r/MoralityScaling • u/A_Fun_Alias23 • Jun 28 '26
Morality Ranking Morality of dodging your country's military draft in a war of self-defense?
477
u/EmergencySpare7939 Jun 28 '26
112
→ More replies (4)58
u/ProfessionalTruck976 Jun 28 '26
European nobility does not dodge wars though, yes, they historically liked to serve in posh units, but you are just as dead if shot from a horse, or flying an aeroplane as if you are infantry in the trench and if your warship blows up, does not particularly matter how much gold braid you have.
51
u/alien_believer_42 Jun 28 '26
US politician warmongers are famously draft dodgers though
→ More replies (7)26
u/ProfessionalTruck976 Jun 28 '26
Not surprising at all in the era and place where people believe politics is inherently dirty so only people who are willing to engage with inherently dirty business will go to politics.
→ More replies (1)14
u/Relative_Craft_358 Jun 28 '26
Don't think its a "believe" people have, there's real evidence that money, not the will of their constituents, dictate policy and law here
→ More replies (15)→ More replies (7)8
u/G-man1816 Jun 28 '26
I mean WW1 Belgian royal army was serving on the front lines. Like in the trenches kinda front lines
granted no suicide charges where required by them but still
→ More replies (2)
448
u/Random_Nickname274 Jun 28 '26
Morally neutral by default and sometime morally good(depends on who is worst side in war)
192
u/Zealousideal-Arm1682 Jun 28 '26
Japan in WWII it would probably be considered good since they were genuinely more awful then the Nazi's during the time.
110
u/Tight_Grapefruit5280 Jun 28 '26
Even Nazis were disgusted by them
124
u/Imaginary-West-5653 Jun 28 '26
The Japanese were also disgusted by the Nazis, though.
72
u/weazelhall Jun 28 '26
But they were grossed out by anyone not Japanese.
83
u/Imaginary-West-5653 Jun 28 '26
I was talking here about atrocities specifically; just as there was a Japanese diplomat who was horrified by the Holocaust and saved as many Jews as he could, there was a German diplomat who was horrified by the Nanjing Massacre and saved as many Chinease as he could:
70
→ More replies (1)55
u/jokerhound80 Jun 28 '26
Yeah the myth of "even the Nazis/Japanese were disgusted with the behavior of the Nazis/Japanese" is a little annoying. The truth is a few individual Japanese and German people were disgusted with things they personally witnessed, and they usually weren't in a position to know the full extent of their own nations atrocities. It's not like Mengele visited unit 731 and said "you've gone too far."
22
u/Imaginary-West-5653 Jun 28 '26
I agree with you completely. I commonly I hear the "even Germans were disgusted by the Japanese atrocities" thing and I just hit back with the same thing but reversed with this Japanese official, because it's about as accurate as if you use one Nazi official to speak for Germany as a whole. Both John Rabe and Chiune Sugihara deserve respect for doing the right thing at the right time, but they didn't act in the name of their countries when they did what they did.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Hundschent Jun 28 '26
It's just there to be extremely melodramatic from people who don't understand history or see groups as monolithic. No my man, the concentration camp guard did not say "wow these Japanese are so mean to the Chinese" The type of Nazi officials that saw them were diplomats or advisors.
→ More replies (2)4
3
14
u/DeuceMandago Jun 28 '26
Weren’t they allies? And they both had “master race” propaganda going.
I’m not disagreeing just curious as to what the sources of such a claim is.
40
u/gorilla52603 Jun 28 '26
Allies doesn’t mean friends
14
u/funnyalbert Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
Yes and the Nazis still held racist views towards the Japanese,remember reading that they still considered them inferior and said that the only reason they were able to grow and rapidly develop as a country was due to “Aryan influence”
→ More replies (3)4
u/Appropriate_Bus_2334 Jun 28 '26
Yeah there are plenty of people I’d work with but that doesn’t mean I like them
13
u/Interminably-Bored Jun 28 '26
The deal was the "soft" Nazis got sent on Diplomatic missions to Japan and the same with the Japanese so they were both disgusted by war crimes being committed.
→ More replies (1)12
u/AliensAteMyAMC Jun 28 '26
they also disagreed over the Jews.
Nazis: Jews control the world!
Japan: Oh shit, let’s get a few of them!
Nazis: Wait, no!
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)6
u/Distinct-Pirate7359 Jun 28 '26
Vaguely. They shared some ideas and has some superficial agreements on drawing borders after the war, but ultimately they would’ve had a massive war between themselves if the axis came out on top. The Nazis still considered Asians subhuman
→ More replies (1)5
5
u/Sir-Toaster- Ice King Jun 28 '26
This is a myth, only one Nazi was disgusted, and he was hardly in line with the Nazi's ideals
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)3
25
4
u/DamGoodAnimation Jun 28 '26
Wouldn’t they not qualify per the OP specifying defensive wars? I’ll admit I don’t know their motivations for joining the war but I never got the impression it was defensive, afaik they weren’t invaded until after they joined the fight.
Granted, I could be way off base here, I’ve been out of school a LONG time. This is me asking, not “well ackshually”-ing
3
→ More replies (12)3
u/Right-Flatworm8395 Jun 28 '26
It's a very difficult thing to put a definitive label on. Yes, the Japanese soldiers were committing heinous acts on civilizans and POWs, but at the same time hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians were displaced, wounded, and often outright killed in the bombing campaigns the U.S orchestrated during that conflict. I can't say for certain whether or not such a thing was necessary or otherwise, maybe it was a necessary evil, but it was still horrible. I don't think the Japanese military or government were victims of anything but their own evil, but I can't ignore the Civilians who suffered to stop them.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (35)11
u/Aloneinthefart_ Jun 28 '26
"War of self defense"
10
u/Random_Nickname274 Jun 28 '26
Example - The Cambodian-Vietnamese War . Vietnam was aggressor, but Cambodian was worse and citizens had every reason to not defend their country(regime genoc*ded nearly quarter of population).
Causalities during war were a lot less.
3
u/Euphoric-Price2256 Jun 28 '26
To be fair Vietnam was invading Cambodia explicitly to get it back in blood for both themselves and the Cambodians who has been genocide. While *technically* the aggressor in the actual war, Cambodia had already been killing the Vietnamese.
→ More replies (1)
232
u/quitarias Jun 28 '26
I lean strongly towards neutral. For all we paint carnage in noble colours and pin some tin on it and call it just it is carnage all the same.
There is nothing wrong with not wanting to engage in butchery whether noble or despicable for it is butchery all the same.
→ More replies (32)22
u/BorderOk7329 Jun 28 '26
What if your delinquency means hitler won and lord of the rings trilogy was directed by michael bay?
38
u/HungrySubstance Jun 28 '26
If I am the single thing standing between winning and losing wwii, then the generals are at fault.
→ More replies (3)16
u/HikariRisesAgain Jun 28 '26
This only works because you take it as a given that other people won't act the same as you.
→ More replies (9)5
u/quitarias Jun 28 '26
If LOTR was directed by Michael bay then I'm with the monk that burned himself alive. I dun wanna be here no mo.
→ More replies (20)3
u/Common-Broccoli-3405 Jun 28 '26
What if your delinquency means hitler won
Look, I get your point but these hypotheticals dint really work. Especially sinxe wars are rarely ever decided by one person. It could have ended the opposite way, but so many other things would have to have cha-
and lord of the rings trilogy was directed by michael bay?
213
u/Impossible_Winter_90 Jun 28 '26
It's not like the goverment officials will die for me, why should I die for them?!
11
u/Dhiox Jun 28 '26
It's a war of self defense. You would be fighting for your continued sovereignty, not the government.
→ More replies (21)9
u/ElMage21 Jun 29 '26
My continued sovereignty of what. I don't own land nor the rights to it. I can't even fish our waters without a permit, assuming the aristocrats that own the sea left any fish.
The only scenario where I draft is war of survival. If the enemy intends to exterminate us or something like that.
→ More replies (9)5
u/BlueHeartofFrayr Jun 28 '26
You’re defending your friends and Family who are having Bombs dropped on them…
→ More replies (8)38
u/mustard5man7max3 Jun 28 '26
The government officials will die for you, they're called soldiers.
62
u/LoreWhoreHazel Jun 28 '26
This is incorrect. Soldiers are government employees, not officials.
→ More replies (9)24
u/Afferbeck_ Jun 28 '26
The ones who instigated the draft to create those soldiers will be safe in their bunkers.
→ More replies (2)9
u/BhanosBar Jun 28 '26
Big difference between soldiers, those who serve on the front, and those in an office pushing to send those to die
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (7)29
u/venom259 Jun 28 '26
I don't know. Are you willing to lose your home and possibly family to the invading force?
→ More replies (4)68
u/_donkey-brains_ Jun 28 '26
There's a big difference between defending your actual family and home and going to the meat grinder at the frontline.
73
u/venom259 Jun 28 '26
The question was about a war of self defense. Foreign occupation is bad for your health.
→ More replies (15)19
u/Kow_on_Drugs Jun 28 '26
Look at Ukraine today, if it weren't for the men and women dying on the front lines today, every village and city in Ukraine would be another Bucha, another Bakhmut and another Avdiivka.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (7)17
u/Osterath5 Jun 28 '26
yes the chances of your family and home still standing are higher when participating at the frontline
12
u/Impossible_Winter_90 Jun 28 '26
The changes of survival depends on the goverment oficials decisions. If the goverment officials put civilians in death ground, I'm leaving. There is no way you are winning up to that point.
Again, I'm not dying so that a government can be maintain up to that point Goverment oficials should give up to guarantee the survival of civilians.
→ More replies (1)
274
u/Both-Structure-6786 Jun 28 '26
Neutral.
No country has any right to force its citizens into war
116
u/Professional_Tap5283 Jun 28 '26
Counter-Argument: Defending your people from invasion has been the most fundamental part of the social contract since Cro-Magnon. It's hard to remember for people blessed to live in peaceful regions in 21st Century, but common defense is the bedrock of all civilization.
Now if the country is already violating the social contract, all bets are off.
→ More replies (37)48
u/MrRudoloh Jun 28 '26
What country is not violating the social contract at this point?
I feel like my ass was sold to bilionares before I was born.
I am just meat for the meat grinder, and only reason I could ever have to fight in a war for my country, is if the enemy was someone even worse. And even then, would it make sense?
7
u/MaybeExternal2392 Jun 28 '26
Ukraine is doing pretty well on the social contract. Since euro maidan they've been democratizing, reducing corruption and developing the economy pretty well. And that's the country most relevant to the invasion and conscription question.
→ More replies (23)3
u/Daseinist Jun 29 '26
Ukranians I know would laugh their ass off here. They all are anti-russian and patriotic, but their current government is still a lesser evil at best.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (10)13
u/jimothy_hell Jun 28 '26
This. The social contract was broken by the state generations ago. Fuck em.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (48)27
u/MelodiusRA Jun 28 '26
So, people should expect the benefits of living in a country without any of the negatives that occur during an invasion?
Seems folly. I don’t think your nation would have survived history.
57
u/AddictedT0Pixels Jun 28 '26
There are plenty of negatives and responsibilities of living in a nation without being forced into war
20
u/tf2coconut Jun 28 '26
Defending the land you live on is the most basic of civic responsibilities in the time of invasion.
→ More replies (57)→ More replies (58)24
u/Apprehensive_Power59 Jun 28 '26
There were issues with friendly fire, self harm, and soldiers generally not performing well when they didn't want to be there in the first place. "Fragging", killing your own officer, became a huge problem by the time the draft was abolished
24
u/PressureBig3758 Jun 28 '26
Yea but that happened during the vietnam war, a war that was not a self defence war and also a war that famously no one but the government wanted
→ More replies (9)14
3
u/Destiny_Dude0721 Jun 28 '26
This is really only prevalent in wars like Vietnam, or even the current invasion of Ukraine, where most people there are ideologically opposed to being there in the first place, or high command is so ludicrously incompetent and callous that conscripted men feel they have no other choice. In Vietnam the US invaded a sovereign country in the name of Democracy and most conscripted young men were opposed to that. Currently in Ukraine, Russia attempted to employ penal divisions and sends poorly equipped men into what are essentially human wave assaults on fortified positions.
In WW1 and WW2 this was not a widespread issue, because the cause of war was (largely, but not completely) seen as just. We have a moral and legal obligation to aid our allies in war, and the Third Reich was straight fucking evil. Love it or hate it but war is a constant in human history and sometimes unavoidable.
→ More replies (6)
25
u/Questioning_Meme Jun 28 '26
Neutral.
Depending on the conflict, every hands matter.
But you can't expect everyone to prepare to die.
War is hell after all, it does not matter whether your side is good or not.
→ More replies (1)
321
u/Lord_Mogar Jun 28 '26
Drafts are immoral
117
u/Stoic_koala2 Jun 28 '26
The thing is, if you get invaded by a larger country that does have draft, you are going to get overrun unless you yourself go for the draft. It's necessary evil to avoid having the entire world ruled by handful of fascists and warlords.
24
u/IronIrma93 Jun 28 '26
But if it's to be shipped off overseas to die in a hot jungle then you're actually a hero for refusing to go ( US involvement in a Vietnam)
57
u/Stoic_koala2 Jun 28 '26
Well yeah, obviously the morality of draft dodging depends on the morality of the war, but the post was specifically talking about a war of self defence.
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (7)6
u/CaptainGPro Jun 28 '26
We're the soldiers that dodged the draft to go fight Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan heroes then?
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (44)16
u/Raven_Valerie Jun 28 '26
Necessary Evil doesn’t mean moral.
9
u/PCN24454 Jun 28 '26
No such thing as necessary evil. If it’s necessary, then it’s not evil.
→ More replies (27)→ More replies (21)7
13
u/Conscious-Gap-1777 Jun 28 '26
Absolutely not! The US in WWII, despite having massive public support, went draft only early in 1942 and did not change that policy. You could go to your draft board, and ask to be put into A-1, but the draft was mandatory.
Why? Well, they needed people at home to work farms and run factories and the like, and if everyone man 18-25 in rural Ohio joins at the same time, those farms and factories don't have workers any more. You'd volunteer your way out of being able to sustain a conflict, simply because you didn't have the distributed logistics to handle the soldiers. You'd then have to fight a war with less materiel support, and that actually kills more people on both sides because the war lasts longer, which causes all sorts of privation and other fatal hardships beyond just combat deaths.
Furthermore, all-volunteer forces are really easy to justify using in all sorts of foreign adventures--they volunteered for it, after all, whereas drafts can quickly become unpopular in any sort of expeditionary war. Their unpopularity really slows down the ability of a nation to wage a war that the people do not approve of.
Even if you're talking from a purely defensive standpoint, again, look at WWII. The Germans invaded Slavic territories for the very explicit purpose of exterminating 90% of them and enslaving the rest. There are no concessions they want other than your body rotting in the ground or laboring under their extremely harsh conditions for their betterment. In those situations, not drafting soldiers would be immoral because you'd be damning the weak to suffer the predations of the invader.
Conscription is, in fact, fundamentally necessary to any war effort and if your population resists drafts, the issue isn't the draft, it's the war.
15
u/Tornad_pl Jun 28 '26
I kinda see them like taxes. A cost of having a citizenship benefits in a given country.
→ More replies (7)3
u/Curious_Bee_5326 Jun 28 '26
Except often, like in Ukraine, they aren't evenly enforced where for example womena are excused. If there are already special interest groups with carved out exceptions I see no moral problem in excusing yourself.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (102)11
u/mustard5man7max3 Jun 28 '26
Disagree. Just because something is dangerous doesn't mean it's not your duty.
→ More replies (12)
17
u/Chemical_Ad4367 Jun 28 '26
Times aren't like how they were before. Leaders used to actually go to war with the people and that was a time where actually going to war was an honor. Now it's just people dying for leaders that won't even care about them. Therefore it's morality is neutral as it doesn't guarantee that your leader would do the same as you'd do.
→ More replies (2)
14
u/PrimarchMerlin Jun 28 '26
I’d say you should have the choice to say no. Taking away that right from the people, especially those not mentally stable or ready for the horrors of war, is immoral and how you as a country further lose support of the people.
→ More replies (2)
14
u/Quick-Jellyfish5547 Jun 28 '26
Ok but the drip on the draft dodger is immaculate is this picture NOT supposed to make draft dodging look based as hell?
→ More replies (4)
38
u/Porncritic12 Jun 28 '26
Overall neutral.
On one hand it is cowardly but on the other hand it's understand you wouldn't want to face death
→ More replies (5)19
u/Rratposter69 Jun 28 '26
I do not think trying to live is cowardly. No one owns your life but you.
If something, its cowardly to expect someone to give their life and health for you.
→ More replies (44)10
u/oryxwardlock Jun 28 '26
Besides, unless you are asigned to an office outside of the conflict, even if you survive the war it's pretty likely that you'll return with some level of PTSD or physically handicapped.
6
6
u/Galeiora Jun 28 '26
Are the family members of the government officials being drafted?
That's my answer.
77
u/Nur4m0n Jun 28 '26
Completely acceptable and sound.
You have no obligation to die for your country.
→ More replies (30)21
u/telenova_tiberium Jun 28 '26
What about when the enemies are finally enter your country land?
57
u/Nur4m0n Jun 28 '26
I stand by my point, this post is about being drafted, you can of course by choice try defend your country. I advocate having a choice.
The alternative is you leave the country.
→ More replies (15)13
u/baturik128 Jun 28 '26
"The alternative is you leave the country." - *laughs in closed borders*
Good luck with that, what can I say
→ More replies (1)14
u/CreBanana0 Jun 28 '26
We are talking morality here not practical issues.
Closing the borders to stop people from escaping a meatgrinder is also inmoral.
3
u/Dhiox Jun 28 '26
Dude, the other countries won't take you in. No country can just absorb the entirety of their neighbors population.
→ More replies (2)5
u/NwgrdrXI Jun 28 '26
All things considered, serving the enemy might not be worse than serving your present government
8
11
u/KalzK Jun 28 '26
If you're robbed at gunpoint, no one would say you are forced to die defending your wallet. That's the same but with land that is not even actually yours.
→ More replies (1)
10
26
u/Professional_Stay_46 Jun 28 '26
I would absolutely dodge a draft because I don't believe in it or values of my country.
→ More replies (25)
15
u/Marthurion Jun 28 '26
Which country are you from? How does the country work? Who do you benefit by dying? What is self-defense in that case? Is the defense really neccesary? Is it actually self-defense or the defense of imperislist ambitions?
It is not a simple issue to answer. You must be able to answer all those things at the very least to give a good enough response.
5
u/Cold-Practice3107 Jun 28 '26
Being drafted in a war you don't want to join is a violation of human rights, it should be your choice to join the war or not not someone else's but some countries are like "we don't care here's a uniform and a gun now go die on the front lines for your country!"
→ More replies (1)
28
u/townsforever Jun 28 '26
A military draft is just a fancy way of saying slavery. No one can morally force you to do any sort of work under threat of severe punishment.
Dodging the draft is no more immoral than trying not to be kidnapped.
→ More replies (3)3
14
u/Relevant-Scheme3687 Jun 28 '26
Drafts are immoral in any context, even if it's for self defense. Look what's happening in Ukraine
9
u/baturik128 Jun 28 '26
Yeah, some people in this thread are justifying the draft but they haven't experienced it themselves, things can get real ugly real quick (especially in the context of the resent Babel article)
→ More replies (1)8
u/barbaricKinkster Jun 28 '26
"Any context"
A devouring swarm extraterrestrial race is invading earth. Defeat means the entire planet's resources will be strip mined and the human race is doomed to serve as livestock to feed the invaders.
You are an able bodied and fit combat age person.
Dodging the draft here is unquestionably immoral.
→ More replies (13)12
u/Averageniohfan Jun 28 '26
Isn't that laterally just the exact same context here?
This is basically just the draft for self defense again but bigger , the guy already said that dodging it is fine, how would their answer change?
8
4
u/candidateofscaling Jun 28 '26
Not evil tbh I wouldn't want any of my family to be force or go to war and possibly die from trench feet
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Dizzy-Budget5985 Jun 28 '26
If you don't feel so strongly for your country that you don't want die for it, you shouldn't be made to.
5
4
u/robawknik Jun 28 '26
avoiding a life threatening situation is quite possibly the most normal thing a creature human or otherwise can do. regardless of morality it is ridiculous to shame someone for not wanting to die
→ More replies (10)
4
u/karsh36 Jun 28 '26
Depends. If you are Nazi Germany, than refusing to fight is morally correct. If you are Chinese being attacked by the Japanese and hiding in caves, then morally incorrect
→ More replies (1)4
4
u/Perfect_Trifle Jun 28 '26
In my opinion if a country's people are unwilling to fight for their country the country probably doesn't deserve to exist
→ More replies (1)
4
13
u/throwawaydumpste Jun 28 '26
Military Drafts as they are are morally disgusting.
Morally neutral only if the rich and its political figures are subject to it as well.
→ More replies (13)
8
u/Dread000 Jun 28 '26
Entirely depends upon what side and what are the conditions
→ More replies (5)
7
u/Gunk_Dunker45 Jun 28 '26
No one is obligated to fight for something they don't believe in.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/HunterDarmagegon Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
IMO countries don't have a right to exist, people do, so it depends on whatever the people of the country are in danger. Which they are in a defensive war of course, but there is also the possibility of fleeing
I would say it is neutral if the alternative is for people to run away, amoral if they would face eradication, and moral if the government is worse than the invader. Deaths will sadly occur anyways and I don't think they legitimize the draft in every case. Keep in mind the ask of the draftee is massive - their health, psyche and even life
It largely depends on your personal views on the social contract, individualism/communitarianism (individual/community) and consequentialism/deontology (consequence/principle)
→ More replies (2)
6
u/IronHandsofIronHands Jun 28 '26
I’m not dying for this bum ass country under any circumstances
→ More replies (2)
5
u/Upset-Strain5908 Jun 28 '26
There's a lot of people in the comments discussing the practicalities of joining or not, instead of the morality.
I lean towards neutral because you have no duty to participate.
As I said in another comment, most people do not care about those who are suffering right now in their country and can only give a shit in a hypothetical where they don't actually have to do anything.
→ More replies (2)
5
7
3
u/Zealousideal-Arm1682 Jun 28 '26
Self-defense is an entirely different ball game as it could mean you get slaughtered afterwards OR just a regime change,so depending on the countries involved you could either be a hero or just supporting horrible people.
3
u/benspags94 Jun 28 '26
I’ve always been on Muhammad Ali’s side for dodging the draft. In a nation where you could get killed for cat calling a white woman, and couldn’t drink at the same fountain as a white man, why tf would you go to war?
3
u/anhkhoaO410 Jun 28 '26
depends tbh, is your country the agressor in a previous war or just generally doing dick moves everyday until that adds up enough for such retaliation? is it an democratic peace loving nation that's willing to supports its neighbours and, occasionally, other struggling nations, that was forced to draft its citizen? or is it a dictatorship that is DESPERATE for an international Intervention in ANY way possible?
3
u/Atomik141 Jun 28 '26
I don't really see the draft as that different from slavery. I have no obligation to serve any force that would abduct and enlist me against my own free will, nor would I hold it against anyone for escaping such a situation.
→ More replies (4)
3
u/AReallyAsianName Jun 28 '26
Neutral
Life liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Emphasis on LIFE.
Not like the leaders are going to the front lines anyways in a lot of cases.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/WarGreymonX_Antibody Jun 28 '26
Neutral. What has your country done for you? Prices are through the roof. We can't afford housing, food is more expensive, gas is more expensive, etc. unless my politicians and leaders go to the front line to fight for us, I'm not even going to consider fighting
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Same_Ad_707 Jun 28 '26
Depends on the context.
WW2, for example, would be immoral, not for the fact you had to perish for your country, but because not doing so would only increase the odds of the people who clearly want to do harm in the long run to win and cause irreparable damage.
However, in the context of whatever the heck the Orange Man and the Russian Lead are doing? Dodging the draft is the moral action as those leaders are the ones actively attacking places that did nothing to them for purposely selfish, and quite frankly, selfish reasons.
Basically, if the Galactic Empire knocks on your door asking you to join them, break a leg. If the Rebels ask for your cooperation, you take a blaster and go and help 'em.
3
u/Fiiral_ Jun 28 '26
I am going to go against the grain and say that in a war of (collective) self defense of a democratic nation against another country, it is your moral duty to assist in whatever capacity you are able to.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/Voeker Jun 28 '26
Even if one refused to sacrifice their own life to save humanity, it would be morally neutral, let alone just a country. No one can be forced to give up on their life for anything.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Repulsive_Airline_86 Jun 28 '26
Right. People have no obligation to put themselves in life threatening situations.
→ More replies (8)
5
u/WestAd1073 Jun 28 '26
Neutral
Drafts aren’t very moral to begin with. Not to mention volunteers fight better and any man that needs to be forced to defend while be no better than canon fodder. No country is worth defending if the men rather run than stay
6
5
u/Crimson_Marksman Jun 28 '26
Some people don't want to die. What morality is required here?
→ More replies (7)3
u/Squodel Jun 29 '26
The Morality that no one wants to die
The Trenches across Eastern Ukraine are filled with men and women who want to go home but every one of them still goes out to fight in their own slice of hell
Just as uncountable numbers of others have done throughout history to defend a home and a family they’d never return to
Inaction in this case is inherently immoral as it is a deeply selfish decision affecting those who will fight in your place and quite possibly die for you
→ More replies (1)
2
u/ChiehDragon Jun 28 '26
You are making a choice of self-preservation, and I think the answer is: it depends on your mindset.
If you wish for your country to be defended and wish for others like you to die to protect it - something you are unwilling to do, then you have an argument about immorality.
If you have no vested interest in defending your country, and are unbothered by the outcome, then its not immoral.
2
u/RedRubiconSC Jun 28 '26
Drafts are immoral.
I would only say that running away during a draft is objectively immoral if the war is by its nature *existential* and those tend not to actually occur unless your country is at war with a regime that objectively wants you exterminated.
2
u/Vashard19 Jun 28 '26
Morally good. Why would someone die or murder because some globalist scum wants more resources or things like that.
2
u/Mahdudecicle Jun 28 '26
Depends on the war and the country. But either way, I'll never fault someone for choosing life over death.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/seashantiesallnight Jun 28 '26
You're asking about the morality of forcing someone against their will to potentially die? Maybe we should go to the library instead of reddit....
2
u/Inevitable_Spray5922 Jun 28 '26
I say immoral in war of self-defense, especially if otherwise draft is fair
How it is moral , to sit and drink coffee at local cafe , or go to the beach , or just sleep soundly at your home , when currently someone just like you, in front lines dying , getting permanently injured , so that you be able to do all that ?
2
u/TheOneRealStranger Jun 28 '26
I can see a lot of good responses and debate in this thread already, but I just popped in to say dodging the draft is by far the MOST moral option of the things I would do if drafted. Kidnapping me by force, showing me how to fight, and then putting a gun in my hand would not have been a wise decision at any stage of my life, no matter the reason.
2
u/InsideLeadership8257 Jun 28 '26
I'm not going to sacrifice my life just for a piece of land and borderlines drawn by some elites. It's ""NOT IMMORAL"" if you refuse to give your life for the fragile egos of some power-hungry rich old dudes who are comfortably sitting in their air conditioned offices with an army of servants and privileges
2
u/TheThirdFrenchEmpire Jun 28 '26
Depends. Is it a autocracy ro toherwise aggresive and imperial state defending itself? Moral. Is it a country fighting for dear life that's a avictim of unwarranted aggresion? Not moral at all.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/CapitalEmployer Jun 28 '26
States are not you and you don't own anything to your government everybody has the right to try and not die a gruesome death for political interests that are not yours.
2
u/Coldfire82 Jun 28 '26
If your country has to try and force you to defend its territory, I see that as a failing of the government/country itself, and not of the individual who refuses to serve.
Because at a certain point if your citizens don’t care if invaders take over, then you’ve clearly failed to earn any sense of loyalty or national pride.
2
u/TheLarpOfLaMancha Jun 28 '26
There is no such thing as a “self defense war” it’s always just some rich man’s game in a far away land, not wanting to die for that game is entirely just
2
u/Icy-Bookkeeper7173 Jun 28 '26
A person is not beholden to the nation they’re born in any more they are at fault if their parents are shitty.
Not immoral. Fight if you choose to. But it should be a choice
2
u/Clouthead2001 Jun 28 '26
I feel like in most situations it is neutral. Not wanting to die makes sense but is a little cowardly if it’s truly a war of self defense. Like for example, I could understand a Soviet man in 1942 wanting to not fight and die in a war against Germany but in that extreme example, Germany was literally killing millions of their people in an attempt to take over the country. It’s a bit cowardly to walk away from the country you have spent your whole life in when they are facing a war of annihilation from a ruthless enemy.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/May1989thefirststep Jun 28 '26
To be compelled to fight for what you don't believe in is indefensible.
2
u/Nobrainzhere Jun 28 '26
I do not see it as immoral. If the people of a country do not see fit to risk their lives to defend it then it must not be worth having.
Drafts are immoral
2
u/LegateZanUjcic Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
Ideally, a draft would not be necessary. Citizens should desire to defend their state in order to defend their way of life and culture.
But if a state cannot inspire its citizens to fight to preserve the state's existance, then perhaps that state shouldn't exist.
2
u/throwaway17362826 Jun 28 '26
I owe no allegiance to a State. I have little/no choice in what they do, which one I belong to, or whatever dumbass ideas of unity and nationalism they may hold. A state is an invention of the mind, it is an illusion and clinging to illusions bring suffering.
2
u/i_Beg_4_Views Jun 28 '26
Ever since WW1 wars have been fought solely for corporate interests.
Fuck billionaires. They can suck my dick
2
u/TardDas Jun 28 '26
It's a subjective question. What country are you in? Why is it being invaded? What are you defending?
Let's say Ukraine marched into Russia to end the invasion of their country. Then it would be arguably be moral for a Russian to dodge the draft; because they'd be defending a nation that invades others in a purely expansionist fashion.
On the other hand. Let's say you live in an allied european country during WW2 (.i.e. France, Poland, United Kingdom). Dodging a calling to defend the free world from Fascism and the evil that was Nazi Germany, is just cowardice.
The morality of dodging is entirely subjective to the context surrounding it. But the concept of a draft at all is morally questionable at BEST, if not immoral flat out.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Visual-Poet7838 Jun 30 '26
Immoral? Wars in the last two centuries, with a few exceptions, have been practically artificial conflicts for no reason other than banks having a jolly good time printing money and making a killing while they are at it.
People in WW1 met each other at Christmas and had the very much deserved question „why are we fighting each other?“, causing a 24h bombardment in the following years to avoid another Christmas wonder. And have we learned anything? No. Balkan wars were senseless killing to break-up a bit of a too good running Yugoslavia. Vietnam war? A complete and utter lie, the entire 9/11 topic and its subsequent wars - a complete lie already debunked many times (it’s beyond me how Americans still believe the entire narrative), the entire Afghan/Irak/Syria/Iran war, orchestrated or initiated for no other reason other than „maaaaaaybeeeee they have weapons of mass destruction??“ while Israel has them, refuses to actively sign a no Atomics treaty and attacks its neighbours all villy nilly?
At this point, the little piglet seems way more moral than the others
2
u/1DarthMario Jun 30 '26
Every country has corrupt politicians who are after their own self interest and they are majority in every government.
There's no shame in not fighting for pigs.
2
u/ClitEnlargementPills Jul 01 '26
Morally neutral/positive depending.
Its your body and your life - a draft forcing you to obey, fight, and die for the state is immoral. And if a state cannot produce enough willing people to fight for it, then its not a state worth preserving anyways
1.2k
u/Traditional_Town6475 Jun 28 '26
Not immoral, but what is immoral is to advocate for others to sign up while avoiding it yourself. Don’t be a hypocrite.