= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
As Khoth said, the main harm you are worried about is being conscripted. Talking about P(injured | conscripted) distracts the reader's attention. I also got the same vibe - if you re-read my first post, you'll see a less direct bit of push-back.
But again, not every post on this topic has to be about conscription ideology. Among the things that an objector would be concerned about are (a) actually being conscripted despite genuine beliefs that war is ethically wrong; (b) not suffering personal harm or death; (c) opposing wars to succeed in achieving ethical goals.
It is as if you are trying to argue that a "real" conscientious objector could only ever be concerned with (c), regardless of how (a) and (b) turn out. But that's ridiculous. Given that you care primarily about (c) then what should you do to also solve (a) and (b)?
(I didn't downvote you)
In the post, you don't give any reason why you oppose war, but you do spend a few paragraphs on not wanting to be hurt. If it looks to me that your post is about how to most cheaply fake pacifism, how much more like that will it look to a draft board who are specifically looking for reasons to discount your pacifism?
I was not trying to write a post to defend conscientious objection as a philosophy. I was trying to ask the following: given that you already sincerely believe in conscientious objection to war what should you do to elevate that signal to a level that e.g. a draft board would find acceptable?
It's true that you did not see any reasons in my post regarding why I oppose war. That was intentional. I wanted to write a thread about tradeoffs and decision making conditional on being a sincere conscientious objector.
Not every post should start from a philosophical recapitulation of all the beliefs held as supporting foundations.
If it looks to me that your post is about how to most cheaply fake pacifism,
I just don't understand this. I'm not asking about faking pacifism. I'm asking about how to efficiently signal actual pacifism. How else am I supposed to ask about that?
I could certainly write better. But I also expect readers to think about it a little more. It's easy to say I'm trying to fake a signal and then just stop reading. But is that really a justified interpretation of what I'm asking? And even if it was, what's wrong with doing the thought experiment where you simulate being a sincere conscientious objector and ask yourself what the right tradeoffs would be?
If LW discussion isn't the right place for doing that, I don't know where else on earth is.
In response to
Donation tradeoffs in conscientious objection
For starters, write lots of letters to the editor stating that war is always wrong. Don't just attack the easy targets like the Iraq War. Try and write things that will make your average dove say "Well that's going a bit far." (ex, saying the American Revolution was unjustified.)
As it happens, I think the American Revolution was clearly unjustified, viz. Zinn's "A People's History of the United States."
You may want to invest some time in your ToE, regardless of the potential for conscription. :)
I agree. I'm not sure how that adds to the thread though. I already held that position before posting this and wanted to address whatever component of conscientious objection there is that is specifically orthogonal to the ToE portion.
In response to
Donation tradeoffs in conscientious objection
Well, one way to boost your chances of convincing people that you're a serious conscientious objector would be avoid leaving an internet trail that suggests your main reason for wanting to avoid conscription is concern for your personal safety.
How on earth are you getting that message from this thread? My whole intention with the thread is to say that I sincerely believe in opposing war, and wish to better understand the most effective ways to communicate that. I don't see anything in this thread to suggest that the reason I want to avoid conscription is concern for personal safety, other than mentioning Prob(death or serious injury | conscription) and I mention that here precisely because I would expect LWers to not view that as a retreat from separate ethical commitments to a position.
I find your reaction upsetting, either because you're only taking things at the surface level and disregarding what I'm actually saying, or else because I've written it up so poorly that I am not communicating my position at all. In any case, it's a shock to my prior that someone finds this post worthy of a downvote.
Elsewhere, you said:
[Joining the Quakers] would be a money-cheap way to signal pacifism, but for me it is a socially-expensive way to attempt it. Paying for donations to orgs would probably be cheaper overall in my preference ordering.
For better or worse, this kind of willingness to do trade-offs in your ordinary life makes it seem more like a personal philosophy (not protected) rather than a duty higher than human relationships (which is protected). Your core concern is projecting sincerity, which is socially expensive.
In my case, because I am sincere, I feel the need to make sure that I seem sincere. I agree that, societally, we often think that a wish to seem sincere implies lack of genuine sincerity. That's why I would only ask this question in the confines of a place like LessWrong, where other users might more frequently understand that thinking carefully and planning to seem sincere does not necessarily mean that you aren't actually sincere. As Andrew Gelman likes to say, "Just because it is counterintuitive doesn't make it true!"
This is precisely why I think it is an interesting problem. If you are a sincere person but you do not believe in "higher than human" duties in the senses that are traditionally used to qualify as a conscientious objector, and you believe you need to do something to better the odds of qualification, what should you do?
The complainer in me wants to also stamp my feet about how unfair it is to be penalized for willingness to do tradeoffs. I don't like penalizing people for taking a decision seriously and making well-conceived plans.
If you have a sincere moral objection to the use of political violence (such as war) in any circumstances, then you qualify as a conscientious objector under US law (as of 1947, but I'm doubtful it has changed much). Religion is the primary historical example of this philosophy, but is not the only legally acceptable source.
I don't believe in any Supreme Being, so I don't know where that leaves me in this description.
Go read Welsh. One or both of the defendants refused to assert belief in a Supreme Being, but was allowed to become a conscientious objector.
It doesn't look like you can just give a verbal description of your reasons for war opposition and expect that to suffice. You have to back it up by referring to specific beliefs or habits that indicate a whole long-running pattern of pacifism.
I don't see a requirement to prove a habit. Sincere beliefs are sufficient - for exactly the reasons you are highlighting. Before the need for signalling, a true pacifist has no need (and little ability) to signal. After the need for signalling, when war is looming, behavioral signals are too cheap to be reliable measures of sincerity.
we need to unpack what "testimony" means and to what extent there must be evidence to back up statements of belief or conviction.
Again, consider reading Welsh. There's some description of the most important and relevant things the draftees said, and some description of the bureaucratic process they went through.
If the situation came up, I expect you would be put under oath to tell the truth, and questioned. If your beliefs a consider sincere by the hearing officer, you can be a conscientious objector and avoid the draft. The risk you run is that you won't be believed, but I genuinely doubt a donation to any particular charity will make that much difference. First, there aren't that many pacifist charities. Second, one could donate to anti-landmine advocacy groups even if one isn't a pacifist.
I don't see anything in your comment that address what one should do about it (if anything) preemptively.
I doubt the national head of the US Pacifism League (or its actually existing equivalent) will have any trouble avoiding a draft. Short of that level of commitment to pacifism, there's not much you can do but thinking about what you would say under oath. Maybe post versions of it publicly in a relevant forum?
Before the need for signalling, a true pacifist has no need (and little ability) to signal. After the need for signalling, when war is looming, behavioral signals are too cheap to be reliable measures of sincerity.
Is this really true? Building up a history of pacifism donations during times when war is not looming is hardly a cheap signal. One could easily check a bank account to verify that you didn't just immediately start donating now that the threat of conscription is actually credible. And if you are a pacifist, then you probably would get significant negative utils from military conscription. So "before the need" is ill-defined. If you place a high value on never being conscripted, then in some sense you "need" to do things to lower that probability.
As you noticed in reply to TimS below, the out is heavily weighted toward religious objections. That's partly the result of religion's privileged position in society, but also because they expect pacifism to be the output of some philosophy you hold, not your philosophy itself.
So, even if you have a long history of anti-war donations, the draft board is going to need to hear some Theory of Everything that has pacifism as a derivable theorem, not an axiom.
Do you think it's wise to only give them some Theory of Everything? That is, can I push down Pr(conscription) by thinking hard about how to describe my Theory of Everything and giving visible signs that I actually believe it. It just seems awfully risky, especially being an atheist, to rely solely on hoping my impassioned account of my views will convince them alone. Sure, donations or other pacifist actions might not help much if I can't give a Theory of Everything. But that same deficiency might apply in reverse too.
In response to
Donation tradeoffs in conscientious objection
Assuming you are an American citizen, the relevant law is something like:
Nothing contained in this title [regarding mandatory military service] shall be construed to require any person to be subject to combatant training and service in the armed forces of the United States who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form. Religious training and belief in this connection means an individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code.
take from Welsh v. United States, 398 US 333 (1947)
In particular, you must show that your position is a deeply held moral conviction opposing war in all circumstances, not just opposition to a particular war. GILLETTE v. UNITED STATES, 401 U.S. 437 (1971).
For reasons similar to Barbarians shouldn't win, I can't endorse trying to fake being a pacifist (additionally, the false statements you would need to make would be separate crimes from failure to report for service).
But if you really oppose all war, you'll need to justify it with testimony (written or oral), and your prior behaviors won't be all that relevant. Pr(excused from service as conscientious objector | my prior conscientious objector behavior) is low. Pr(excused from service as conscientious objector | compelling descriptions of your relevant personal beliefs) is orders of magnitude higher.
Based on this, it appears that only overt religious signaling is acceptable for being declared a conscientious objector. I don't believe in any Supreme Being, so I don't know where that leaves me in this description. I am ideologically and ethically opposed to war, and in particular to the military experience of serving in the American armed forces. I don't think it would be insincere or any sort of false testimony risk for me to claim that I am opposed.
My post is about what one should supply as "testimony" in your comment. It doesn't look like you can just give a verbal description of your reasons for war opposition and expect that to suffice. You have to back it up by referring to specific beliefs or habits that indicate a whole long-running pattern of pacifism. I am just trying to think about what actions I must do now such that my conscientious objection beliefs are sufficiently conveyed by those actions (assuming that I testify about them).
Maybe I am misunderstanding your point. It seems like you've given a good description of the standards that are currently used, except that we need to unpack what "testimony" means and to what extent there must be evidence to back up statements of belief or conviction. But I don't see anything in your comment that address what one should do about it (if anything) preemptively.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Somewhere where there's no risk of the draft board googling it, that's where.
That's ridiculous. I have no problem if the draft board Googles this thread. Maybe I'm a poor writer, but I think even a cursory reading of this thread reveals that (a) I am arguing from a position of sincere belief in conscientious objection, and (b) there's a difference between making an argument for conscientious objection and asking questions about behavior that will be correlated to desired outcomes conditional upon sincere belief in conscientious objection. It seems you are unwilling to examine a distinction between the two, or at least you are unwilling to speak here as if there's a distinction between the two or perhaps you think that it is impossible for draft boards to believe there is such a distinction.
And you assign a far higher prior probability to the event that this thread would negatively reflect on me if seen by a draft board than I do.