4 ms·
If we take this seriously, doesn't it come down to something close to "might makes right"? In other words, if a country can't defend itself it doesn't deserve t
by slibhb 5y ago
If we take this seriously, doesn't it come down to something close to "might makes right"? In other words, if a country can't defend itself it doesn't deserve to exist.
- dsr_ 5y agoIf a country isn't supported by its own people of their free will, it doesn't deserve to exist. Whether or not some external force attacks it or not is orthogonal to that.
- slibhb 5y agoThere's a difference between "support" and "willing to fight and die". I take your argument seriously. To a large extent it's simply a fact that a country populated by people willing to die on its behalf will outlast a country whose citizens lack that quality. My point is that that's not a moral observation. It has nothing to do with "deserve". We can imagine a pacifistic country focused on art and technology that is conquered by a country of brutal philistine knuckle-draggers focused on war. Does the latter country "deserve" to conquer the former?
- dsr_ 5y agoNot at all. But my point is that a draft is not justifiable by ethics, not that countries are of unequal economic and military might.
- caffeine 5y agoI wouldn’t say “might makes right”, because morally the mighty can be wrong. But “might makes reality” is quite accurate - if a country cannot defend itself it will indeed cease to exist.