The Ethics of Draft Dodging

Great Debates
81

It’s not an arbitrary position. Why should other people risk their lives in order to preserve your way of life? What’s so special about you? Besides, if you expect other people to enforce your rights for you, they can just as easily take those rights away.

Quite frankly, It doesn’t matter to me if you agree or not. You can argue your position to the MP’s who come to drag your ass to bootcamp.

I don’t know you from anything other than your postings. What I get from them is that despite being ‘unpatriotic’ and opposed to serving in the military you still feel that the government somehow owes you an education. This strikes me as a little hypocritical.

It is abusive because it makes the reception of aid for school dependent on one’s willingness to die for the country, essentially a political opinion (leaving aside the issue of imprisonment). Using government programs to further the state’s political agenda is an abuse of the government’s legitimate authority. Regardless, as others have pointed out, they are getting something in return. Student aid existed before it was tied to selective service registration. The state feels that having an educated, class-mobile citizenry is a proper goal to seek, and that student aid is an effective way of achieving said goal.

[/QUOTE]

That’s not “abusive”. That is simply providing incentives and punishments and allowing you to make your own decisions.

An abusive system would be one where barely trained, poorly armed soldiers are forced at gunpoint to defend a bombed out city against an army with tanks and airplanes.

An abusive system is one that forces part of their population to wear badges so they can be rounded up and send to camps.

We fight wars to keep America strong so that we don’t have to live under a REALLY abusive system.

As far as I know, there is alternative service (like the Peace Corp or something). Besides, if you are in college, you are less likely to get drafted.

The reality is that there ARE people who want to wage war and take away other people’s freedoms. It’s in our interest to stop them when they are small-time banana republic dictators before they become the next Hitler or Stalin.

Hard to say. One of the most difficult issues for any democracy is balancing the good of the individuals with the good of the country.

Sure its alright. Just expect to suffer the legal consequences of breaking the contract. When you sign a contract, it is assumed you are doing so in good faith.

Well, you can’t. There is “what should be” and then there is “what is”. Whatever your beliefs are, the government WILL enforce your agreement with them.

82

If they don’t want to, they shouldn’t. If a person agrees to serve in the military, he or she agrees to protect everyone in the country, saints and murderers alike. National defense is a common good, it cannot be provided to one without being provided to all.

Ahh, Thrasymachus, where have you been? From a strictly practical point of view, of course, you’re right. The government can order me to eat feces all day, provided that they are willing to use the requisite amount of force. In the (much) larger sense, I would even agree that justice is merely the interests of the stronger party.

Of course, none of this matters. I’m arguing about what the government should do, not what it can do.

And what I have said, rather explicitly, is that I do not feel as if I am owed an education by the governemnt or anyone else. If President Bush signed an executive order tomorrow terminating all future federal student aid, c’est la vie.

There’s not much to say here except that we disagree about what would be an abuse of government power.

Of course, my argumentt that you quoted dealt only with A hypothetical “voluntary” draft registration. In reality, I am no more allowed to make my own decision to not send in my draft card then I am allowed to decide whether or not to kill my roommate. When the governemnt threatens you with force (imprisonment) if you do not do what they tell you to, that is not an example of “allowing you to make your own decision.”

Not always, and not for some time now. Iraq? Vietnam? We fought those wars so we did have to live under a repressive regime? Those wars kept America strong?

I dealt with that back on page one. So long as the governemnt is directing my labor towards the war effort, at their discretion, I will consider that to be “military service.”

Yes, and the reality is also that there are people who want to join the military voluntarily. If we can’t have a sufficiently large military based on volunteers, then either we need to increase pay and benefits for soldiers (a separate issue) or we have no business having such a large military in the first place, as the public (in our democracy/republic) clearly does not support such a thing.

83

Let me get this straight:VarlosZ believes the government is obliged to hand him student aid, but it is wrong for the government to expect him to serve in the military in a time of national emergency. Well, what can we expect, given the national ethos of selfishness prevalent in our culture today.
I thought of scathing remarks worded to avoid moderators’ stern glares, but I won’t use them. To quote Good Will Hunting, “You’re just a kid, you don’t have the faintest idea what you’re talkin’ about.”

Nobody, not even the military, likes war. Nobody wants to fight and die, or see friends die. Sometimes, however, it is necessary to make that sacrifice for the greater good. In World War II, the Allies defeated a truly evil enemy. While Korea and Vietnam were both badly conducted, the goal of defending an ally against a marauding neighbor was good in both cases.

If you truly are a pacifist, then I suggest that you join Thoreau, Gandhi, and Bertrand Russell and be willing to go to jail for your beliefs.

84

So now it is selfish not to want to kill people? If that is selfishness, count me in.

To quote St. Paul: “Ours is the mature way of looking at things. If you can’t see it our way, God help you.”

Some people believe the ends do not justify the means. Especially when the means is murder.

Apparently, you think the greater good will come about when two nations send out their armies of Varloses to kill eachother until, by divine providence, the side with the last Varlos standing wins, and therefore were the good guys all along. Perhaps you have seen Rambo too many times and so think the “good guys” will always win? How do you account for your faith here?

85

How many times must I point out that this is not the case? Apparently, more than twice.

Though they are not morally or politically obliged to do so, the government does offer student aid. I am forced to register for the draft. The. . .

You know what? I can’t think of anything to say to goboy that I haven’t already said at least once. If you would like a response, read the thread (if you have not already done so).

86

I had already read the thread, but I felt compelled to add my two cents to the discussion.

And where in my post would you find that? If you can’t tell the difference between Nazi Germany and the US, or between North Korea and South Korea, then you really are in need of aid for college. History is usually too complicated for a good guys-vs bad guys view of opposing sides, but there are times when it is indeed that simple.

Put it this way, many of us have been in the military or have significant life experience to be able to tell you that you are wrong. Isn’t it possible that at 18 years of age, you don’t know everything just yet?

87

I simply find your argument that the ends of “greater good” justify murder to be ill founded, especially when you can never prove this “greater good” will be the end result beforehand.

88

two cents that have already been added?

“History is usually too complicated for a good guys-vs bad guys view of opposing sides, but there are times when it is indeed that simple.”

No, history is ALWAYS too complicated for a good v. bad set up. Whenever it’s not seen that way (which is ALWAYS) it’s a matter of propaganda. Altruism has been a factor in many wars, but it has NEVER been the primary motivator. NEVER!
“Put it this way, many of us have been in the military or have significant life experience to be able to tell you that you are wrong. Isn’t it possible that at 18 years of age, you don’t know everything just yet?”

I’ve heard this before. I don’t know what it is you do or did in the military, but I can make the grand assumption that it in no way qualifies you as an authority on the ethics of draft policy or history.

I had some schmo on another site dictate the future development of armor. Of course I was wrong and he was “qualified” becuase he was a soldier. He changed tracks on M113 for four years. I’ve spent my life preparing for the “noble calling” of defense/military analysis. Guess he was more qualified. And believe me folks, boy did Cleatus show it.

Military experience means NOTHING. Let me repeat, NOTHING. What does matter is RELEVANT MILITARY EXPERIENCE! This really isn’t a hard line of logic to follow.

If you feel this is abrasive, reread your post and consider it’s merit. You were inappropriate, SHAMELESS, and far from ethical. Buttress your arguments with germane information. That shameless appeal to your military experience (whcih cannot be confirmed anyway, I might add) is the last tool of a beleaguered “opinion”. Now I HAVE HAD a lot of experience with people like yourself, and more than anything else it makes me hope we begin to include humility training in the curiculum. Seems it’s a dying skill.

Just as shameless is your attempt to undermine Varlosz becuase of his age. What does his age have to do with anything? That’s the beauty of this; we can be anyone. I could be SecDef for all you know. Once again using the moves of a cornered man. If you feel he’s wrong, say why. It’s that easy. His age has nothing to do with it. The man’s opinion stands on it’s own.

He’s 20 not 18, show him that much respect (something else in short supply for uniformed folk). And I shall leave you with a question: isn’t it possible that at your age, YOU don’t know everything yet?

89

Nazi Germany, North Korea, Iraq-three truly evil governments
America fought. I never said wars were fought out of altruism. I did say that, sometimes, the opposing sides are black and white. Again, if you don’t know the difference between North Korea and South Korea, I suggest you go over and visit.

Nope, chalk me up in the or have significant life experience corner. I don’t claim military experience for myself, I was including other posters in this thread who do. I’m a civilian, although I have family who served in the Korean and Vietnamese wars who have passed on their stories. One of my two undergrad degrees is in history, including 20th century US diplomatic and military history, and I’ve lived in South Korea and listened to my neighbor, 75-year-old Mrs. Cho, talk about being in Seoul when the Korean People’s Army invaded.

I got that from the OP; I stand corrected. However, mouthy college kids who have yet to earn even a single degree and who have been nowhere and seen nothing in their short lives may be the ones to learn humility. Oh, and for the rest of you rude insinuations, SDMBers in the DC area have met me and know me. You have a mere 10 posts and you wish to bust on my credibility?

90

Jeez, goboy. The dude busted your chops with good reason and I had to bite my tongue from doing the same, and this is your response? Stop condescending. If you actually have an argument to make, make it without ad hominem attacks. Take a lesson.

91

You’re wrong on 2, so you’re wrong on 1. If you say “I will give you X if you give me Y,” you are agreeing to a contract. You’re acknowledging its validity, legally AND ethically. Unless you’re essentially saying your word means nothing, I have to conclude that if you agree to a contract, you’re agreeing to it. There’s really no other way to interpret it, and there’s no other way to practically go through life. When you enter into an agreement with ME, I trust you to be true to it, so why should the government expect any different?

Within the context of this discussion I can trust you because you’re being honest, and anyway, it’s just a debate. However, in the real world, when you enter into a contract you have no intention of keeping, you’re perpetrating a fraud. My initial point remains unanswered; since there is no substantive difference between what you’re proposing to do and what a con artist does, what gives your action any more moral or ethical justification than a simple scam? It seems your only answer is:

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN INTENT! Your intent in perpetrating this deception is to take money you would otherwise not be entitled to. That’s the same intent as a con artist. You may have a different MOTIVATION (that may be what you meant to say) but your INTENT is the same as the con artist; to deceitfully take money.

It’s all well and good for you to claim your noble motivation makes this scam OK, but that doesn’t make it okay. At the end of the day, you’re just scamming money with deceit. That’s not an honorable act no matter what your motivation. If you feel that strongly about selective service, don’t take the stupid money.

I apologizae, but I just don’t buy that you’re doing this morally. You want money, and you don’t want to hold up your end of the bargain. That’s dishonest and unethical. If you don’t want to hold up your end of the bargain, you have a very simple and perfectly ethical solution; don’t enter into it.

However, unlike some other posters, I will add that I consider running away to Canada a morally and ethically acceptable alternative to entering the draft, even if you had already signed up for selective service. It seems a very logical move to me; if you are unwilling to accept an obligation the government forces on you, you leave the country, and therefore give up the benefits the government confers on you. The government loses its claim on you, and you lose your claims on the government. It’s an even-steven deal.

92

You’re absolutely right, jmullaney, it was wrong of me to take such a condescending tone.

I’ll return to my original point: if you want the government to give you student aid, the terms of the deal are that you sign up for Selective Service. If you don’t want to sign up, then don’t take the money.

93

I think Varlos was making the point, once again, that registering with selective service isn’t actually a contract, which makes the rest of your argument moot.

On that note, goboy – since he can’t take the money unless he registers with the SSS, you aren’t presenting a point of contention.

94

Umm, no, that’s what I said. Read it again. “If you don’t want to sign up, then don’t take the money,” although it would have been clearer if I had said “you have to give up the money.”

95

many colleges won’t matriculate you unless you’ve filled out a FASFA. While this isn’t in the federal government’s hands, they are aware of the policy. I for instance, get no federal aid, but my university requires that I ask for it every year.

In other words, I have no hope of getting any money, but I still have to register with selective service.

My patriotism or lack thereof aside, I’d hardly call this ethical. If the government ever NEEDS man power in a hurry, I’m sure they won’t NEED scraps of paper to do it.

ANd NAZI Germany, North Korea, etc., truly evil governments? We don’t know anything about each other. I don’t know if you have a degree in history. Maybe you do; and maybe you don’t. But even if you do, every college makes mistakes. How am I to know you’re not one of them? I mean no disrespect. I mean to say that your position must stand on it’s own. Using constructs like “evil” is far from histroical objectivity. As are “clearly right” and “clearly wrong”. What is clear, is that many would disagree. You make absolute and universal what applies only to your legacy. It’s an un-ethical account of history. It’s the cliche’d slippery slope that ironically aids what you would deem “clearly evil” governments. But I don’t have to tell you that.

Just to be clear, I’m not debating my personal beliefs of the savagry of certain regimes. I’m only debating the absolute tone of your characterisations. They ARE dangerous. Evnen the “cleary good” guys and governments did what you might term evil. Where’s the clearness in that. Anecdotal evidence works both ways. And I don’t need to goto Korea or have relatives tell me stroies. Like most people, I too have the advantage of documented accounts: The wonder of the printed word and the cathode ray tube (so you don’t mis body language ofcourse).

“However, mouthy college kids who have yet to earn even a single degree and who have been nowhere and seen nothing in their short lives may be the ones to learn humility.”

Mouthy? Hardly, you acted innapropriately. How do you know what I’ve seen and learned in my short life? I’ll tell you one thing I have learned, REALLY LEARNED THE HARD WAY. Age DOES NOT bring wisdom. So I’ll say it again. When you disagree with me or anyone else here, stick with the argument. Dismissing someone’s opinion, however bizarre you may feel it is, simply becuase that person is a college aged student is not a sign of wisdom.

p.s. You’ll have to explain SDMBers to me. Don’t know what it means.

96

Where did you get the idea that history is objective? Every historian who writes a book has a thesis he or she wishes to prove. He complies evidence to bolster his thesis. Nowhere is he objective.

I know moral relativism is very popular among the kids today, but if the cold-blooded gassing and incineration of six million men, women, and childeren in the Nazi death camps doesn’t qualify as absolute evil, what does? North Korea is one huge prison, where people are executed along with their families for crimes like stealing rice and disrespecting Kim Jong-Il. C’mon, it’s evil with absolutley no palliating shades of gray. Was American conduct blameless in the Korean conflict? Of course not; our troops shot civilians along with soldiers, as the sad example of No Gun Ri will testify. But to say that the actions of individual troops is on a moral equivalent with a state policy of exterminating European Jewry or executing Christians and local political leaders as the North Koreans did, is to be naive.

By the way, I didn’t dismiss your and Varlos’s remarks because of your age. MattMcl is 18 or 19 and he is one of the most respected posters here. I also appreciate that age doesn’t necessarily confer wisome. It’s that you two seem so cocksure that you know more than anyone else about public policy and the military, and it seemed to me that it’s possible you don’t know as much as you think you do.

BTW, a newbie with a mere 11 posts telling a long-time poster how to debate in the Straight Dope Message Board might come off as rude.

97

The tone of my previous post was far too argumentative, and I apologize. Please disregard it.

98

Am I to understand that becuase you’ve typed here more than I, you’re more “right” than I am? How does this make any sense. In my “experience” those who talk the most tend to be those who have the least to say.
Rude? No…you were innapropirate. It’s as simple as that. It’s up to you to take it to heart or not, but I was far from being rude.

Where do I get the idea that history is objective? From historians who try their hardest not to let emotion carry them away. Histrians who are able to understand their bias and put it in perspective.

There are no absolutes and so there is no evil. But this is another debate entirely. I made no moral equivilancies. You misconstrued my post. I find the concept “absolute evil” to be naive and dangerous.

Now, maybe Varlosz is too cocky for his own good. I don’t agree with everything he believs. But you did dismiss him: ‘To quote Good Will Hunting, "You’re just a kid, you don’t have the faintest idea what you’re talkin’ about."’
Sounds like an arogant dismissal to me. He’s making a reasonable argument. But I’m jsut a kid. I don’t know enough to talk out of turn. You say now that age does not confer wisdom. It would appear this is a recent change to your world view. In mind’s eye, the only hting worse than a “cocksure” kid is a “cocksure” “adult” - they’re the ones with the power to make war.

And how have I shown that I seem to know more than anyone else about military matters and public policy? If I disagree with you, does that mean I’m “too big for my britches”? That harldy makes sense. So I ask again, is it possible YOU don’t know as muc has you think you do? I’m not going to argue this. There’s no way we can.

And why is MattMcl one of the most repsected posters here? Also in my experience on other boards, those “yungens” who were praised were tended to be those who mindlessly towed the line of the older presumably wiser folk on the board. I don’t MattMcl; and this is not a judgment of him. But I’m understandably suspicous.

To get back on topic, what my situation and that of others who don’t recieve money but are essentially forced to register anyway?

99

You posted just before me. For some reason they won’t allow me to delete or edit my posts, so I’m standing down too. Water under the bridge.

100

I didn’t write that; jmullaney did. I’m 20, not 18. I implied as much when I wrote, “I’m 20” up at the top of this page. You can understand why I would think you might not have read the thread, or not carefully, at least.

See below. It is not a “deal,” a “contract,” or a “bargain.”
RickJay:

True, but that does not in any way represent the relationship between myself and the draft board. From their point of view, the situation is as follows: “You will do Y. If you do not, we reserve the right to imprison you for five years at our discretion. Even if we choose not to imprison you, we will stop you from receiving X.”

As I’ve said: a contract requires that each party enter into it voluntarily, which I have not. A contract requires that each party get something in return. I get nothing in return. The refusal of college aid in this case is a punishment, not an exchange of goods and services (or lack thereof). Still, if you insist on viewing it as a contract, then I have fulfilled my end of the contract to the letter. I did that as soon as I signed my registration card and sent it in, which is all I am required to do at this point. Even if it were the kind of agreement that you portray, “X” in your example is not military service, but a signed draft registration.

Very well, if you’d like to define our terms that way. Motivation can and does constitute a substantial difference. To answer your statement more directly, it’s not that simple. My intent is to take money that I am and would be “entitled” to under the circumstances. Is someone who uses deceit to retrieve his money from a thief a con artist? This is not to say that the government has “stolen” my money, but only that I do not recognize their right to withhold this money from me in this case, under these circumstances, for the reasons they give.

See above. It does it is not at all like a “bargain.”

Hey, I like passive withdrawal and civil disobedience. A perfectly insubstantial example: I don’t like the census. No grand moral principles are involved, I just don’t like the idea sending detailed information about myself to the government in such an overt way. It’s probably an illogical fear, but that’s not the point. The point is that I returned my census form with only nonsense information on it – things that were obviously ridiculous. I have certain anarchic tendencies, I admit; I think that disinformation and consternation in the face of bad government action is a worthy goal in and of itself, regardless of whether money is involved.