Military Conscription is Just

Thank you Lannan13 for your argument. My opponent makes two main contentions each with two parts I will respond to each in turn. Contention 1: Individual Rights 1) People as a Means, not an end Lannan presents the concept of a “Kingdom of Ends.” Such a world is likely not plausible nor is it probable. Individuals leave the State of Nature to join society. To do so comes at a price, or in other words a contract. Such a contract would include what is due from all parties involved. To claim that a society owes an individual the due of this kind of society with nothing in return would be unjust. Next my opponent claims that it “is important as it is part of the society that we should strive to as it maximizes human equality…” On the contrary, if Lannan is concerned with human equality, he would be in favor of a draft. Conscription has real impact that brings about equality. Consider what William James argues in his essay “The Moral Equivalent of War.” He states, “that so many men, by mere accidents of birth and opportunity, should have a life of nothing else but toil and pain and hardness and inferiority imposed upon them, should have no vacation, while others natively no more deserving never get any taste of this campaigning life at all, …. If now — and this is my idea — there were, instead of military conscription, a conscription of the whole youthful population to form for a certain number of years a part of the army enlisted against Nature, the injustice would tend to be evened out, and numerous other goods to the commonwealth would remain blind as the luxurious classes now are blind…”(1) Con then states that “These individuals are being forced against their will to perform a task…” I would point out that this is not so much being forced to do some arbitrary thing, but rather force to fulfill what is due of them due to the social contract. It is worth noting that even though this contention from pro is entitled “Individual rights” Lannan has not offered any justification whatsoever for individual rights. No mention of what they are (save one, life), where they come from, how they operate etc. He does however name the right to life. 2) Objectivism, the Right to Life. Again, he offers no justification of this right. He claims they (individuals drafted) would be in no danger otherwise. This is odd, as perhaps one of the most universal justification for governments and leaving the state of nature is security. In the contract known as the U.S. Constitution, security is mentioned in the preamble. Security is due to the society via the contract. Sometimes the only way this is possible is to have a draft. Surely con is not arguing that an individual is on balance safer in the state of nature than in society. Contention 2: Draft harms Soceity 1) Harms the military Lannan claims that armies of draftees are of less utility then volunteers. This misses the mark. Nothing about a draft conflicts with volunteers. In fact if there were enough volunteers, there would be no need for a draft. Arguing that conscription is just is not at all in conflict with having a volunteer force. A draft is a way for society and individuals to meet the criteria required of the social contract. 2) Harms the Family Unit My opponent claims drafts harm the family unit. On the whole, I think it is safe to say war harms the family rather than a draft specifically. As war is a reality, so too is occasion that a draft may be needed. Con uses an example of the draft during WW1. This example demonstrates that a draft can be lenient. Here is a case where there was a need, a draft was held and there was also a way to apply for exempt status. Clearly this demonstrates reason and justice. Again Lannan brings up equality, and again I state that if he really values equality, he would be in favor of a draft. (Refer to my previous remark under his first contention) Lannan claims that drafts push the poor into war and leave the rich. This may be true of some drafts, but not the idea itself. There is nothing inherent about a draft that would affect the poor more than the rich. In fact, I would go as far to say that more poor are pushed in to volunteer services then the draft because of their social economic situation. Thus this contention that drafts hurt the poor misses the mark and demonstrates an issue that happens perhaps because there are not as many drafts. Conclusion Neither contention from Lannan addresses my argument. Even if you accept individual rights, which he has provided no justification for, it does not negate the obligations or justice of a contract. The same can be said about the second contention. Due to the social contract that individuals have with society, Military Conscription is Just. Sources (1) http://www.laits.utexas.edu...