One of the most irritating things to me about the shallow patriotism that is so pervasive in America, especially these days, is the notion that refusing a military draft is intrinsically a bad thing. We hear it all the time in regard to those who refused to go to Vietnam, despite the fact that most people will agree that the war itself, was a monumental mistake. The only way this position would be credible is if one believes that each citizen has a duty to kill or die when their government orders them to, regardless of whether that order is a just one. But there is a fundamental problem at the core of this argument and I'd like to illustrate that here.
If you give people a hypothetically unjustified war, they will immediately ask for a justification of it. For instance, if you ask whether we should obey a draft to support, say, an invasion of Switzerland - a peaceful nation that has done nothing to justify being invaded - they will not immediately say yes. They will say something like, "Well why would we do that? There must be some reason for it, what did they do to warrant it? I'd have to know that first." What they don't realize is that this answer undermines their position that draft dodging is intrinsically wrong, because it presupposes that one must consider the reasons for the war before determining whether one has a duty to fight in it. And if that is the case, then draft dodging could in some circumstances be the right thing to do. They are unwittingly supporting the notion that one must consider first whether a war is justified or just and then it can be determined whether one has a duty to fight in it or not.
The only alternative to this is to declare that there is an absolute duty to obey one's government, regardless of whether their orders are legitimate. But that leads to a conclusion that they cannot admit to, that the German soldiers had a duty to obey Adolf Hitler's orders to exterminate the Jews and Gypsies and other groups, or to invade Poland and Czechoslovakia and slaughter innocent people who had done them no wrong. That's a morally unacceptable position, but it is the only logical alternative to the position stated above. So they are stuck. Either they have to admit that duty is dependent upon the rightness of the order being given, or they have to admit that one must do what a Hitler tells us to do.
- Log in to post comments
I believe that there are circumstances under which I would be obliged to serve in the armed forces. Some of those are (hypothetical) cases in which I get drafted. My position is that if I support the war in question and I happen to be called up in a fair and necessary draft, then I'm obliged to go.
The flip side is that I'm obliged to refuse a draft (and even to go to jail) if I don't think the war is worth my killing and dying for.
There may be cases in which conscription is necessary. I'm familiar with arguments to the effect that these cases are rarer than we think. I'm even sympathetic to them. However, there are circumstances under which a draft might be necessary. In such a case, the country will need a certain number of people. Obviously, the government has an obligation to try to fill those posts with volunteers first. If that approach has failed, and a fair process names me as one of those people, then I'm obliged to go rather than shirking my (self-affirmed) moral duty because I don't feel like it. Some people would say that I'm not really affirming my obligation to be drafted. They would argue that I'm just reaffirming my obligation to volunteer to fight in a war I think is just. I disagree because there are cases when there are more potential soldiers than are needed to fight the war. There may even be more war supporters than are needed. In that case it's not my duty to be the person who signs up, altruistically shouldering the burden for others who have an equally strong moral case to fight. That's why I support a draft with strong conscientious objector provisions. It ought to be a fair (quasi-random) way to pick the people who actually have to do the dirty work. Under such a scenario, I wouldn't feel bad about sitting around waiting to be drafted rather than signing up. If a fair process doesn't ask me to serve, I'm not automatically obliged to volunteer myself.
Lindsay-
Just want to point out that while I agree with your position that there are some circumstances where one would have a duty to be drafted, it doesn't really conflict with my argument that there are also circumstances in which one has no such duty. I'm sure you agree that one must first determine whether the war is just before determining whether one has a duty to fight in it.
The problem here is that most of the hyperpatriotic idiots in america would gladly accept the second horn of this dilemma and say that you must do as your country orders you. They'd also disagree that the vietnam war was a mistake; war is good, by default. When you're dealing with the lowest of the low, forget reason. The only thing you can do is ignore them, and hope nobody takes in their nonesense.
You are right vis a vis a draft. But now consider the case of a volunteer soldier, or to make the example plainer, a career soldier: is he obligated to fight whoever and whenever at the government's option? Or has he too a right [?] or perhaps stronger, an obligation [?] to assess the rightness or wrongness of a war into which he is ordered? Do your arguments apply only to those who choose to obey a draft, or to volunteers and career military as well?
You are right vis a vis a draft. But now consider the case of a volunteer soldier, or to make the example plainer, a career soldier: is he obligated to fight whoever and whenever at the government's option? Or has he too a right [?] or perhaps stronger, an obligation [?] to assess the rightness or wrongness of a war into which he is ordered? Do your arguments apply only to those who choose to obey a draft, or to volunteers and career military as well?
I think it would depend on what level we're talking about. If it's a question of moral duty, then I'd say that each individual still has to determine the justness before they determine their obligation. Legally? That's stickier.
Ed writes:
Absolutely. I'm just trying to stake out territory slightly less extreme than the "anti-chicken hawk" view that everyone who supports a war must volunteer. If there are more potential soldiers than we need, it's against my egalitarian grain to say that everyone has an obligation to join up even though there are a lot of equally supportive people who won't volunteer.
That's where a draft should come in--to determine by quasi-random, quasi-utilitarian means which war supporters have to go.