Conscientious Objection

Paper Summary:

In this article, the writer points out that, in general, conscientious objection is not, in and of itself, a violation of honesty, integrity, or ethics. Even in the case of an enlisted serviceman, conscientious objection is a valid ethical basis for refusing continued service that requires conduct to which the individual objects in principle. The writer then points out that, on the other hand, conscientious objector status is unethical, and therefore, unjustified as a basis for shirking one's responsibilities under specific circumstances, particularly where it is asserted from self-interest instead of moral conviction. The writer discusses that the intention of the United States Armed Forces is to permit genuine objections that truly reflect the individual's heart-felt personal convictions without allowing conscientious objection to function as an unjustified means of dereliction of duties. The writer concludes that toward that end, the purpose of hearings on conscientious objection is to determine whether or not the conscientious objection falls within the relatively narrow parameters recognized by law as valid criteria, as well as to distinguish truthful positions from those merely of convenience or cowardice.

Outline:
Introduction
National Guard and Reservists
Changed Beliefs
Selective Service Registration
Conclusion

From the Paper:

"The first requirement of valid conscientious objection is that it be genuinely truthful rather than a technique of convenience or cowardice with respect to one's assigned duties or assignment. Operation Iraqi Freedom brought the realities of wartime deployment and hostile engagement home to thousands of National Guard and Reserve troops, many of whom had enlisted primarily for the educational benefits and without a realistic expectation of overseas wartime deployment. Availability for deployment is the primary purpose for which reservists are rewarded and compensated throughout their period of enlistment."
"Conscientious objector status is not intended as an escape mechanism for situations where unexpected service is merely inconvenient, or where actual service is required, despite its apparent improbability at the time of enlistment. The enlistment agreement is bilateral in nature, with the respective benefits and potential costs known in advance to both parties to the agreement: the enlistee hopes to benefit without ever being required to fulfill the entire range of obligations encompassed by the agreement; the armed services hope to benefit by maintaining a troop reserve available when necessary, at a known cost of fulfilling its payment and benefits packages throughout the entire term of enlistment, even if active duty is never actually required during that time period."

Sample of Sources Used:

• Carter, L.H. (1979) Reason in Law. Little Brown & Co.: New York
• Hall, K.(2005) The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford University Press: New York

More papers on Conscientious Objection:

• Essay # 43867 : "Conscientious Objection to the Vietnam War"
• Argumentative Essay # 139859 : "Conscientious Objectors - A Personal Opinion"
• Article Review # 142105 : "Women as Conscientious Objectors During World War II"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: