Conscription

[David Floyd]

But in a way, they are VERY personal. I do believe that they apply to all.

You're changing your position again, it seems. Or if you aren't, then you certainly couldn't say that morality has nothing to do with the law.

You seem to think the conscription violates one... My view is that it doesn't.

And I'm asking you to tell me why - that is, justify your view of why absolute morals extend to murder, rape, racism, and slavery, but NOT to other violations of liberty. And don't try to get out of it with your theory that because you can leave, conscription isn't a violation of liberty. I've already argued at length that this isn't the case, and you have yet to give me a real answer.

[David Floyd]

Conscription isn't slavery based on your above definition. Conscription comes with a choice, while slavery doesn't. While slavery is indeed immoral, conscription isn't.

However, your definition of choice is obviously different from mine. If we use your definition, then there is a choice in slavery - if you refuse to toil in the fields, that's your choice, but there will be consequences.

But this isn't really "choice", is it, at least not in the sense of free choice.

[Ming]

Give it up David... you blew it...

You are have been totally incosistent in your arguments... so much so that you handed me victory on a silver platter with your slavery definition...

People that are conscripted have real choices... Slaves don't...

Conscription isn't slavery... you proved it for me.

Have a good evening. Better luck next time...

[David Floyd]

Ming, as I stated in my PM to you, we are using two different definitions of "choice". Don't try to claim victory by using your definition to apply to one, and my definition to apply to the other. That's preposterous.

As to inconsistencies in my arguments, I've been pointing out inconsistencies in yours since the beginning, so I really don't see where you get off accusing me off inconsistency.

[David Floyd]

Further, your argument that being able to leave the nation in order to avoid conscription isn't really a solution. For example, what if EVERY nation had conscription? Or what if you weren't allowed into the nations that did NOT have conscription?

For example, Jews tried to flee Germany for the US during Hitler's time. But whoops! The US didn't always let them in. So much for the "leaving" choice, right?

[Ming]

Any perceived inconsistancies in my arguments are only in your eyes. I've stayed perfectly consistent. You are the one that's been all over the place...

red tutu's... Hitler... at least I didn't try those tired old straw dog arguments. I just waited to use your own words and definition to beat you.

Again... sleep well...

[David Floyd]

Don't be an ass. You haven't had a valid response to my arguments from the get-go. You haven't justified any of your positions with anything other some vague social contract, which you also refuse to justify. And you refuse to address the point that when I say "choice" and when you say "choice", we obviously mean something different.

But if you don't want to address any of those issues, I can't make you :shrug:

[Ming]

Sore losser

[David Floyd]

Uh, you're the one who is unilaterly declaring victory, while ignoring a very valid point that I think anyone will be able to see - that is, the fact that we've been using the word "choice" differently for the past hour.

[Ben Kenobi]

David:

Re-read my argument for a more effective argument against conscription.

Under what basis are you denouncing conscription as immoral?
How is this basis universal in scope?

Ming keeps hammering you on these points because he knows that you cannot refute his argument with what you have, claiming your personal morality as absolute, applying to everyone.

[David Floyd]

By the way, I'm not asking for anyone to agree with my argument against conscription. I'd just like people to acknowledge that a)Ming is being childish, and b)he is missing the point that we define "choice" differently.

[David Floyd]

obiwan,

Under what basis are you denouncing conscription as immoral?
How is this basis universal in scope?

For you, I would use the Biblical argument of free will as a justification for God-given natural rights.

For a non-Christian, I'd use a different argument.

Ming keeps hammering you on these points because he knows that you cannot refute his argument with what you have,

But his argument is simply societal contract and nothing more, which I have repeated answered.

claiming your personal morality as absolute, applying to everyone.

He's doing the same thing, with less justification. He never asked me for a justification of my morality, but I asked repeatedly for a justification of his, and never got it.

[Ming]

Choice is Choice David...

I've ignored no point... or at least no point that is really relevant to this discussion.

You claim my support is "vague" while thinking your support is iron clad... yet you are the one that states exactly what slavery is... and conscription doesn't answer your own discription. Bummer...

So better luck next time...

[David Floyd]

Choice is Choice David...

Sure it is, but we disagree as to the definition, and are using the word differently. Acknowledge that, at least.

You claim my support is "vague" while thinking your support is iron clad...

No, there are numerous problems with my argument, I'm quite sure, just as there are numerous problems with yours.

yet you are the one that states exactly what slavery is... and conscription doesn't answer your own discription.

There is no inconsistency if you view free choice as I do.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by David Floyd
By the way, I'm not asking for anyone to agree with my argument against conscription. I'd just like people to acknowledge that a)Ming is being childish, and b)he is missing the point that we define "choice" differently.

i do acknowledge both A and B. But i DO agree with ming;s arguement

[Kramerman]

but 'choice' ming.... 'choice'

[David Floyd]

i do acknowledge both A and B. But i DO agree with ming;s arguement

That's perfectly alright. All I want is intellectual honesty.

And believe it or not, I actually see Ming's point, but my argument is that if conscription is wrong from a moral point of view, then I shouldn't have to leave the country, but instead have a reasonable expectation of moral treatment in my own country.

So it really hinges on whether or not conscription is immoral, not whether there is some societal contract, but Ming refused to debate that point, or to get into morality on any real level.

[Ben Kenobi]

He's doing the same thing, with less justification. He never asked me for a justification of my morality, but I asked repeatedly for a justification of his, and never got it.

Free will sounds intriguing. How does this differ from my argument? I think I have a pretty strong case with the right to life outweighing my responsibility to the state.

I think where we differ is that I realise that actions have consequences, in that you can avoid conscription, you cannot do so without some suffering, due to the nature of the state.

I'm not looking for arguments one deploys against one opponent, I'm looking for why you believe conscription is immoral, until you explain your basis on something other than personal morality, you are stuck. That's why Ming's laughing, because you can't beat him, you can only draw.

[David Floyd]

I think I have a pretty strong case with the right to life outweighing my responsibility to the state.

This is a view that I would never dispute, other than whether or not a real responsibility to the state, rather than to other individuals, actually exists.

I think where we differ is that I realise that actions have consequences, in that you can avoid conscription, you cannot do so without some suffering, due to the nature of the state.

You are making a realistic argument, saying that moral actions may have consequences, while I am making an idealistic argument, saying that moral actions should not have consequences.

I'm not looking for arguments one deploys against one opponent, I'm looking for why you believe conscription is immoral, until you explain your basis on something other than personal morality, you are stuck.

Conscription is immoral because of natural rights, which I can justify either using Christianity, or not using it. Take your pick.

[David Floyd]

For the sake of argument, I will say that choice simply means the ability to pick any option available, regardless of what the consequences may be (that is, distinctions between free choice, forced choice, whatever you want to call it, don't exist). In that vein, I'll be happy to admit that conscripts have choices other than service, if Ming will also admit that slaves have choices other than labor.

[Ben Kenobi]

Take your pick.

I believe that I already expressed interest in your Free Will argument.

Ramble on.

[David Floyd]

OK.

Free will basically means that one has the ability to do whatever one wants - the ability to make choices, etc. The choice to sin, the choice to do good deeds, whatever.

Obviously, this applies only to oneself. If everyone has free will, then each person's free will must only apply to oneself.

Now, this basically means that because man has free will, man also has the power to shape his own life - that is, because God granted that power to man, and because God created everything, it can be said that God actually granted man the right to shape his own life. While God has a plan, man has a choice of whether or not to adhere to that plan - God doesn't force anyone to do anything.

So, essentially, man has a God-given dominion over himself. As I already pointed out, free will is granted to ALL men, and if each men have dominion over themselves, then they don't have dominion over anyone else.

This basically says that what man does with his own life is no one's business but his own (and certainly the Creator's). Since no other man has dominion over me, for example, it can be said that I have the right to life and liberty.

Now, while exercising my right to life and liberty, I might engage in resource collection, and from there, to labor and production. This labor and production become logical extensions of my rights to life and liberty - if man has no dominion over other man, then why should man have dominion over the labor of other men?

*************

I'll go ahead and cut it off here. I've never actually thought this justification out all the way through, as I'm used to using a non-Christian justification for my beliefs, so feel free to challenge whatever aspect you would like. I'll do my best to answer, and flesh it out more as becomes appropriate.

[David Floyd]

The big issue now is justifying why using your free will to infringe on a right of another is wrong. To that, I'd say that if God his perfect, his creation is also perfect, and if God is moral, his plan/creation must also be moral.

Since God planned for free will, then free will must be moral, and since your free will can only apply to yourself, due to the fact that everyone else has free will, too, then it must be wrong to go against God's creation.

Therefore, since we derive natural rights from individual free will, then we can say that violating someone's natural rights is wrong, because doing so is the same as violating someone's free will.

[David Floyd]

Whoa-huh? I just realized that my original response that Ming declared contradictory was correct no matter whose definitions you use.

I said:

That's nice, but obviously the people who were enslaved wouldn't have that choice, would they? The very definition of slavery does not include the element of choosing to leave rather than be a slave. I rather suspect that if it did, slavery would have died out much, much earlier.

Furthermore, what you would do in the case of OTHER people being enslaved is irrelevant, as we are discussing your options should something happen to YOU.

Slaves don't have the choice to leave, once they are enslaved, that much is clear. But to avoid slavery, one can always choose to leave before being enslaved.

However, the same holds true for conscription. Once conscripted, you can't leave the country. But to avoid being conscripted, you CAN leave the country (at least in the US, maybe not the USSR, of course).

So either way you slice it, my response was in no way contradictory or wrong. Conscripts and slaves both have certain choices (if you refuse to make distinctions between types of choices), but once conscripted/enslaved (which I would argue are about the same), they do NOT have the choice to leave. But, both can avoid the situation be leaving beforehand.

So I fail to see the problem. Ming made a mountain out of a moehill, and I didn't even stop to think about it. That's my bad, and I should have caught that right away.

So what's up NOW, Ming?

[Dis]

everyone says that they can't see conscription as necessary.

But it wouldn't take much for us to go back to that.

North Korea. We are drawing ever closer to war with them. And right now, with our troops tied up in Iraq, we lack the manpower to deal with North Korea. The reserves will not be enough.

A draft may be necessary. What do you all think about that?

[Kramerman]

i dont thihk we will deal with NK till we A) get UN to take burden of Iraq or B) take care of Iraq.... meaning its gonn be awhile. anyother move would be REALLY unwise, especially politically for bush

[David Floyd]

A draft may be necessary. What do you all think about that?

I think that "necessary" and "desirable to some people" are not the same thing

In any case, I'd renounce citizenship to avoid the draft, if I couldn't win in court.

[Ben Kenobi]

While God has a plan, man has a choice of whether or not to adhere to that plan - God doesn't force anyone to do anything.

Choices have consequences, in that rejecting God's plan, will lead down to another path, not entirely of your choosing. You have the choice to disobey God, but this does not mean that you have the freedom to do what you want afterwards. In rejecting God, you close many doors.

In this, God has not restricted Free Will, since people have the choice whether to follow God or not. However, the person will not get the power to choose all the consequences of their decision.

This basically says that what man does with his own life is no one's business but his own (and certainly the Creator's).

No, everything fits into God's plan, whether willingly, by following God, or unwillingingly by rejecting God.

if each men have dominion over themselves, then they don't have dominion over anyone else.

Not quite right. What about family relationships? We do not choose our fathers, nor does a father choose his son, yet each has responsibilities to the other. Therefore, there are certain dominions that people have over each other, that one does not get to choose. However, no dominion exists without responsibilities. If one is given the respect and power over a child's life, one also has the responsibility to care for the child.

for example, it can be said that I have the right to life and liberty.

That's a difference. How can one have a right to life, if one grants the right themselves? Why should anyone's right to life take precedence over another's right to liberty?

One cannot make oneself alive, that is a gift from God. Therefore, it can be said that God grants the right to life, since life is a gift from God. The same with liberty. God has given man the capacity to make his own mistakes and to even reject God, not because of our own ability, but because he desires beings with free will.

This is the big difference, in that paradoxically, our freedom rests on God, because he can still take away our free will if he so desires. Therefore, any Natural rights have to come from God.

then we can say that violating someone's natural rights is wrong, because doing so is the same as violating someone's free will.

No, because violating someone's natural rights you are by extension sinning against God, because you are robbing someone of the gifts God has given them.

I'm sorry to have to leave, but I have work tomorrow morning.

Good night David, and I will reply when I can.

[David Floyd]

Choices have consequences, in that rejecting God's plan, will lead down to another path, not entirely of your choosing. You have the choice to disobey God, but this does not mean that you have the freedom to do what you want afterwards. In rejecting God, you close many doors.

I think the argument is that your path is of your choosing, if you knowingly reject God's plan.

In this, God has not restricted Free Will, since people have the choice whether to follow God or not. However, the person will not get the power to choose all the consequences of their decision.

When have I ever claimed that we get to choose the consequences of our decisions?

No, everything fits into God's plan, whether willingly, by following God, or unwillingingly by rejecting God.

I'm not sure how this relates to the part of my post you quoted. In any case, there is considerable debate here among Biblical scholars, but logically speaking, if everything fits into God's plan, then it is impossible to reject God's plan.

Not quite right. What about family relationships? We do not choose our fathers, nor does a father choose his son, yet each has responsibilities to the other.

Sure, but the father's responsibility to care for the child ends once the child can care for himself, right? It is obvious, too, that pro-creation is natural, and certainly within God's plan. However, the father is also not forced to procreate, so he has this responsibility only if he wants it - it's not automatic or required.

That's a difference. How can one have a right to life, if one grants the right themselves? Why should anyone's right to life take precedence over another's right to liberty?

The rights to life and liberty aren't contradictory.

One cannot make oneself alive, that is a gift from God. Therefore, it can be said that God grants the right to life, since life is a gift from God. The same with liberty. God has given man the capacity to make his own mistakes and to even reject God, not because of our own ability, but because he desires beings with free will.

Certainly.

This is the big difference, in that paradoxically, our freedom rests on God, because he can still take away our free will if he so desires. Therefore, any Natural rights have to come from God.

Absolutely correct. But the point here is also that God granted our freedom, NOT the government, therefore the government has no right to take it away. Further, I acknowledged that God has a stake in our freedom when I posted above that "This basically says that what man does with his own life is no one's business but his own (and certainly the Creator's)."

No, because violating someone's natural rights you are by extension sinning against God, because you are robbing someone of the gifts God has given them.

Is this different from what I said?

I'm sorry to have to leave, but I have work tomorrow morning.

Good night David, and I will reply when I can.

Sure.

******************

Note: I don't want to hear any criticisms or smart ass comments about proving God. That isn't the point. obiwan and I are having a discussion, in which a belief in God is a given and not something either of us feel the need to prove. If I were debating with YOU (ex., Sava) I would make an entirely different argument.

And I'm still up for debating the original topic, although this is an extension of that topic. If anyone wants to pick up where Ming left off, that's fine, as long as you can acknowledge the points I made in response to Ming's declaration of victory

[Ben Kenobi]

if everything fits into God's plan, then it is impossible to reject God's plan.

Just one more comment before I have to sleep.

Yes, considerable differences indeed among theologians on this precise question.

This is therefore the perfect excuse to do some research myself.

If the trolls start to spam the thread we can always take this to PM.