• Isaac
    8k
    Stop inventing straw men.Olivier5

    Your entire response was...

    You've heard about the concept of democracy, and how it functions? The majority usually trumps the minority.Olivier5

    There's nothing to straw man there. You've literally said "The majority usually trumps the minority" that's a word-for-word quote.

    If your answer to the question "what justifies imposing a massive risk of harm on a minority who don't see the risk as worth it" is "the majority usually trumps the minority". How is it a straw man to suggest your argument is about majority rule? You literally gave it (and nothing else) as a counter argument. It's not like I picked that part of your argument out of context. You said nothing else but that majorities trump minorities.
  • Olivier5
    5.4k
    You've literally said "The majority usually trumps the minority" that's a word-for-word quote.Isaac

    Then stick to that. Human rights and constitutions are different issues which I did not evoke and which are irrelevant.
  • Isaac
    8k
    Then stick to that. Human rights and constitutions are different issues which I did not evoke and which are irrelevant.Olivier5

    If you suggest that whatever the majority think is right gets to override the minority, then you, by necessity, deny the authority of something like human rights. If a majority decide that one race ought have fewer rights than another, that is wrong. It is contrary to Article 1 of the UDHR. According the the maxim that you've espoused here, the majority would be right to enforce their preference.

    Alternatively, you agree that there are rights and there is justice which supersedes simple majority rule. In which case your argument that a majority of citizens in Ukraine want to fight for their sovereignty is insufficient to demonstrate that it is either right or just that they get to impose that will on those who disagree.
  • Olivier5
    5.4k
    If a majority decide that one race ought have fewer rights than another, that is wrongIsaac

    Irrelevant to the issue of conscription.

    If the majority is fine with conscription, what human right is being trampled, pray tell? Are there human rights to selfishness and cowardice? I am not aware of them.

    Conscription was first instituted by French revolutionaries, precisely to defend the young republic and the newly minted Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen (1789) against the Austrian empire. As it turned out, the French conscript army managed to push back the Austrian professional army, e.g. at Valmy (1792).

    So without conscription, there might be no such thing as human rights.

    Likewise, Ukraine might not enjoy its human rights for long if the Ukrainians fail to defend them against the attacks of the Russian empire.
  • Agent Smith
    6.2k
    the majority is fine with conscriptionOlivier5

    That seems to be a contradictio in terminis. Nobody's fine with forced enlisment into the armed forces. Conscription, if it happens, implies the country's on the verge of defeat - such deeds occur on smaller scales too (fractals) and is one of the hallmarks of desperation (use your imagination).
  • Olivier5
    5.4k
    Nobody's fine with forced enlisment into the armed forces.Agent Smith

    And why not?
  • Agent Smith
    6.2k
    And why not?Olivier5

    That is just too obvious to state, oui monsieur?
  • Olivier5
    5.4k
    Or too weak a logic to state, peut être.
  • Agent Smith
    6.2k
    Or too weak a logic to state, peut êtreOlivier5

    That is a possibility I can't rule out, monsieur. Apologies.
  • Isaac
    8k
    If the majority is fine with conscription, what human right is being trampled, pray tell?Olivier5


    Article 3

    Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

    Article 2

    Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion

    Article 4

    No one shall be held in slavery or servitude

    Article 5

    No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

    Article 13

    Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
    Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.




    So without conscription, there might be no such thing as human rights.Olivier5

    Historicist bullshit. You've no alternative non-conscription history with which to compare so there's no argument there. You might as well say "without Nazism there might not be any human rights, since that's the way history played out".

    Ukraine might not enjoy its human rights for long if the Ukrainians fail to defend them against the attacks of the Russian empire.Olivier5

    What human rights? Look at Ukraine. Actual real world Ukraine. Not the adolescent comic book version you get from your TV. Actual Ukraine had virtually the same record on human rights as Russia. Pretending they're some bastion of freedom is just bullshit, not an argument worth taking seriously.
  • Olivier5
    5.4k
    Historicist bullshit.Isaac

    It is a historical fact.

    Actual Ukraine had virtually the same record on human rights as Russia.Isaac

    Really? Have you looked at some actual data?
  • Isaac
    8k
    Historicist bullshit. — Isaac


    It is a historical fact.
    Olivier5

    It isn't.

    Really? Have you looked at some actual data?Olivier5

    Yes.
  • Isaac
    8k
    I doubt it.Olivier5

    Of course you doubt it. Your Facebook feed tells you all Ukrainians are superheroes and anyone denying that is a Russian propagandist. Hang the facts.
  • Olivier5
    5.4k
    What facts are you talking about?
  • Agent Smith
    6.2k
    This :point: and this :point: is/are (an) arrrow(s)

    Conscript .

    Sic vita est, sic vita est.
  • Isaac
    8k
    What facts are you talking about?Olivier5

    https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-index-by-country

    https://ourworldindata.org/human-rights (several different measures available)

    https://www.humanium.org/en/rcri-world-ranking-by-countries/ (children's rights is a particular interest of mine, so this one's specific)

    https://uhri.ohchr.org/en/countries (you have to select Ukraine and Russia, they have just over 1000 active recommendations each)


    So what data are you working from? We can compare sources perhaps.

    Edit - I realise a lot of that data is from reputable sources like the UN. Not very balanced of me, so, for balance here's some contrary data from an alternative source you'll be more familiar with.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17775238/ukrainian-heroes-fight-to-death-with-russian-invaders-kyiv/
  • Olivier5
    5.4k
    These are links, not facts.
  • Isaac
    8k
    These are links, not facts.Olivier5

    Pathetic.

    In other news you'll be delighted to hear that in addition to slaves, Zelensky is bolstering his army with convicted torturers and rapists...

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenksy has freed from prison fascist militants convicted of some of the most heinous crimes the country has seen since World War II.

    According to a July 11 report in Ukrainian media, Ruslan Onishenko, commander of the now-disbanded Tornado Battalion, was freed as part of President Zelensky’s scheme to release prisoners with combat experience. Along with an unwavering commitment to fascism, Onishenko is known as a psychopathic sadist who was involved in sexually assaulting children, brutally torturing prisoners, and murder.

    Onishenko’s release follows a February 27 order by Zelensky to free other convicted former Tornado members like Danil “Mujahed” Lyashuk, a fanatic from Belarus who has openly emulated ISIS and boasted of torturing captives for sheer enjoyment.
    https://thegrayzone.com/2022/07/30/zelensky-militants-convicted-child-rape-torture-military/

    But it's alright boys and girls these are healthsome, heroic, Ukrainian torturers and rapists, not at all like the evil nasty torturers and rapists in the Russian army.
  • Olivier5
    5.4k
    What's pathetic is your confusion. You got no leg to stand on, but you are too stupid to realize it.
  • ssu
    6k
    Nobody's fine with forced enlisment into the armed forces.Agent Smith
    I'm fine with conscription, and so is the majority of Finns also. Of course, there is the option of siviilipalvelus, a "civil service" where you basically go work in a hospital or fire brigade etc. for 11 months. Hence it's not forced enlistment to the military, even if by the Finnish constitution every Finn has to participate in national defense with the abilities they have. And if you are a male (and healthy, capable to serve) and opt not to serve either, you can spend your time (a bit over five months) in prison. A little bit less than one fifth get a medical discharge from the army.

    Conscription, if it happens, implies the country's on the verge of defeat -Agent Smith
    Russia has 145 million people and Finland just over 5 million. And history has told us you can survive even from the verge of a catastrophic defeat and yet fight it on to a cease fire.
  • Agent Smith
    6.2k
    Good points! Sometimes, people would do things willingly if only...
  • ssu
    6k
    I think that conscription works if there is among the majority of citizens a collective understanding that universal military service is needed and that basically the threat comes from outside the state/society. Hence in Finland, Israel or even in Switzerland conscription works. The Swiss even had a referendum on having an armed forces or disbanding them, but the Swiss voted to continue having the militia army (even if now surrounded by EU states nearly all members of NATO).

    Where conscription usually doesn't work is where the military is mainly for internal security. Trained reservists are then more of a liability and usually you see that in these countries the armed forces are divided for political purposes. For example in Russia and Saudi-Arabia both there is a large National Guard force to counterbalance the role of the army. In these countries a military coup is a genuine possibility.

    (in 1993 Yeltsin had a constitutional crisis and ordered the Parliament to be fired on by tanks, hence there is this domestic political role for the army in Russia. Russia has tried to turn the armed forces into an all volunteer force, but hasn't been able to do this.)
    Tanks_before_Russian_White_house.jpg

    (and btw, not every Finn likes universal conscription - which obviously is the case in a democracy.)
    pic_5_1074331953_k1073955327_1200.jpg
  • Agent Smith
    6.2k
    Well, conscription is there for a (very good) reason obviously. It's worked before; why shouldn't it now or in the future?
  • Isaac
    8k


    So, having established in what circumstances conscription works. In what circumstances is it just?
  • _db
    3.5k
    You might as well say "without Nazism there might not be any human rights, since that's the way history played out".Isaac

    Off-topic, but nauseatingly enough, this is exactly what Yuval Noah Harari argues in Sapiens: apparently, racism and eugenics were discredited because the Nazis lost the war. Shit book :vomit:
  • _db
    3.5k
    I think that conscription works if there is among the majority of citizens a collective understanding that universal military service is needed and that basically the threat comes from outside the state/society.ssu

    What threat?
  • Isaac
    8k
    this is exactly what Yuval Noah Harari argues in Sapiens: apparently, racism and eugenics were discredited because the Nazis lost the war. Shit book_db

    Yeah, the "this is the way it played out once so that's how it must be" argument is pretty poor.

    If I tried to produce a paper supporting a theory based on a sample of one I'd be rightly ridiculed, yet this is what historicism does all the time. We've had one go at this.
  • Olivier5
    5.4k
    Indeed we have only one history, and in it the recourse to general conscription helped saved the French revolution and its human rights from annihilation.

    That carries a lesson relevant to this thread: a self-governing people can muster, through conscription, a stronger military force than a dictatorship can, everything else being equal. Whereas a dictator would be liable to be toppled by an army of conscripts, a democracy would be less prone to that.
  • Isaac
    8k
    That carries a lesson relevant to this thread: a self-governing people can muster, through conscription, a stronger military force than a dictatorship can, everything else being equal. Whereas a dictator would be liable to be toppled by an army of conscripts, a democracy would be less prone to that.Olivier5

    Firstly, you've completely missed (or more likely ignored) the argument against historicism. That it happened once is not sufficient evidence to support a theory. Never was, never will be.

    Secondly, it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the thread which is about the justification of conscription, not whether (and where) it works.

    But then you know that, it why you're so desperate to swamp the thread with anything but a discussion about justice.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.