As such a government, in conscripting, is taking away a meaningful choice over what outcomes a person wants to contribute toward and imposing a very severe burden in doing so. I don't think there's any precedent for that. — Isaac
I guess the logic is that by living in a country, you enjoy all the benefits provided by it, and that if the country's existence is threatened, you owe it to the country as your duty to fight and possibly die in order to preserve it. You're a selfish cowardly traitor if you don't. — _db
There is a bit of an equivocation there though, the expanded conscription in that instance is a response to invasion, and so the trade off ought turn on the disruptive consequences of unresisted or successful invasion rather than the steady state of an established government's qualify of life statistics. — fdrake
Can you think of a case where conscription wouldn't be unjust? — fdrake
How much of that is a romantic attachment to a culture being rationalised remains to be seen, in each case (like _db and their Graeber quote said — fdrake
I repeat: — Olivier5
the OHCHR warned that their data is not reliable statistic but a count a minima. — Olivier5
The death toll would need to be 30 times higher to refute the argument.... — Isaac
you'll probably suffer more harm from capitalists and mean neighbors in peace time than you'd do in a war from an invading force. — baker
So why count only direct bombing casualties vastly undercounted on one hand, and all possible estimated indirect "excess deaths" on the other? If in both cases we are talking of 'harm', it ought to be compared through similar harm metrics. — Olivier5
So, the last time your own country faced a possible threat of invasion, that time conscription was OK. :roll:One would be hard pushed to make a reasonable argument that life under the Nazis, for example, would be no less equitable than life under Churchill/Chamberlain. They had unequivocally unjust policies. So I think conscription might be justified to fight something like that. — Isaac
BERLIN, July 19, 1940 (UP) -- Adolf Hitler today addressed an "appeal to reason" to Great Britain to avert "destruction of a great world empire," but he made it clear that rejection would mean an attack with all of the forces at the command of the Axis powers.
"In this hour and before this body," the Nazi Fuehrer told the German Reichstag in the presence of Italian Foreign Minister Count Galeazzo Ciano, "I feel myself obliged to make one more appeal to reason to England."
Wouldn't then making peace with Germany have been then reasonable, Isaac? — ssu
I'm just asking how this goes with your line of thinking on this thread. — ssu
So, the last time your own country faced a possible threat of invasion, that time conscription was OK. :roll: — ssu
Seems that Isaac see's a lot of difference. — ssu
Let him tell us what those differences are. — Olivier5
Isaac is going to tell us how criminal such a decision was, any moment now. — Olivier5
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.