Here’s a thought experiment that recently occurred to me that I’d like to run by you, dear EconLog readers. I think the intuitive reactions one might have to this thought experiment might do a lot to clarify how one conceives of justice.
Suppose you live in a world where there is a military draft. In addition, let’s stipulate that a military draft is unjust. (If you’re in favor of a draft and find yourself resisting the thought experiment on those grounds, just substitute the draft for some other policy you would consider unjust.) However, not every citizen is eligible for the draft. Only half the population can be drafted. Let’s say the basis for who is eligible is something completely arbitrary – those who were born on even numbered days are eligible to be drafted, while those who are born on odd numbered days are exempt from the draft.
Let’s say that ending the draft is outside the Overton window – there is no realistic chance this policy can be revoked. However, you are in the unique position of being able to modify the draft with some kind of executive order. You can’t repeal it, but you can make it so those born on odd days become eligible for the draft. Assume nothing else would change if you did so – so for example, if you expand the draft, assume that twice as many citizens will actually get drafted, so nobody with an even numbered birthday sees their chances of being drafted lowered as a result.
So here’s the question – what is the right thing to do?
Should the draft be expanded, on the grounds that those born on even days have been treated unfairly by being subject to an unjust policy that other citizens don’t face? That is, should you pull the policy lever that increases the number of people who face injustice, in order to equalize the distribution of injustice?
Or should you decline to expand the draft, on the grounds that the policy is unjust and if injustice can’t be repealed, as few people as possible ought to be subject to it? That is, should you allow an unjust policy to apply unequally to citizens, in order to minimize the number of people who are subjected to injustice?
What do you think?
READER COMMENTS
MarkW
Jun 14 2024 at 10:34am
If ending the draft is really, permanently outside the Overton window, then expand it to everybody. But in the current US context, we don’t have a draft, only registration. And it’s for men only. AND it should stay that way. Why? Because once it becomes universal, the next step would be to actually use it to create some kind of ‘national service’ corps. Maybe it wouldn’t be mandatory, but it would come with powerful nudges (e.g. student grants or loans or other benefits dependent upon ‘service’). Leave the current inequitable draft registration in place to keep it mostly moribund.
Richard W Fulmer
Jun 14 2024 at 11:13am
Why would expanding the draft to include people born on odd numbered dates double the number of people who are drafted? The needs of the military wouldn’t be increased by the change. Even when the U.S. had a draft, not everyone eligible to be drafted was drafted.
That said, my answer depends on the goal. If the goal is to enhance the draft’s effectiveness in defending the nation, I would favor including people regardless of whether their birth date is odd or even. People would be exempted, not on such arbitrary grounds but for physical or mental incapacity or for special hardship. In addition, I would oppose lowering requirements to increase or decrease the number of some category of people. Fairness is important, but protecting the lives of soldiers is much more so.
Eliminating arbitrary rules that have no basis in military need would add to the program’s legitimacy, increasing public support and making it more effective in accomplishing its goal of national defense.
On the other hand, if the goal is to move the Overton window by discrediting the draft, then I would recommend making the rules as arbitrary and unfair as possible.
BS
Jun 15 2024 at 11:32am
“On the other hand, if the goal is to move the Overton window by discrediting the draft, then I would recommend making the rules as arbitrary and unfair as possible.”
Agree. Morally I lean to minimization. Practically I lean to equalization. My experience is that a wheel doesn’t get repaired until it breaks (ie. the necessary change is avoided as long as possible). If the just end is to get it fixed as soon as possible, make sure it breaks as soon as possible.
Dylan
Jun 14 2024 at 12:04pm
Interesting thought experiment, indeed. Trying to not focus on the draft specifically, but any unjust policy, I find intuitively I lean towards the expand to everyone. This reaction kind of troubles me, honestly. The idea that I’m willing to do an injustice to everyone rather than unjustly single out a smaller group is weird on utilitarian grounds, and I generally
Dylan
Jun 14 2024 at 12:05pm
That got submitted accidentally before I was ready to. Would have finished that I tend to lean utilitarian.
David Seltzer
Jun 14 2024 at 12:43pm
Kevin: It seems your thought experiment brings the consequential libertarians and deontological libertarians into the discussion. Consequentialist libertarians tend to utilitarianism that bring about the most favorable consequences. Deontologists abhor force as immoral, consequences not withstanding. I’ll answer the questions posed with a question. Where is the best (optimal) trade-off between expanding the draft or decline to do so? Thomas Sowell’s quote “There are no solutions, only trade-offs” addressed the pursuit of answers to thought experiments like yours. Good stuff!
Jason
Jun 14 2024 at 12:50pm
In the Evens/Odds (50/50) distribribution, it makes zero change to Total Injustice in the short term and also does not does not equally distribute injustice in the short term.
Before the change, the Evens own 100% of the injustice and Odds own 0% of the injustice.
After the change, the Even are no longer injusticed 0% (status increased), and the Odds are fully injusticed 100% (status decreased).
Long term, distributed injustice equalizes to the level that the policy is unjust which would likely decrease Total Injustice because there is no status injustice.
And to test the criteria-
If the criteria was “eligible if born on Mondays only” (14/86), but expanded to everyone, then Total Injustice would increase (short and long term) and would cause a massive distribution shift in the short term.
Before the change, the Mondays own 1*100% of the injustice and Other Days own 6*0% of the injustice.
After the change, the Mondays are no longer injusticed 1*0% (1x status increased), and the Other Days are fully injusticed 6*100% (6x status decreased). Policy now has 6x more Total Injustice.
Long term, distributed injustice equalizes to the level that the policy is unjust which is now 6x higher than it was before the change.
steve
Jun 14 2024 at 12:58pm
If you left the total drafted unchanged it would make sense to add the second group but sine you are not then I would not expand it. Treating 2x people unjustly instead of x doesnt seem like a good idea. (I assume you are leaving out secondary effects. Certainly possible that the even people get irritated and cause a lot fo harm as a result. Also, possible that the evens may not feel it is as unjust if it is being applied equally. Hard to predict.)
Steve
Craig
Jun 14 2024 at 3:00pm
Minimize and I say this as the father of one son and one daughter. Naturally the fact pattern alludes to the fact that the draft impacts males. If you were to say to me that its not fair that males are subjected to the draft I would agree with you, but I would say that if a military horror unfolded, the country would be in much better demographic shape if it lost 95% of its military aged males than if it lost 47.5% of its military aged males and 47.5% of its military aged females.
Jeff
Jun 14 2024 at 5:32pm
Expanding it to everyone also reduces the DWL to “injustice tax.” With the even/odd model parents might do things like induce labor a day early to avoid their children from bearing the injustice.
Matthias
Jun 15 2024 at 3:17am
In your thought experiment, in which sense is the draft ‘unjust’? And what are the benefits (and for whom) of the draft?
If the only thing ‘unjust’ about it that it hits different people differently, then expand to everyone.
If it’s generally unpleasant and provides no benefit, then minimise it.
If there are some benefits and some drawbacks, and some complex reason that makes it ‘unjust’, then I’d need more information.
In the real world, I suggest voting with your feet (and wallet), if there are policies you really disagree with.
Jon Murphy
Jun 15 2024 at 7:08am
It seems to me there are two injustices occuring in our status quo:
-The draft itself
-The discrimination brought on by the draft affecting half the population
We can remove the second injustice by expanding the first. Or we can minimize the first injustice by keeping the second.
There’s no obvious “best choice” here given the choice set. It’s a tough one.
I think I would maintain the status quo. It’s not ideal, but it avoids inflicting harm on some people with no clear gain.
Dave
Jun 15 2024 at 12:44pm
Here are two attempts at intuition pumps that might clarify.
1. Imagine increasing injustice in the other direction. Maybe only people born on Monday are drafted, or only people born on the first of the month. Is this better than the 50-50 world? If the draftees weren’t needed, as I think was stipulated, then the more unfair worlds seem better. There is less total suffering (fewer are affected).
2. instead of the draft, suppose there is a near-universal disease that debilitates people of military age temporarily. The assumption here is that the draft isn’t doing any good (the draftees time is wasted to little effect, at least for most of them — the analogy weakens the less this is true). Now, we have a bizarre cure that only helps those born on even numbered days. Should we suppress the cure in the interest of fairness? I think no one would think this is ethical. And, as in #1, increasing the unfairness (the cure fails for those born on a Monday) makes it even less appealing to level things out.
I hope at least some people find these analogies helpful. In the original, it seems clear to me that expanding the draft (and, by assumption, deliberately wasting the time of all the extra draftees) is unethical to a greater degree than the unethical status quo of arbitrarily exempting half the population.
Henri Hein
Jun 15 2024 at 6:24pm
The deontologist in me thinks the status quo is better. Violating the rights of all is worse than violating the rights of half.
The utilitarian in me thinks the status quo is better. The change clearly reduces overall welfare.
It seems to me only if you place equality on at least equal footing with justice and welfare would you prefer the change.
JdL
Jun 17 2024 at 7:06am
The “fairness” argument makes no sense to me. If half of a village is wiped out in a mudslide, should the survivors be killed in the name of fairness?
robc
Jun 17 2024 at 2:54pm
I had this exact discussion a number of years ago (my side of the argument lost) with regard to gay marriage.
The preferred policy, which was outside the overton window, was to end state marriage. For everyone. If you wanted to get married, you could, however you wanted, MF, MM, MFFFF, MFMFMFMFMF (Heinlein line marriage) all would be valid. The state would have no role other than wrt the contracts that would be created, just as they would with any other partnership contract.
My choice within the overton window was to not expand marriage, primarily because I felt the overton window was beginning to crack, and the best chance to separate state and marriage was to keep the status quo. Meh, I lost, and the chance went away with it. No one is talking about that option now.
Comments are closed.