Pacifism

[DEAD34345]

I can kind of agree with that statement, in some circumstances. If a true pacifist refused to prevent harm to innocents because it infringed on their beliefs, then that would be either selfish, cowardly or pretentious as far as I'm concerned. If someone sticks to pacifism even when it harms others then they must either believe that the principle is worth more than the harm being done (pretentious), not want to feel bad about themselves for not being pacifistic (selfish), or just be afraid to act (cowardly).

In the example of the OP, you apparently hate hurting people, which is probably a good thing 99.99% of the time. If you refused to hurt somebody even at the expense of causing much more harm to others however, then that would be wrong (in my opinion). Understandable, but immoral.

 

[Dalisclock]

I respect the principle of pacifism and feel it's a wonderful ideal. The key word there being "ideal" because unfortunately reality occasionally requires violence. There are some pacifists who presuppose that just because they believe in non-violence assumes that others respect their views, as opposed to seeing "Pacifist=Easy Victory".A country without a military(or someone with a military acting as a guardian) is pretty much a sitting duck waiting for someone else to roll in and take over.

I have heard the argument that "Well, if no one had weapons or was violent, no one would need a military". It's an argument similar to "Communism works as long as nobody tries to abuse the system for their own benefit" In which case, the argument becomes pretty much philosophical because you're talking about a different species then humanity. If there are humans, there will always be at least one asshole with a club who will bully everyone around him and will continue to do so until resisted.

With that out of the way, I feel that most wars basically boil down to greed and serve no greater good. Even the ones we normally think of as noble(World War II, American Civil War) become so incredibly messy and horrible that what little good comes out of them almost doesn't seem worth it. I'd love to live in a just, peaceful world where military could be disbanded because nobody needs them anymore but I don't think we were ever get there

 

[Dalisclock]

Pacifism is much like Communism: Desirable, but rarely practical.

Both are Utopian systems. With that said, remember that Utopia means "No Place".

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

I used to be a total pacifist. Even when I was bullied I couldn't bring myself to lash out and thus bring myself down to their level. Hell, at one point they basically challenged me to hit them as hard as I could and I couldn't do it out of fear of inflicting harm on them. :s (Not to mention the fact that my main tormentor was the goddamn nephew of the Vice Principal of Discipline, and thus got away with EVERYTHING was a factor too)

Now, though, I'm a bit different. I view violence as the "nuclear option". As in "only every resort to it in life threatening situations, or situations where I risk serious bodily harm if I don't stop it". And if I MUST resort to violence, I will make sure it ENDS with me. If some asshole tries to beat me up, I will go for the nuts, grab the nearest blunt object and make sure he doesn't get up to hurt me again (at least not without a few stitches). Fortunately, I have not been put to that kind of test yet, and I hope I never am.

As much as I highly value peace and pacifism and want to hold to those values, the world will not let me. The world is broken, fucked up and violent. I will try to hold to my desire for peace and I will avoid conflict at all costs, but if I need to defend myself I will do it.

And to those who go "Pacifism is pathetic and cowardly", I say you're wrong. It's neither of those. It's just incredibly naive, maybe even foolish. It takes a certain kind of overpowering moral fiber to be a pacifist. Almost anyone can throw a punch, though.

I say that as one of the many people damaged in their youth by the zero tolerance policy. By pacifistic scum trying to make their armpit scratching, wild rolling eyed, frothy-mouthed, shit flinging hysterical fear of violence a part of MY fucking upbringing.

As much as I disagree about your stance on pacifism in general...

I DEFINITELY agree with you on Zero Tolerance policies. Those are stupid. If you are attacked, you should be able to defend yourself. Also, Zero Tolerance fails to take into account the fact that enough social bullying might make a person snap and use violence, and then the real victim is expelled instead of the assholes who pushed him to it.

IMO, Pacifism should be an ideal, NOT a requirement. Violence should be respected and avoided, but not feared as a concept.

If some asshole is beating you up, you SHOULD have the right to return fire. Especially if the school administration is fucking incompetent at stopping the bullies.

So yeah. IMO, violence should be avoided as much as possible, but it should remain as a "nuclear option" if someone uses it on you. Punishing people for fighting back is a stupid idea.

 

[rutger5000]

Pacifism is the idea that if you harm a person to prevent that person to harm you, you end up harming yourself more than that person ever could. It's a though doctrine to follow, and I couldn't do it when someone threatens a person that I feel falls under my protection. But those who dare to apply it have my respect. Reality however is that a pacifist society will eventually be whipped out by a non pacifist society or non pacifist influence in that society. Temporally successes can be made by a group led by extra-ordinary persons, but these persons will eventually be murdered as they pose too great of a threat of those who draw their power from violence and oppression.

 

[Mechamorph]

I believe that ultimately pacifism is a selfish philosophy. Do not get me wrong, I do respect and admire the principles that underlie a pacifistic philosophy and in an ideal world they would be championed and upheld by all.

Sadly the world we live in is far from perfect.

There is a saying "defensor pax", that translates loosely as "the person who protects the peace" and I believe this should be the guiding principle behind the use of violence. It is a tool and like all tools it has its time and place; namely to protect yourself and others. One poster noted that people who disregard pacifism are either mentally disturbed or live in a war zone. There is a certain grain of truth in that statement but the point is that the underlying assumption is that outside of war, the authorities will protect you so an individual will never need to raise his or her fists in self-defense. True it takes more courage to talk to a raving lunatic than to swing a baseball bat at his head but if you are all that stands between him and a dozen children that he has decided should be his mid-day meal then in all likelihood the pacifist will die a tragically senseless death and a dozen kids will get eaten. The reason I denote pacifism as "selfish" is because in theory a pacifist risks lives, both of himself and others, to preserve his or her principles rather than decisively deal with a clear and present threat. The invading army of a megalomaniac tyrant is not going to turn aside regardless of the excellent moral fiber on display. The junkie trying to brain sweet old Mrs Johnson with a spikey bat is not going to listen to reason. Someone has to intervene, in fact more decent people would feel a certain obligation to intervene. When it comes down to protecting the lives of others against threats that are immune to reason and persuasion, not too many tricks are left in the bag of a pacifist that might do the job. What then? Are principles more valuable than lives?

 

[Dalisclock]

Despite this, for some unholy reason, people continue to tout "violence begets violence" and "violence never solved anything" like they have real meaning.

Except those sayings do have a point. The cycle of revenge is a very real thing. Go read up on blood feuds sometime and the reason legal systems exist is to mitigate or even stop them. The term "Eye for an Eye" is actually an admonishment against such things, meaning you can't exact a punishment worse then the injury you have sustained.

And sadly, most wars really don't solve anything. Instead they just set up the next one(unless you're feeling particularly genocidal).

Violence should never be the first response, but rather when all other reasonable alternatives have been exhausted.

 

[Salus]

Despite this, for some unholy reason, people continue to tout "violence begets violence" and "violence never solved anything" like they have real meaning.

Except those sayings do have a point. The cycle of revenge is a very real thing. Go read up on blood feuds sometime and the reason legal systems exist is to mitigate or even stop them. The term "Eye for an Eye" is actually an admonishment against such things, meaning you can't exact a punishment worse then the injury you have sustained.

And sadly, most wars really don't solve anything. Instead they just set up the next one(unless you're feeling particularly genocidal).

Violence should never be the first response, but rather when all other reasonable alternatives have been exhausted.

This. If I've learned anything from my exploration of human history it's how bad violence is at solving problems, and how we never learn from our experiences with it.

Under the umbrella of competent mediation is where humans thrive. Obviously hard to do, which is where the competence part comes in.

It always boggled my mind to think of how you could even get people ORGANIZED to die in such numbers. You have to really be trying, to push a death toll into the millions in the span of 3-5 years. All those bullets that have to be shipped to the front and then remotely placed inside people's bodies. Just the logistics involved, makes it look almost like mutual cooperation.

Why do people in this thread think pacifists are people who would never hit back or defend themselves/someone else?

I think most of us are trying to say that we're peace loving people, who have a realistic about violence and the consequences. As opposed to the people who often march off to war.

 

[Worgen]

I find it fascinating that nothing seems to spur people to violence like someone saying they refuse to be violent.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

I think pacifism is great... To a point.

The thing is, super solid, set in stone, never break from it rules are generally a really bad idea and they tend to fail.

Pacifism can work. Gandhi proved it, others have done the same. It will not, however, work in all situations. I'll go right ahead and skewer Godwin and mention the Nazis. If the allies had practiced a strict code of non-violence, the Germans would have taken over the better part of the world and uncountable amounts of people would have died.

So yeah. Pacifism is awesome in the small scale and even large scale sometimes, but violence is still absolutely necessary from time to time.

 

[Shymer]

I am a political pacifist and have been for thirty years. I do not believe that war is an appropriate way of resolving disputes between nation states in this day and age and I campaign/lobby to make my view known when my country decides to go to war.

This is difficult when my country's army are then giving their lives to protect my country's interests and I am reaping the benefits of a secure country. This stance/decision/belief and can lead to conflict with members of the armed forces, their families and supporters, particularly during times of war when political pacifism is often derided as cowardly, hypocritical or unpatriotic. I have not been faced with prison, fines or reprisals for my beliefs and, in part, I recognise that this may be because my country has participated in warfare in the past to be a free liberal democracy now. I would like to think my belief is strong enough that I would accept imprisonment or other sanctions if my country went in that direction.

The work of Martin Luther King and Mohandas Ghandi are inspiring examples of non-violent resistance and civil disobedience in the face of state aggression.

I find the principle of personal non-violence harder to commit to, and so, perhaps more worthy. The scenarios in which I am likely to come into contact with someone attacking myself or a member of my family are much more likely (although still unlikely) than my individual participation in nation-nation warfare. Who knows what you are capable of under extremes of physical and mental provocation? I would like to think I could find a way of restraining/preventing harm even if it meant cost to myself. I pray I am never called upon to demonstrate my principles of non-violence under extreme threat of violence to myself or others and I can only hope that I am up to the challenge if it ever came to it.

 

[chikusho]

Violence is the lowest form of human behavior. It's a primitive and ineffective fear-based response that accomplishes nothing and just makes the world worse. People who act violently are the true cowards, contrary to what other people have said in this thread.

 

[Candidus]

I say that as one of the many people damaged in their youth by the zero tolerance policy. By pacifistic scum trying to make their armpit scratching, wild rolling eyed, frothy-mouthed, shit flinging hysterical fear of violence a part of MY fucking upbringing.

As much as I disagree about your stance on pacifism in general...

I DEFINITELY agree with you on Zero Tolerance policies. Those are stupid. If you are attacked, you should be able to defend yourself. Also, Zero Tolerance fails to take into account the fact that enough social bullying might make a person snap and use violence, and then the real victim is expelled instead of the assholes who pushed him to it.

IMO, Pacifism should be an ideal, NOT a requirement. Violence should be respected and avoided, but not feared as a concept.

If some asshole is beating you up, you SHOULD have the right to return fire. Especially if the school administration is fucking incompetent at stopping the bullies.

So yeah. IMO, violence should be avoided as much as possible, but it should remain as a "nuclear option" if someone uses it on you. Punishing people for fighting back is a stupid idea.

1. Violence as Nuclear Option
2. Pacifism requiring incredible moral sense
3. Anyone can be violent

I've got nothing against you, and we do agree regarding the zero tolerance policy, BUT... Just a quick reality check for these three points.

1. The Bruce Lee character who refuses to fight, refuses to fight, refuses to fight and them BAM, fucks everybody up. That's a myth. The idea of violence as a nuclear option is a fantasy had by people who've never been through it. If you wait, if you try to walk away, if you try to negotiate for a few minutes while you're the recipient of harassment or abuse, this is what will happen: psychologically, they'll be excited and you'll be fatigued. They'll be ready to fight and you'll be ready to capitulate. When you finally lash out, you'll be intimidated. Your limbs will be weak, you'll feel sick, you might even respond to the loss of your own temper by *crying* instead of hitting. "Nuclear" option is a nonsense term for something that DOES. NOT. EXIST.

To be successful in violence, you have to decide as a situation escalates that OK, you're going to fight. You want to fight. You have to be open to being excited about hitting, you have to think about winning and concentrate on feelings of strength. And you're going to be scared as shit anyway unless you're a very rare sort of person. And you're going to get hurt probably no matter what. That's reality.

2. What's moral about not hitting back?

3. Finally, anyone can be violent?

I don't think less of them for this reason, but I think most of the people on this site, as well as most of the people I've ever met in the real world are "conflict cripples". People whose own physical response to the presence of violence or threat of serious bodily harm actually *disables* them from properly defending themselves- correct me if I'm wrong Escapists.

That aside, even if you're right- which I have serious anecdotal reservations about- what is wrong with that?

Not throwing a punch is only practical if nobody else throws a punch either-- I know! I know you know that and basically said as much! But hold on, the next line is way more important: and abstention from violence is only ethical IF violence is unethical regardless of the motives and circumstances.

Again. Something has to be intrinsically immoral about violence for strict abstinence to always be moral. This could also be my `other` response to point 2.

From my perspective, there's nothing intrinsically immoral about causing harm to somebody else. The motive and circumstances are everything. For that reason, again just from my perspective, being a pacifist is like filling out a multiple choice quiz all in one column. SOMETIMES you'll be correct in the practical sense to have abstained from violence, but your motive will never be correct because the circumstances are irrelevant to you. And quite often you'll be flat-out practically AND ethically wrong. Wrong, wrong wrong.

 

[thedoclc]

My view has been far more eloquently stated by others, so JSM on the topic, from his Discourses and Dissertations.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.

Forgive the lengthy quote.

 

[Salus]

My view has been far more eloquently stated by others, so JSM on the topic, from his Discourses and Dissertations.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.

Forgive the lengthy quote.

Although I mostly agree with this quote, we get into shaky territory when we start piling on the rhetoric.

If we do use violence, it should be for the most practical, utilitarian reasons possible, such as stopping someone going on a shooting spree, or organizations that desire to accumulate power to dominate over others.

Far too many people have died for rhetoric, though. When this guy starts talking about "regeneration" and "ascendancy" we start bringing abstract concepts into it, and god knows how many people have gone to war over concepts. Concepts like, "Jews are a dirty race," or "Germans need living room." Sounds completely ridiculous, but nothing facilitates violence faster than people trying to remove an imaginary cancer. That always leads to the most hellish conflicts. The true surgeon does not have to embellish his job with "duty" and "honor" and "freedom," he simply removes what is harming the overall organism and leaves it at that. That's why I get so concerned with people in this thread that are all caught up in labels rather than realities.

Wars begin in the mind, as concepts. Like the shooter in California, he wasn't killing people, he was killing ideas in his head, the ideas ABOUT people that were torturing him in his psyche. The fact that people died was incidental, in this case, it was his sick mind trying to remove painful concepts from his personal reality, concepts that we, with an outsider's perspective, can see clearly didn't exist.

Sums up why I will never kill for "freedom" or "justice."

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

1. Violence as Nuclear Option
2. Pacifism requiring incredible moral sense
3. Anyone can be violent

I've got nothing against you, and we do agree regarding the zero tolerance policy, BUT... Just a quick reality check for these three points.

1. The Bruce Lee character who refuses to fight, refuses to fight, refuses to fight and them BAM, fucks everybody up. That's a myth. The idea of violence as a nuclear option is a fantasy had by people who've never been through it. If you wait, if you try to walk away, if you try to negotiate for a few minutes while you're the recipient of harassment or abuse, this is what will happen: psychologically, they'll be excited and you'll be fatigued. They'll be ready to fight and you'll be ready to capitulate. When you finally lash out, you'll be intimidated. Your limbs will be weak, you'll feel sick, you might even respond to the loss of your own temper by *crying* instead of hitting. "Nuclear" option is a nonsense term for something that DOES. NOT. EXIST.

To be successful in violence, you have to decide as a situation escalates that OK, you're going to fight. You want to fight. You have to be open to being excited, you have to think about winning and concentrate on feelings of strength. And you're going to be scared as shit anyway unless you're a very rare sort of person. And you're going to get hurt probably no matter what. That's reality.

2. What's moral about not hitting back?

3. Finally, anyone can be violent?

I don't think less of them for this reason, but I think most of the people on this site, as well as most of the people I've ever met in the real world are "conflict cripples". People whose own physical response to the presence of violence or threat of serious bodily harm actually *disables* them from properly defending themselves- correct me if I'm wrong Escapists.

That aside, even if you're right- which I have serious anecdotal reservations about- what is wrong with that?

Not throwing a punch is only practical if nobody else throws a punch either-- I know! I know you know that and basically said as much! But hold on, the next line is way more important: and abstention from violence is only ethical IF violence is unethical regardless of the motives and circumstances.

Again. Something has to be intrinsically immoral about violence for strict abstinence to always be moral. This could also be my `other` response to point 2.

From my perspective, there's nothing intrinsically immoral about causing harm to somebody else. The motive and circumstances are everything. For that reason, again just from my perspective, being a pacifist is like filling out a multiple choice quiz all in one column. SOMETIMES you'll be correct in the practical sense to have abstained from violence, but your motive will never be correct because the circumstances are irrelevant to you. And quite often you'll be flat-out practically AND ethically wrong. Wrong, wrong wrong.

1. That's because it's very rare for a person to go from "cold" to "hot" instantly.

The way to treat violence as a "nuclear option" is to recognize when a situation might require it, and keep that in mind, psyching yourself up while still trying to deflect/avoid it. It's a difficult line. It's the idea of knowing you might need to defend yourself, while still looking for ways out.

It doesn't need to be "fight or flight" 100% from the word go. You just make yourself lean more and more towards "fight" as the situation escalates and your options to avoid the conflict fail.

Now granted, I haven't been tested on this yet, so maybe I'm just talking out of my ass.

2. Personally, I think that deliberately causing harm to others is wrong. It's a violation of your rights, happiness, and health when it's done to you, and thus it's a violation when it happens to others. To believe that to such a degree that you are willing to endure harm to yourself instead of stooping to the level of your aggressor requires tough moral fiber. (note that this does not cover situations where you are to afraid to fight back because it'll just make them more angry and thus make them hurt you more).

I in no way look down on people who use violence in the right situation, for the right reasons. As I said, pacifism is an ideal, not a requirement.

3. I'm not saying violence is ALWAYS wrong. Well, sure, it kinda is, but there are lots of situations where it's justified. Hell, sometimes it's more wrong NOT to use it. If no one had stood up to the nazis in WW2, that would have led to...well, even more atrocities. If some asshole is trying to rape your sister and you have the chance to stop it by braining the asshole with a baseball bat and risk getting stabbed, the right thing to do is do that.

So yeah, we only disagree on this on a small degree. You say that violence isn't bad, and that circumstances are everything. I say that violence IS bad...But circumstances can vindicate it or make it the only possible solution. It's basically a half-degree difference here. I just think it's something to be avoided whenever possible.

 

[Candidus]

So yeah, we only disagree on this on a small degree. You say that violence isn't bad, and that circumstances are everything. I say that violence IS bad...But circumstances can vindicate it or make it the only possible solution. It's basically a half-degree difference here. I just think it's something to be avoided whenever possible.

Yeah, I can even articulate the exact degree of difference by referring to something you said above.

"It's a violation of certain rights, your happiness and well-being when it's done to you, and the same is true when you do it to others."

In my view, people who violate the rights of others suspend those same rights for themselves. They don't retain them.

And that's the core of our differences. And that disagreement might be fundamental.

"Rights" can't be crystallized and examined in three objective dimensions. They're just an idea so... If you have an intractable take on that idea, you have a fundamental disagreement with anyone whose immoveable ideas contradict yours. Which is where the argument grinds to a halt.

I think that's us.

Just for the record, I admit when questioned to being a violent man, but I do usually prefer not to fight, just like you. Not fighting is pretty sweet.

 

[Vegosiux]

What I find interesting is with all the talk about how "violence can be a necessary last resort", why it is always[footnote]Not meant entirely literally, but just in case someone misses the hyperbole[/footnote] the first one discussed?

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

So yeah, we only disagree on this on a small degree. You say that violence isn't bad, and that circumstances are everything. I say that violence IS bad...But circumstances can vindicate it or make it the only possible solution. It's basically a half-degree difference here. I just think it's something to be avoided whenever possible.

Yeah, I can even articulate the exact degree of difference by referring to something you said above.

"It's a violation of certain rights, your happiness and well-being when it's done to you, and the same is true when you do it to others."

In my view, people who violate the rights of others suspend those same rights for themselves. They don't retain them.

And that's the core of our differences. And that disagreement might be fundamental.

"Rights" can't be crystallized and examined in three objective dimensions. They're just an idea so... If you have an intractable take on that idea, you have a fundamental disagreement with anyone whose immoveable ideas contradict yours. Which is where the argument grinds to a halt.

I think that's us.

Basically, yeah. XD

Agree to disagree and all that. At least we "resolved" this in a decent manner unlike so many other topics on the internet.