The Burden of Duty:Virtue, Morality, and the Draft

The recent suggestion by Sen. Chuck Hagel that compulsory military service is needed has once again brought the issue of the draft to the fore. I’ve expressed before the pragmatic reasons why I think it’s an abhorrent idea, but I’ve been intrigued with some of the ‘moral” arguments being presented by both liberals and libertarians on the issue. On post in particular that caught my attention was one presented by Ezra Klein (via Matt Yglesias):

Now, I don’t want a draft. Being a healthy 19-year old, the prospect is pretty scary to me. But I must express puzzlement over Oliver Willis’s assertion that one would be immoral. As long as there’s a serious CO program contained within, think a draft would be significantly more moral than our current way of staffing our military.

Our Constitution requires Congress to ‘raise and support Armies” in order to ‘provide for the common defense.” What it doesn’t specify, however, is how the military should be ‘raised.” There are, in fact, only three options available: all-volunteer, forced conscription, or some combination of the two. Currently, our military is an all-volunteer force which, according to Mr. Klein, is significantly less moral than instituting some level of conscription.
What is peculiar is that Klein believes that it would be more ‘moral” for the government to force him to do something he’s unwilling to do voluntarily. While conservatives are often the one’s to take a pessimistic view of the inherent goodness of humans, liberals are the often the first to use the power of the government to force them to do what they would not do on their own (i.e., paying a higher rate on state income taxes). Instead of addressing this curious phenomenon, though, I want to look at the underlying assumption behind Klein’s view, which I believe is shared by many people whether they are conservative, liberal, or libertarian.

Though Klein leaves the reason unstated, I assume that he thinks that an all-volunteer force is less moral than conscription because people on the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder are more likely to be attracted to military service. The upper classes, on the other hand, will have more options available to them and would therefore have less incentive to join. We can call this the ‘burden model” since it implies that the burden of military service is disproportionately shared by the lower economic groups.
I don’t want to be too hard on Mr. Klein’s analysis or opinion. I applaud his willingness to stand by the doctrine of fairness even when it would result in an outcome that he would not welcome. And while I haven’t examined the data, I believe his unstated contention is rooted in empirical fact. I too think the poor and lower middle class make up the bulk of the military. What I don’t agree with, though, is the idea that the unequal representation of the socio-economic classes is inherently immoral.
There are two problems I have with this ‘burden model” of military service. The first is the way it reduces service to one’s country to a matter of economics. Those with fewer choices for jobs or education are more likely to enlist while those who have money have more options to choose from. Under this view, the military is attractive to those with limited opportunities but those with a broader range of selections will find it rather unalluring. Again, I don’t dispute that this is reality. My disagreement is in claiming that the system is immoral when it is the people making the choice who are morally flawed.
This brings me to the second problem with the model. It concludes that since military service is a burden, moral considerations require that the load be shared as equally as possible. Again, I must point out that this view is not inherently wrong. But where I think the flaw in reasoning lies is that it puts the focus on the ethical choice rather the ethical chooser.
The ‘burden” of military service is akin to that of a person who chooses to adopt a child. While choosing to become a mother or father has obvious economic consequences, few people see that as the sole reason for adopting an unwanted or abandoned child. Before they are adopted, orphans are cared for by the state and are, therefore, the collective responsibility of all citizens. But when someone steps forward and agrees to take the child into their home, the burden of responsibility shifts mainly onto the shoulders of the new parent. Although the state may still have some obligations, the parent assumes the primary childcare duties.
We do not, however, consider the system to be immoral because the state does not force people to take in orphans. Instead, we allow people with the requisite virtues (love, compassion, self-sacrifice) to freely and willingly choose to take this ‘burden” upon themselves.
The same holds true for those who serve in the military. Our nation doesn’t and shouldn’t force the obligation of national defense on those who do not willing choose to take it upon themselves. Instead, we allow those who possess certain moral virtues (courage, honor, commitment) to heed the call of duty.
Not all who serve, of course, do so for the purest of motives. There is no shortage of ‘scholarship mercenaries” who joined only to gain money for college or as a means of improving their lot in life. But these people, no matter how large their number, are not the heart and center of our military. The core is comprised of men and women who truly love their country — love the people and the ideals for which our nation stands — so much that they are willing to sacrifice and bear any burden in order to ensure its survival.
As a Christian I believe that since no one meets the standards of goodness set by God, no one should be excessively proud of their virtue. Compared to the ultimate standard, even the greatest of saints falls short. But this view should not be mistaken as an endorsement of moral egalitarianism. All men are created equal and should be afforded the same human rights, but not all men are equally virtuous. The cost of liberty is not paid by everyone equally; it is a debt assumed by a select few. As I’ve written before,

If Americans truly value freedom as much as they claim, then the military should be more difficult to get into than any Ivy-league school. The ‘elite” would be lined up around the block, letters of recommendation in hand, hoping to enlist and serve in the greatest military in the history of the world.

But in our nation, the ‘elite” is based not on virtues such as courage, duty, and self-sacrifice, but rather on money, power, and education. That is why the draft is neither necessary nor desirable. For while it might force the wealthy and privileged to share the ‘burden” of duty, conscription has never been needed to attract the virtuous. Every young citizen must examine their own hearts and decide why they choose to put their own self interest before that of their nation, its people, and its ideals. However they justify their choices, they should ask what keeps them from taking their place amongst our nation’s virtuous elite.