Pacifism

Myah · Dec 29, 2003

Being a pacifist, I was wondering how others considered it.

When I say I'm a pacifist, for me that means not to harm anyone. (I'm not a vegetarian. I have pointy teeth, which where made for tearing meat, so I'm don't really include my diet into my philosophy)
However, if my life or that of my family was threatened, I would defend myself and them.

Vegan Charity · Dec 29, 2003

Pacifism = Good Idea

In Political Philosophy is an idea called "Dialectics". It is the belief that all conflict can be resolved in a rational argumentitive manner (which would be solving conflict without creating more conflict). Modern day examples of this involve Theodore Roosevelt mediating the Russo-Japanese war, he did this under the doctrine of dialectics which won him a Nobel Peace Prize in 1905. When you combine Pacifism with Dialectics, you've got a winner of a Philosophy.

Ideally, Pacifism is a sound Philosophy. However, when applied pragmatically, it might not hold steady under human tendencies of greed, vengeance, or lust for power (for those reasons, Communism - a perfectly sound Philosophy in the ideal sense - does not work as well in the pragamatic sense).

Injured Soldier · Dec 29, 2003

I'm a pacifist. I consider it to be not violently harming people, even when it is to your benefit to resort to violence. My life has been threatened many a time, and I can safely say I'd rather be dead than resort to violence. But no one has ever threatened family or friends, so I don't know what I'd do in that situation. Everyone always uses the "What if a robber broke into your house and took your family hostage and you had to resort to violence to save them?" argument against me, but I really haven't come across this massive conspiracy of robbers breaking and taking families hostage to test out pacifist's beliefs.

However pacifism brings huge problems, just like any belief you could have under the sun. Is it morally right to declare yourself a pacifist when you can sleep safe in your bed and any number of people are out being forced into violence for your wellbeing (police, security guards, military)? Gandhi and Tolstoy both considered poverty to be the worst form of violence, so in our affluence are we condoning horrible violence against the poor? What of revolutions in history, were they all wrong (including the American and French Revolutions, if we are against violence, is it right to reap the benefits of modern states and democracies)? A state cannot exist without violence, if taken to it's logical conclusion must a pacifist become an anarchist? And then what is he to do, if violent overthrow of the state is disallowed?

These are some questions that keep my up at nights like tonight. And every pacifist has to address them someday, why not start today?

JillLars · Dec 29, 2003

Many of us have never experienced our family and friends being threatened, so if it did happen to us, I don't really think any of us could accurately predict our own reactions.

Blissman · Dec 29, 2003

Pacifism is a wonderful goal, but sometimes it does not save human lives, because others will take advantage of it and harm or kill you. Sometimes you have people only by threating war. 'Those who long for peace must be ready for war'. Those who go to war must remember that the purpose of war is peace.

ananar23 · Dec 29, 2003

Blissman:
Sure the purpose of war is peace; however, it we were all pacifists peace would already be obtained. In my apathetic little pacifistic mind the concept of war on war is grand. Therefore, I stand on the side of the gate with the other irenical individuals. So dont shoot, well just duck!
God bless!

Natro · Dec 29, 2003

A nice idea, but not really possible
Pacifism is like communisim they look great on paper and might work for a while but unless everyone starts off agreeing about it its not going to work.

Myah · Dec 29, 2003

Injured Soldier said:
I'm a pacifist. I consider it to be not violently harming people, even when it is to your benefit to resort to violence. My life has been threatened many a time, and I can safely say I'd rather be dead than resort to violence. But no one has ever threatened family or friends, so I don't know what I'd do in that situation. Everyone always uses the "What if a robber broke into your house and took your family hostage and you had to resort to violence to save them?" argument against me, but I really haven't come across this massive conspiracy of robbers breaking and taking families hostage to test out pacifist's beliefs.

I'm the same way, but I think if faced with the scenario you mentioned, I would do my best to protect them, even if it cost my life to do so. I don't think I'd pull a knife on them, or shoot them (I don't even own a gun), but most likely I'd try to put myself between the robbers and my family (especially if the scenario involved my niece and nephew)

However pacifism brings huge problems, just like any belief you could have under the sun. Is it morally right to declare yourself a pacifist when you can sleep safe in your bed and any number of people are out being forced into violence for your wellbeing (police, security guards, military)? A state cannot exist without violence, if taken to it's logical conclusion must a pacifist become an anarchist? And then what is he to do, if violent overthrow of the state is disallowed?

I've actually considered enlisting in the military, but as a medic or nurse. I realize that, yes, I might be called on to defend the sick and injured with violence, and I don't know how I react at all.
But I look at it this way. My mother was a police officer, and my, father, step-father, grandfather and brother were all in the military. They always considered those they worked with as a family, and I think I would as well if I decided to join.
We don't live in an Utopian world, and I don't think we ever will be. I don't think anarchy is an answer, because most feel that rules are necessary to live by.

revolutio · Dec 29, 2003

I am unsure how plausible pacifism is in the macro sense. I personally practice it in my life. I have found many things in life I am willing to bear pain and even die for however I haven't yet found anything worth killing for.

Frankly I think that it is the innate male aggression that attributes most to the failure of pacifism. Short of switching to a matriarchy I am not sure of much that would stop conflict. Afterall name one war started by a woman.

Myah · Dec 29, 2003

revolutio said:
Short of switching to a matriarchy I am not sure of much that would stop conflict. Afterall name one war started by a woman.

Hey...that's an idea...
But didn't Queen Elizabeth start a war? I'll have to look into that.

revolutio · Dec 29, 2003

Myah said:
Hey...that's an idea...
But didn't Queen Elizabeth start a war? I'll have to look into that.

Good point I forgot about her. Plus you have to decide whether or not Bloody Mary counts. Though she was probably a tad off her rocker so to speak.

I don't know if it counts as starting a war anyway, afterall up until practically WW1 Britian and France were just a breath away from war when they were not actually at war.

Injured Soldier · Dec 30, 2003

revolutio said:
Afterall name one war started by a woman.

Well, Margaret Thatcher did start the Falklands War...And I'm sure India and Pakistan were in conflict some time while Bhutto was in power in Pakistan. Catherine the Great ruled Russia when it was at war with Poland and annexed their territory. Elizabeth I involved Britain in wars with other European countries, but I'm not sure you could actually use the example of wars under Victoria and Elizabeth II holding them responsible, even if they would have condoned the war. Isabella of Spain (the other half of Isabella and Ferdinand) oversaw the completion of a 700 year long war that had been raging on and off, and started persecution of Jews all in the same year, and later was found to be an important piece in beginning the European-Americas wars that virtually wiped out entire nations of Native Americans. Even when not starting a war, women can play important parts. Cleopatra took sides in a Roman Civil War. Hatshepsut condoned years of military victories by Tutmosis (IV if I remember correct) because it allowed her a civilian rule.

And even then, to make the whole thing even more messed up, women are the prop that holds up a patriarchal society! Women and children have been a vital propaganda piece for men who just don't want to fight for their country's cause. Before Vietnam, a man who refused to go to war was seen in Western society at least as a shirker or his responsibility, and appeals to what the enemy will do to the women and women's role in letting shirker's know they are cowards was vital to the war myth to ensure the mighty war machine still went on.

dialogue · Dec 30, 2003

revolutio said:
Short of switching to a matriarchy I am not sure of much that would stop conflict. Afterall name one war started by a woman.

Don't forget the Empress Wu of China during Han dynasty. She was one aggressive, war-liking woman.

-Cordelia

dialogue · Dec 30, 2003

Natro said:
look great on paper and might work for a while but unless everyone starts off agreeing about it its not going to work.

I would almost agree with you, but you forgot that they have to KEEP agreeing about it after they START.

My conclusion is that it's neither possible nor a very good idea. You end up creating unnaturally defenseless creatures that are asking for abuses.

-Cordelia

pete5 · Dec 31, 2003

Sorry to be a kill joy, but if you are able to access the internet you cannot be anything but a deluded pacifist.

Reason: The very act of earning or spending money, of even being born in a situation where you are rich enough (by whole world standards) to acess the net makes you an active participant in slavery, murder etc etc.

If you examine the world economy, you will see that the only reason that you can afford to use a computer, eat enough food, wear nice clothes, be part of a democracy and use any form of modern motorised transport is because someone somewhere is being exploited.

ps. If anyone knows a way of living in the first world without causing all this, please post it so we can all stop the cycle, but sad fact of the day is that the first world needs the third world to sustain.

Myah · Dec 31, 2003

pete5 said:
Sorry to be a kill joy, but if you are able to access the internet you cannot be anything but a deluded pacifist.

Reason: The very act of earning or spending money, of even being born in a situation where you are rich enough (by whole world standards) to acess the net makes you an active participant in slavery, murder etc etc.

If you examine the world economy, you will see that the only reason that you can afford to use a computer, eat enough food, wear nice clothes, be part of a democracy and use any form of modern motorised transport is because someone somewhere is being exploited.

ps. If anyone knows a way of living in the first world without causing all this, please post it so we can all stop the cycle, but sad fact of the day is that the first world needs the third world to sustain.

Could you give some examples of why you believe this please?

It sounds like an interesting viewpoint.

pete5 · Dec 31, 2003

The third world is suffering terribly. Through basicly poverty and war.

The 1st world is cost effective because there are millions of people in the 3rd world doing a huge amount of work for very little money. If they refused to work, or demanded (and got) heigher wages then we in the 1st world would not be able to afford the things that we need to maintain our society (such as computers, fashion, food, etc etc) those things are only affordable to us because the 3rd world is in effective slavery.

It is almost impossible to spend one dollar in the 1st world without contributing to the current situation. Even if I try to be responsible with where I spend my money, it will inevitably at some point go back to the fact that I would have had to spend a lot more if it was not for some poor Chinese worker.

1st world governments and financial institutions also agressively persue exploitative trade agreements with poor countries (often in the name of free trade.)

Thus, I would say that the 1st world's economy relies on the poverty of most of the world, and as such most efforts to expand that economy actually result in the increased poverty of the rest of the world. The more people there are in the 1st world, the more the third world needs to be exploited to compensate, so just existing in the 1st world is making it worse.

Dyrwen · Dec 31, 2003

I'm fine with it, I even encourage it. Although my non violent actions are only because of a lack of sufficient abilities to do proper damage otherwise.

I would happily be killed for my ideals before fighting back. But given the ability, I'd kill everyone else to uphold my ideal. Hypocritical, somewhat impossible, but at least it's an honest answer.

Ampmonster · Dec 31, 2003

"A nice idea, but not really possible "

there will always be evil as long as their is sin.

Myah · Dec 31, 2003

pete5 said:
The third world is suffering terribly. Through basicly poverty and war.

The 1st world is cost effective because there are millions of people in the 3rd world doing a huge amount of work for very little money. If they refused to work, or demanded (and got) heigher wages then we in the 1st world would not be able to afford the things that we need to maintain our society (such as computers, fashion, food, etc etc) those things are only affordable to us because the 3rd world is in effective slavery.

It is almost impossible to spend one dollar in the 1st world without contributing to the current situation. Even if I try to be responsible with where I spend my money, it will inevitably at some point go back to the fact that I would have had to spend a lot more if it was not for some poor Chinese worker.

1st world governments and financial institutions also agressively persue exploitative trade agreements with poor countries (often in the name of free trade.)

Thus, I would say that the 1st world's economy relies on the poverty of most of the world, and as such most efforts to expand that economy actually result in the increased poverty of the rest of the world. The more people there are in the 1st world, the more the third world needs to be exploited to compensate, so just existing in the 1st world is making it worse.

It's an interesting viewpoint, but in MHO a bit rabid. You make several good points, but is this all your opinion, or do you have any statistics and/or articles by economists?
I'm grateful I live in a 1st world country, true. But there is rampant poverty in the US too. It isn't possible, in my opinion to totally rid the world of poverty. I'm not saying that we shouldn't help those less fortunate than ourselves but I don't see how pacifism relates to this. Pacifism is non-violence, it doesn't have much to do with economic policies as far as I know.

Pacifism

What are your views of pacifism?

A nice idea, but not really possible

A good moral code to stand by

The whole idea is ludicrous

Undecided

Invoking Wisdom

Desired

Senior Member

It's a Boy! Jace David- Due 1/20/07

God is Truth- A. Einstein

fgjnsj

Agnostic Atheist

Invoking Wisdom

Apatheist Extraordinaire

Invoking Wisdom

Apatheist Extraordinaire

Senior Member

parrhesiastes

parrhesiastes

Active Member

Invoking Wisdom

Active Member

Godless Reprobate

Swords to plowshares

Invoking Wisdom

Similar threads