7 ms·

> In regards to conscription in the US, one could always refuse and go to jail. What about going to jail against one's will? Can you refuse to do that? That

by jnbiche 10y ago

> In regards to conscription in the US, one could always refuse and go to jail. What about going to jail against one's will? Can you refuse to do that? That doesn't seem so debatable.

pmoriarty 10y ago
Even then you can refuse to cooperate. You might be shot or might be bodily dragged to jail, but you still have a choice to cooperate or not, to resist or not.
- marvin 10y ago
  So you're saying that if you refuse to go to war, are threatened with being killed and then go to war, you are in fact going to war voluntarily? That sounds like a rather philosophical interpretation of "of your own free will".
  - pmoriarty 10y ago
    I'm saying that I recognize that there is coercion, but also that you have a choice. Those that are ordered to do something and do it choose to do so. But they could have chosen otherwise and faced the consequences. In fact, many in the past have done just that. It's disingenuous to say they didn't have a choice or they did it against their will, for if they really willed otherwise, they could have done otherwise (as demonstrated in the previous paragraph). They may have preferred to do something else, but not enough to actually do anything about it. If you really and truly object to going to war or killing, then don't. You always have that choice. Don't pretend you don't.
    - wonder_er 10y ago
      In "On Killing" [0], the author argued that WWI troops consistently aimed over the heads of their enemies, in order to avoid ever actually killing someone. This tendency obviously ran counter to the goals of the generals, so after WWII the military devised ways to make the soldiers comfortable with aiming at people. That's just to say - even among active-duty soldiers, there is a spectrum of those willing to kill or not. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-Society/dp/0316040932 https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-S...
    - michaelt 10y ago
      It's disingenuous to say they didn't have a choice or they did it against their will If a school bully someone tells me "give me your lunch money or I'll give you a black eye" and I give them my lunch money, would you say I've done so against my will? I would say I had done so against my will - because although I had a choice between two bad options, I was forced to submit to a choice that was structured to deny me the option to do neither.

by jnbiche 10y ago

> In regards to conscription in the US, one could always refuse and go to jail. What about going to jail against one's will? Can you refuse to do that? That doesn't seem so debatable.

pmoriarty 10y ago

Even then you can refuse to cooperate. You might be shot or might be bodily dragged to jail, but you still have a choice to cooperate or not, to resist or not.

marvin 10y ago
So you're saying that if you refuse to go to war, are threatened with being killed and then go to war, you are in fact going to war voluntarily? That sounds like a rather philosophical interpretation of "of your own free will".
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  I'm saying that I recognize that there is coercion, but also that you have a choice. Those that are ordered to do something and do it choose to do so. But they could have chosen otherwise and faced the consequences. In fact, many in the past have done just that. It's disingenuous to say they didn't have a choice or they did it against their will, for if they really willed otherwise, they could have done otherwise (as demonstrated in the previous paragraph). They may have preferred to do something else, but not enough to actually do anything about it. If you really and truly object to going to war or killing, then don't. You always have that choice. Don't pretend you don't.
  - wonder_er 10y ago
    In "On Killing" [0], the author argued that WWI troops consistently aimed over the heads of their enemies, in order to avoid ever actually killing someone. This tendency obviously ran counter to the goals of the generals, so after WWII the military devised ways to make the soldiers comfortable with aiming at people. That's just to say - even among active-duty soldiers, there is a spectrum of those willing to kill or not. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-Society/dp/0316040932 https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-S...
  - michaelt 10y ago
    It's disingenuous to say they didn't have a choice or they did it against their will If a school bully someone tells me "give me your lunch money or I'll give you a black eye" and I give them my lunch money, would you say I've done so against my will? I would say I had done so against my will - because although I had a choice between two bad options, I was forced to submit to a choice that was structured to deny me the option to do neither.