it. How's that right and proper?

So yeah I'm not a fan of the whole thing.

 

We don't have conscription here, I'm in 2 minds about it.

On the one hand I'm not sure I'd want it as we would no doubt get utter s**t processed into the Forces. We need good/professional people not Neanderthals without braincells or so called 'pacifists'

On the other hand conscription would help to teach the 'youth' of today some form of respect for each other as well as discipline which is sorely lacking in most parts of society these days.

 

Is it right and proper to conscript those who do behave themselves though? Moreover is respect and discipline something that can solely be taught by the military and do we really want to be going down the path of one size fits all as an approach to youth problems?

 

Now this is a phrase I've heard like a million times and it gets old really quick.

First off, how does being treated like a worthless piece of shit teach me any respect? There's a difference between teaching people discipline and breaking their spirits.

Second, educating and raising young people is what parents and schools are for, not forced military service. That's like saying "Let's imprison all youth for a year to make them appreciate freedom."

Also, can you actually prove young people have neither respect nor discipline?

The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

Now while it's disputed that this quote actually belongs to Socrates it still demonstrates that your generation wasn't the first to think badly of the younger ones.

If I'm forced into military service at least have the decency and give me some actual reasons and not this amateur-housewive-psychology-101 "young ones need some discipline" bullshit.

Please excuse me for being rude, this is kind of a delicate matter.

 

First off to make that quote you'd need to prove that happens, it certainly doesn't in the UK Forces. Have you served or are you just a civilian with a tainted image in your head?

Second, schools may educate but they certainly seem to be failing on raising of young people as do a lot of parents (certainly in regards to inner city living.)

 

Well, likewise, you'd need to prove that schools are indeed failing.

 

There is plenty of proof that schools are failing, certainly the inner city ones within the UK.