Conscription as a Concept of Social Justice

The question of conscription as a valid policy of state involves consideration of the circumstances under which the state might compel a citizen to relinquish individual discretion and become part of a military force. Answering such a question goes to the consideration of the very structure of society, for it must be presumed that conscription is put forward as a policy in part for the reasons of state. It follows that the validity of state policies both in general and in particular is an aspect of the legitimacy of the state. Various theories of reformist social structure that have arisen since the rise of philosophies that point toward the formation of the modern state provide a useful framework for considering perceptions of and rationale for or against the validity of conscription. In particular, the theories of utilitarianism, the social contract, and liberalism will be treated, as well as theoretical interpretations that either analyze or build upon them as a means of identifying or discovering an appropriate conception of the state

. . .
only if it is demanded for the defense of liberty itself, including here not only the liberties of the citizens of the society in question, but also those of persons in other societies as well. Therefore if a conscript army is less likely to be an instrument of unjustified foreign adventures, it may be justified on this basis alone despite the fact that conscription infringes upon the equal liberties of citizens. But in any case, the priority of liberty (assuming serial order to obtain) requires that conscription be used only as the security of liberty necessitates. Viewed from the standpoint of the legislature (the appropriate stage for this question), the mechanism of the draft can be defended only on this ground. Citizens agree to this arrangement as a fair way of sharing in the burdens of national defense (Rawls, 1971, pp. 380-1). Rawls's discussion of the formation of the just state implies the obligations of the citizenry to maintain it, but the content of his discussion also implies that a citizen under the obligation of conscription may justly refuse to serve in a military force of a nation that is "moved by the desire for world power or national glory . . . or the acquisition of territory. These ends are contrary
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
, Despite Rousseau's, Wealth Nations, National Guard, Hence Walzer's, Kant Rawls, Specifically Walzer, Hobbes Nozick, Adolf Hitler, Richard Nixon's, social contract, issue conscription, rawls 1971, social structure, nozick 1974, contract theory, public policy, walzer 1983, theory social, military service, matter public policy, contract theory social, solution internal security, justly constituted society, indiana national guard,
Approximate Word count = 10644
Approximate Pages = 43 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Conscription as a Concept of Social Justice