National Service - Social Justice Or Honour Argument

Citizenship by juis soli or juis sanguinis, is the first right a person exercises at the moment of birth. It is a right that requires of us, as citizens, to honour our country. It is an obligation weighed on us to perform or conduct our purposes in exaltation and preservation of the motherland to the best of our capabilities, whatever our station in life,. Our country expects our reverence, for without this first right that she bestows on us, we have no other rights. For what is a man without a country? The Rohingyans know this too well. So did Mehran Karimi Nasseri, an Iranian exile who ended up living in Heathrow Airport Terminal 1 for 18 years.

“To serve is beautiful, but only if it is done with joy and a whole heart and a free mind.”
― Pearl S. Buck

In National Service, three hallowed words are emblazoned on our chest  - Duty, Honour, Country. It is a Code that fires the bellies of men and generates patriotic fervour capable of sustaining soldiers with an indomitable spirit in the most degrading conditions in battlefields, bravery in the most dangerous circumstances, and ultimate sacrifices when called upon. An Army with the most sophisticated weaponry and the best training, produces fighting men with no resolve in battle if they do not have these motivations in their bones.

As Singaporeans, we recognise we have responsibilities as well as rights. As a nation, we are bound together in destiny, one in which we hope to live in happiness and enjoy the freedom our Constitution, as a social contract, grants us. That social construct requires of us a commitment to others, an obligation to protect that freedom. It is a commitment of love, charity, duty, given with passion, which honours those who came before us and who built and died for the country. Unworthy are those whose self-preservation overwhelms when they weigh the wages for their labour for country. Without this Code, patriotism is impossible.  

In various social media discourse with young men over the years, I have never ever encountered one that shares my feelings on NS. Almost all diminish the Code to nothing but hubris. The youths of today, skewed on science and technology, hold a liberal world view that puts themselves in the centre of everything. Theirs is a world where The Charge of the Light Brigade is not about valor or dedication, but some bumbling generals and dumb cavalrymen taking blind orders. Where General Yue Fei's tatoo 尽忠报国  (Jìn zhōng bào guó) on his back was the work of a silly village mother who bought into the Emperor's propaganda. Where a quote of JFK "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" gets a rebuke.

Plato said there are 3 classes of man : lovers of wisdom, lovers of honour, lovers of gain.  

A few days ago, I found myself in familiar digital altercation with four young Singaporean males over the issue of NS. One of them professed to be in his 60s, but his angry and colourful language and hateful Facebook icon told me otherwise. Young liberal values of equality last hardly ten minutes. As soon as it becomes apparent our views diverge, the name calling starts. I was no longer their equal. Snippets of that exchange here show some idea of the conversation, the name calling and other digressions are redacted.

They professed their argument was not a total rejection of NS but the inequity they suffered, in terms of loss of 2 years which set them back against female Singaporeans and foreign workers, and annual mandatory reservist trainings disadvantage them in employment opportunities. Why waste 2 years of their lives when we have no wars to fight? Why NSmen cannot get a fair wage? They made sacrifices but they suffer economic disadvantages. Why should they defend the elites? Why not extend NS to females too? Why waste so much on defence budget when we don't have a war for 50 years? Why not outsource defence to mercenary Gurkas Force?

I put clearly to them that NS is non-negotiable. One decried we were having a serious conversation why was I pro-establishment. My rejoiner was indeed a country's defence is a serious matter, more so that NS is non-negotiable. None was willing to shoulder the burden for the greater good unless there is a good wage to be earned. It is sacrilege to talk of sacrifices when economic recompense is demanded. Their arguments do not stand. No matter how reasonable an argument may seem, it's a camouflaged excuse to justify a reluctance to do duty.

When I talked 'Duty, Honour, Country', I was branded a 'dinosaur', pro-establishment, other unkind names, and my views were 'Victorian claptraps'. When I derided their calls for equality to extend NS to females, they said I'm devoid of understanding the new world reality, pointing to Israeli women in the IDF. This old man could not quite comprehend what they meant. Were they referring to the New Age of Feminism, where it's about equal glass ceilings and a shot at CEO jobs for women, or to the Age of Lost Masculinity, where these young men have to put on jockstraps going into a chess competition?

One can stand at Hong Lim Park and scream 'social justice'. There is nothing to stand on without a country

One of the young man said all he wanted is social justice. That is so typical run of the mill, lazy, ivory tower argument that educated youths spin. He thinks he is standing on high moral grounds. It is mere virtue signalling and his one size fits all statement does not stand to scrutiny. The social media is full of young social justice warriors, so many that they have earned the acronym SJW. I gave him a chance to explain his meaning which turned out as I expected. He was merely asking for fair treatment. He sacrificed, so he wanted equity. SJWs champion all sorts of equality issues without understanding the philosophical implications of what they mean - LGBT, human rights, gender equality, etc .

'Social justice' is firstly an oxymoron. 'Social' is a vacuous description for 'justice'. Sacrosanct to SJWs is the belief that injustice can be wiped off the face of the planet if the playing field is leveled and wealth or benefits distributed which will lead to a Utopia on Earth. All socialist acts are fundamentally taking from one party and distributing to another. Yet SJWs toss the catchphrase about like a standard bearer oblivious to the paradox of the injustice in their very ideal.

SJW advocacy is usually a blanket appeal to some form of equity and they feel that is a valid argument. If you are against it, you are promoting social injustice, which of course simply is not true as no ordinary person supports inequality. It's too simplistic to use as an all-purpose justification for any policy or program. Those that receives, benefits personally; those denied, looses personally but may have dire economic consequences for the community. For example, higher taxes for millionaires in Democrat controlled states in US to fund increased social programmes cause the business class to pull out of those states and transfer jobs and businesses elsewhere.

Equality is not cast in iron simply because people are inherently endowed differently. After getting the women into NS these young men may then say hey it's not fair for me to carry the 80mm mortar barrel, give it to Jennifer, after all we are getting the same salary. Or why should we attack this hill, it's too high, give the job to Company B. Allocation according to attributes, skill sets, strategic objectives, national priorities, etc, take a back seat to the dictates of SJWs.

Social justice is plain and simple an idea in Utopia. Policy setting based on the SWFs' unachievable ideals is Utopianism at work where it is possible to make fishes climb trees. It is lost to them that the heroes have become the villains as they push toward a form of Utopian elitism.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."... Benjamin Franklin

Paraphrase BF's quote by replacing ' temporary safety' for 'compensation' fits the NS conundrum. What that youth asked is actually called an 'appeal to desert'. This is a philosophy of the condition of deserving something, which may be good or bad. It's structure is basically Y deserves X because of Z.  Y is the subject. X is the treatment or wage that Y deserves. Z is referred to as the desert bases, ie upon what basis or virtue that Y is deserving. So here the young man say he deserves a good job, or just compensation, because he sacrificed for the country in NS.

Many political and moral thinkers have pondered over the concept of appeal to desert and it remains debatable whether desert applies to justice at all. Great minds such as Emmanuel Kant and John Rawls have posited on the ethics of desert. There are 2 schools of thought. In very simple terms, they are :

• Deontological ethics : This  just requires that people follow the rules and do their duty. It emphasises on the action itself. If aspects of the action is considered morally obligatory, such as a duty, then the consequences for human welfare is not important. A case of means justifying the end, duty for duty sake. 
• Teleological ethics or  Consequentialism : This judges actions by their results. Therefore the results must stand to scrutiny, analysis, weighing the cost and effects and other subjective determination of the morality or equality of its outcome. 

In short, instead of  'social justice', that young man should talk of 'distributive justice'.  This looks at whether the distribution of goods among the members of society is equitable. In reality, all practical consquentialists do not concern themselves with an equitable society which is an Utopian ideal. Whatever is the best possible result, all things considered, should be in the mutual interest of all concerned.

"Patriotism means to stand by the country; it does NOT mean to stand by the president or any other elected official."... Theodore Roosevelt

Invariably, the core reality, that the country is paramount over all else, that idea is lost to the youths who will carry the debate on NS to various controversial issues of the day. Whatever these many be, and in Singapore there are many - elitism, arrogance of those in power, non-accountability, incompetence, CECA, foreign workers, high cost of living, unemployment, inept politicians, poverty, abuse of power, lost of liberty, etc. These are issues that are serious and worthy of loud public voices and platforms to champion against, but ought to be decoupled from a discussion on NS, or minds will be mired and unable to see a disconnect.  

The Code of  'Duty, Honour, Country' which are the highest of virtues and moral laws, now has a price tag. Enthusiasm for the kind of liberty paid for by patriotic duty and honour to country is dead. What is happening to our young people? I'm beginning to have ephebiphobia.