"If they didn't join the army, the government would start drafting people."

[andrew21594]

I've heard this two or three times in the last few months, when people discuss soldiers and morality. It goes something like this:

 

Person A: (some point about how evil the actions of soldiers are)

 
Person B: They were just doing their job.

 

Person A: That's no excuse; they chose to take that job, they chose to join the army.

 

Person B: If they didn't join the army, the government would start drafting people.

 

Two responses come to my mind.

 

1) If the government was so desperate for soldiers that they had to recruit by force, then (you'd expect them to also be running low on police) they wouldn't have the manpower to force people to be conscripted.

 

I'm not happy with this response, because I don't think they'd need a particularly large amount of manpower. I mean, in the UK there are about 240 non-police and non-army people to every one police or army person. They are hugely outnumbered, but the widespread belief in the righteousness/necessity of the state gives them the incredible amount of power required for people to submit to the government. No other gang facing those odds would manage to get anyone to do anything.

 

2) Justifying joining the army by saying that it's to prevent conscription does not justify the evil done after having joined. A soldier can avoid doing evil either by refusing orders or by turning their gun against the people giving the orders.

 

While the point is, in my opinion, valid and while it does include the words "joining the army", it avoids the question of whether the government would start drafting people. I think that a lot of people would reject the point due to emotional reaction, and they would still believe that drafting would come into play.

 

What do you think? What would you say to Person B?

 

"If they didn't join the army, the government would start drafting people."

[JanneW]

You make good points, andrew. I'll add this:

 

3) It's presented as a lose-lose scenario, and in these cases you should always ask: Who created the situation to begin with? Let's say a schoolyard bully yells at you: "Go and hit Terry over the head, or I'll strangle this kitten!"

 

Something bad is going to happen, whether you agree to do it or not. But who created that situation and is thus responsible for ANY outcome? Maybe the government will conscript, maybe they won't. No good person can be responsible for appeasing the bully.

 

Thus, the (purposefully incomplete) argument that was given serves as a justification for people who are eager to join the bullies. I'd go so far to say that as a result of their upbringing they're sadists looking to complete their training. Not that every soldier is neccessarily a sadist, but people who employ lose-lose arguments are highly suspect.

[Anuojat]

So its ok for me to rape someone, if there is a chance that if i dont rape then someone else will force me to rape anyways?

 

ITs ok to shoot people voluntarily if someone might force me to do in the future. Yeah...

[Wuzzums]

"As long as the people who kinda wanna go kill other people are going to go kill other people who kinda wanna go kill other people, you're killing all the right people and opening up all the best parking spaces." - Doug Stanhope on people that join the army voluntarily