Poll: Pacifism and Killing

[Strazdas]

i voted no but i will argue for yes, poorly.

pacifism where killing alone is prohibited is viable. as long as you have a means of disabling the misbehaving individual (f.e. rapist) without killing him it is doable. you know, like our police does now.
pacifism without any retaliation however would only be viable if absolutely everyone followed it. and for that we would need to brainwash everyone and i dont subscribe to such tactics.

OK, so what do you make of Gandhi and his followers, who, among other things, lay down in front of the British cavalry to prevent the horses from passing? That took balls, as the cavalry COULD have just trampled the protesters, but they rolled the dice and the Brits left.

Naive and lucky?

 

[Happiness Assassin]

The threat of death has always been a pretty stabilizing influence in global politics. In the recent years, the threat of wiping each other out (along with economic interdependence) have acted in such a way as to substantially reduce the rates of violence around the world, especially between the larger powers in the world. While pacifism is admirable for its goals, like many other ideologies, it fails to account for basic human nature, assuming that others will just fall in line and respect you. Sometimes it works, like with Gandhi, but more often than not they just get slaughtered.

The way that pacifism is portrayed in Trigun (from the way you describe it as I haven't seen the show) is just plain not possible, even by normal pacifistic standards. Hell, with Batman at least he just beats the shit out of people (which realistically would kill someone eventually except, you know, 'cause he's Batman), but with guns there is just no way, no matter how good with a shot you are, to non-lethally take down a target every time. Guns have the potential to kill no matter where they hit, from the leg to the arm to , of course, the head. You just can't account for internal damage to organs, blood loss, or infection.

And on a more personal note, I was taught a gun should under no circumstance, be thought of as anything less than a weapon used to kill. Even if you know you can't kill someone with it (such as not having any ammo), treat it as if you very well could. Otherwise you could become complacent and then an accident could happen. We have non-lethal options for weapons and if you pull out a firearm without realizing that you could very likely kill someone, then you do not deserve to be handling said weapon.

 

[Master_of_Oldskool]

OK, so what do you make of Gandhi and his followers, who, among other things, lay down in front of the British cavalry to prevent the horses from passing? That took balls, as the cavalry COULD have just trampled the protesters, but they rolled the dice and the Brits left.

Okay, I agree with your broad point and all, but I do have to nitpick and say that Gandhi was by no means a real pacifist; he originally called for violent revolution and only used the peaceful tactics that made him famous when it became clear that the resources to fight the British simply weren't available. Unless of course I'm buying into an urban legend, in which case, oops.

Okay, OT: I absolutely, under no circumstances, will ever use lethal force against any human being other than myself. I genuinely believe that killing people is wrong under all circumstances (except one, which I'll explain momentarily), and I would rather die than kill any day. I understand that that attitude can have consequences, and I accept that. That's actually explored pretty thoroughly in Trigun: Vash's ideals give the bad guys more opportunities for evil, strip him of his dignity, his family, and his every earthly possession except for literally the clothes on his back, and ultimately get people killed. He's called out on this multiple times, and the viewer is ultimately left to draw their own conclusions on whether or not he was right to stand by his convictions. I can understand how that sort of dedication to never killing can be unwise, but I still believe in it. I don't think the world will be a better place for one more corpse, and while I understand that there are others who would be willing to take advantage of that attitude, I still feel like there are other solutions.

Okay, now for the bit where I'm sure I piss off people on both sides of the argument.

Another belief that I hold very strongly is that rape is a special kind of evil, so much so that anyone who would commit that act is disqualified from being considered a "human being" as far as I'm concerned. In cases where something as heinous as rape occurred, not only do I believe that lethal force is justified for prevention, but it's also the ideal punishment. No one who would commit rape is redeemable as far as I'm concerned.

And while we're talking exceptions, I'd like to wrap this up by stating that I'm a lot less opposed to non-lethal violence than most people. Using it as a preventative measure is obviously justified, but I think that there are other cases where there is a place for small amounts of carefully controlled violence in our society - boxing matches being the classic example, but small-scale, brief punch-ups over disagreements (where both partiesexplicitly consent, obviously, and preferably have someone else making sure things don't get out of hand) can also be damn cathartic. If you have an uncle who's always telling you about the time he and your second cousin got into an argument at a bar, wailed on each other in the parking lot for a minute, then bought each other beers, chances are he's telling the truth. Or near enough to it.

 

[Vegosiux]

No ideology that is presented as "X at any cost" is one I could get myself behind. There will always be costs that are simply too high, sometimes it's the cost of resorting to violence, sometimes it's the cost of not resorting to violence, but I still say one should only resort to violence when every non-violent option has been tried and didn't work, and/or is obvious it can't work. And this one is tricky because it's only hindsight that's 20/20...

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke

Because it's either "shoot it" or "do nothing", no alternatives, amirite.

 

[uchytjes]

Honestly, it depends. There is just no getting to some people and as a result they just do what they want, even if it means doing something that takes other people's freedoms away. Because of this, we either lock them up forever or kill them. Personally, I think we should set aside a fairly large island somewhere and throw the worst offenders there or, in the future, have an entire planet dedicated to it. That way they get to do as they wish while society moves on. But that is a whole other topic unrelated to this.

Is Trigun-like pacifism feasible? Honestly yes, it is. There is always a way around killing someone, but the problem is that there isn't always time to give to coming up with a way to get around killing someone. Given enough time and you can come up with any amount of solutions other than killing someone, but normally you don't have that time.

 

[Kolby Jack]

Jesus said, according to the Bible, "those who live by the sword, die by the sword." Vengeance may be a sucker's game, but justice awaits those who think they can what they want by ending the lives of others. I don't condone killing, ever, but neither do I object to the killing of murderers. The world is a safer place with Osama bin laden or any of his cohorts dead, and , from my point of view, they died by their own hands.

Of course this doesn't necessarily mean I support the death penalty; after all, those guys WERE arrested and incarcerated. In the field though, I can't truly expect less than whatever it takes to achieve the best possible result.

 

[lacktheknack]

OK, so what do you make of Gandhi and his followers, who, among other things, lay down in front of the British cavalry to prevent the horses from passing? That took balls, as the cavalry COULD have just trampled the protesters, but they rolled the dice and the Brits left.

Okay, I agree with your broad point and all, but I do have to nitpick and say that Gandhi was by no means a real pacifist; he originally called for violent revolution and only used the peaceful tactics that made him famous when it became clear that the resources to fight the British simply weren't available. Unless of course I'm buying into an urban legend, in which case, oops.

And so did Nelson Mandela. In the end, it doesn't matter what they originally stood for, because what they actually ended up doing was extremely laudable and bold.

And at the end of the day, Gandhi is the "Ultimate Figurehead" of pacifism, so there's no point in talking about what he MIGHT have done if circumstances were different.

 

[chocolate pickles]

I don't really believe in Pacifism, as i feel that if someone is has taken the first step to harm YOU, you are well within your rights to defend yourself - your are not 'just as bad' as them: they unnecessarily started the confrontation, you are merely defending yourself. Even if taking a life is necessary. Because at the end of the day, who's life is worth more: Some thug with a knife/mass murderer with a gun, or the life of a law abiding citizen?

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Not all problems canned be talked away or peacefully solved. People can be assholes. People can be unreasonable. People can attempt to exert their dominance or will on other people. In cases like that violence is acceptable.

As for killing, I believe there are definitely circumstances where it's ok. In certain scenarios subduing someone is more difficult than killing someone, and if that person is putting you in direct danger or threatening your life, taking lethal action is definitely acceptable.

I'm also very for the death penalty. Granted I think it should only be used on people like child murderers, serial killers, or major leaders of organized crime, and only in cases where they're guilty without a shadow of a doubt, but I don't think people like that should be shown any sort of mercy or compassion. I never really bought the "WELL THAT MAKES US NO BETTER THAN THEM" thing. I consider killing a murderer to be much better than killing an innocent person. Also that "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind" thing is something I disagree with the implications of. I'd much rather have the eyeball removing psychotic blinded so he can't take any more eyeballs. 10 years then he's out of prison admiring how he looks in his new pair of glasses, meanwhile I have to listen to the television and never get to see a sunset again? Who comes out on top there? Fuck that guy.

 

[Abomination]

How on earth is pacifism cowardice? Please, explain, as I'm intrigued to why you think this. Surely it is quite the opposite of cowardice to stand in the face of death, prepared to die for what you believe to be right.

It isn't fear of consequence or responsibility (equally, you have not justified this). And how is it using the slippery slope fallacy? It's just saying that killing is wrong.

I don't believe the ends ever justify the means, in the sense that if people's rights have to be infringed upon in order to reach a certain goal, then that goal is not worthy.

Violence to prevent violence undermines the idea of violence being bad, and does little to help.

It's cowardice because the path of pacifism was allowed to exist BECAUSE of all the violence of the past.

The stability and prosperity many Western nations enjoy today was because they were big enough and strong enough to inflict death upon those who would seek to take it from them.

Now they have the privilege of benefiting from that past. Every piece of security and safety has been bought with violence or the ability to inflict it. Because if it hadn't there would be someone willing and able to inflict it to take it.

And in Vash's setting? It's not a nice and stable world, it's a lawless post-apocalyptic setting. Folks aren't willing to just "talk it out" when they're stuck between the option of raiding and starvation.

Pacifism doesn't work on starving bandits.

Pacifism only works in a society where nobody will die from lack of resources.

Pacifism is irrational and is allowed to exist BECAUSE of violence - not in spite of it.

 

[Goro]

I believe pacifism is a wonderful aspiration, but in all -ALL- of us there is an angry jealous violent lizard. Society is evolving along nicely but until the amygdala loses it's hold on the limbic system, rough men stand ready and all that.

 

[theboombody]

The climatic speech in the pacifist version of the film Bravehart - "They may take our freedoms, and depending on whether or not they feel like it, they may also take our LIVES!!!!"

 

[Thaluikhain]

Pacifism only works if it's universal.

Well, assuming that you aren't ok with being bullied and killed by people who aren't pacifists.

Killing isn't something to be done lightly, but, IMHO, it's something that occasionally needs to be done.

 

[Korolev]

Pacifism can't work. At all. It's a very nice ideology, but it's completely impractical.

Pacifism wouldn't have stopped Hitler. Gandhi claimed that HE could have stopped Hitler with pacifism, but (all due respect to the man), he was talking nonsense - had he tried a peaceful protest against the Gestapo, I can guarantee you he'd have been in a concentration camp or worse within 15 minutes. If the Russians had taken a pacifistic attitude towards Mr. Hitler, why, there wouldn't be any Russians left, now would there?

Another issue with Pacifism - they claim that no one has the moral right to use force for any reason, yet they live in societies where force is used and they DIRECTLY benefit from others using force to protect them. They can afford to be pacifist, because many of them live in nice clean cities with a Police Force that is willing to use force to protect them! They're hypocrites! If they don't want force to ever be used, then they can't allow others to use force in their name! So, if you are a genuine pacifist - NEVER, EVER CALL THE POLICE. Ever. For any reason. If someone tries to break into your house, attack your family - why, light a candle and try to reason with the criminal! Don't use force and don't let others use force to protect you - stick to your works and use a non-violent approach while a robber is bashing your family member in the head with a pipe.

Pacifists are hypocrites who can only afford to be pacifist because they live in a society which enables them to be pacifist. In the Wild? In an area without an effective Police force? They'd be eaten alive within seconds. It simply cannot survive the real harsh world.

Also, I hate their judgmental attitude, condemning everyone who uses forces as being bad. To the pacifist, the armies that liberated places like Auschwitz were as bad as the armies that sent people to Auschwitz. And that's a terrible thing to think. All the pacifists I've talked to have been so damn smug.

All they want is to not have blood on their hands. If someone was going to kill 10 people, and a pacifist could save those 10 people by killing the murderer, they wouldn't, because at the end of the day, all they care about is not having blood on their precious, precious hands. All they care about is being "clean", and to hell with anyone else. They're not willing to help by getting their hands dirty, because they are selfish.

 

[Esotera]

Pacifism is viable if you have non-violent means to stop a person from doing something bad. For example, you can try and talk down an axe-murderer, then use rubber bullets or tasers before resorting to lethal methods - I don't see anything that contradicts with pacifism there.

War is the main problem with pacifism. A country needs to be prepared to defend itself, but only as a last resort. I guess you could call this approach moderate pacifism.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

I would love to say "yes" that it is completely viable and that no person should ever need to die in combat.

Unfortunately that completely goes out the window when hostiles are in planes bombing your city and you can't really do much other than shoot them down or let them continue bombing you.

I like to identify as a pacifist, but I am willing to accept violence in self defense as a last resort.

This.

I subscribe to the ideal that aggressive and/or violent solutions should only be used when no other options are available.

Pacifism, like many many other -isms, is inherently flawed, for reasons that many others have pointed out on this thread. It's an inspiring ideal, but largely incompatible with reality.

And like so many other things, I find that the most wise principles and worldviews come from tempering idealism with realism into an alloy that is strong, yet flexible. It can bend, but is very difficult to break.

 

[Vegosiux]

War is the main problem with pacifism. A country needs to be prepared to defend itself, but only as a last resort. I guess you could call this approach moderate pacifism.

You know what I find funny? Countries have "Ministries of Defense". How does any war ever happen without a country having a "Ministry of Offense" is beyond me.

 

[Therumancer]

[HEADING=1]INJUSTICE LEAGUE[br]ASKS [br][small]-Pacifism and Killing-[/small][/HEADING]​

Dearest America Escapist it's me, your president beloved friend, John Henry Eden T0ad. I'd like to talk to you about something near and dear to all of us. I'd like to talk to you about Baseball... I mean anime.

I've recently been watching a show by the name of Trigun, and it's messages of Pacifism struck me as naive and born of a misplaced sense of virtue. That there's always another way. That killing is never necessary. Nonsense! Killing is a vital part of what keeps people in line. Imagine, if you will, a country where the threat of retaliation was never considered. A deranged individual would murder us all unopposed because those inclined to step up and stop them would merely try to talk him down. I'm sure we all see the issue with this. Men of violence will not listen to spineless wimps who won't even cross the line drawn before them. Won't listen to the cowards who refuse to do what it takes to protect them and their's!

This ideaology must be opposed if we are to make this world a better place!

Spoiler: My Actual Opinion

Ok, so my Evil persona aside, I really don't agree with the theme of the show, namely pacifism. At least not in the way the show presents it. For those of you not in the know, Trigun is a sci-fi cowboy gunslinger anime starring a character called Vash the stampede. Vash the stampede is an amazing gunslinging outlaw who makes it a point never to kill someone in order to accomplish his ends. One of THE quotes the show is "No one has the right to take the life of another." And throughout the series pounds into your head that there's ALWAYS another way.

And quite frankly, I just don't agree that there's always another way or a way out. Life doesn't always give you nice packaged options, and to have a bold claim like that irks me. My philosophical position on morality is rather complicated and I won't go into it, There are bits and pieces of virtue ethics, stoicism, epicureanism, and utilitarianism all included in it, but I will say this. I do think the ends ultimately justify the means. As always with the "sorta" caveat added on to the end. I just don't think Trigun's Deontological "the ends never justify the means" pacifism is right, or is beneficial as a thing to hold as your ethical system.

What do you think of a system of morality a la Trigun? Do the ends justify the means? Is pacifism like "no one has the right to take the life of another" viable?

[HEADING=3]-TL;DR Is pacifism like "no one has the right to take the life of another" viable?-[/HEADING]​

[hr]

[small]-T0ad 0f Truth-[/small]
[small]-Chief Inquisitor of The Injustice League-[/small]

THIS THREAD APPROVED BY THE INJUSTICE LEAGUE

Actually, I think you misunderstand the message of Trigun. It should be noted that the show's very name comes from there being THREE guns/main characters... Vash, Knives, and Wolfwood. Wolfwood exists for a reason in the show, and that is specifically to point out the flaw with Vash's logic. Simply put Wolfwood kills on the behalf of Vash so he won't have to do it. What's more when Wolfwood buys what Vash is selling, it gets him killed, and leaves the good guys unprepared for the final battle. A lot of the drama of the last fight is simply put that every time Vash ran into a problem that couldn't be resolved without killing someone, Wolfwood was there to cover it for him. Going into the last fight with Knives who was in possession of an equally powerful weapon, and a gleeful mass murderer, it was unlikely Vash could stop someone like that without killing them... If one assumes Vash was right, there would be no tension in that entire finale which was set up the way it was with that particular sequence of events for a reason. A lot of people frequently ask "why did they have to kill Wolfwood?" and the answer is, because if they didn't kill him it would have undermined the entire point they were making that Vash was wrong.

What's more at the end of the series, at least the anime, there is one very good question remaining: Vash knocked out Knives and won a fight with him, but that in no way resolves the problem and prevents this guy from going full blown homicidal again. Granted without one of the "Angel Arms" he won't be able to level cities with a single shot, but he's still crazy powerful. There is literally no where on that planet they can contain this guy. Some people have said in the Manga and some kind of novelization both Vash and Knives die after that point from power depletion, however that still goes back to the original point (Vash killed him by making him deplete himself).

Don't get me wrong, Vash's attitude is infectious, and I think part of the point of the series was to show the lure of pacifism and depict what begins as a "magic wand" comic reality where the hero can resolve everything while maintaining an utter moral high ground, with things just working out. Indeed Vash is a complete cornball and doesn't take things seriously. As the series goes on though Vash very gradually gets more serious, as do the threats he faces, until in the final episodes we have people bleeding out in churches after being shot in the back by a guy whose life they spared (who was under mind control), which is a sort of "beat you over the head with the message" point, and the hero himself pretty much going out believing he's going to die by entering into a fight he simply cannot win, and knows he cannot win, unless he sacrifices his principles. In short it ends with reality where at the end of the day to solve some problems you have to kill people, or at least make them die. Whether Vash and Knives both die from depletion, or the problem continues with Knives just getting up an hour later and going on another murder spree because Vash simply can't stop him, well that's a matter of speculation and I guess comes down to what ending you follow and whether your a cup half empty or half full part of guy... in the end though pacifism/a code against killing didn't work.

"Trigun" also asks the whole "Batman" question as well when you think about it (and I believe Wolfwood raises this point in a way), Vash's refusal to kill Knives means Vash is arguably responsible for all of the deaths. I also think there is a sort of intended irony involved in Vash being "the humanoid Typhoon" and believed to have killed all the people Knives did... because in a way Vash is responsible for it for not having put down Knives when he had the chance and knew what was going to happen. Vash really is on a lot of levels the murderer.

 

[Saltyk]

SNIP!

I haven't read this whole thread in detail, but have you watched the whole series?

I ask because I don't think the series disagrees. Yes, Vash refuses to kill. But even he has his limits. There are those moments where even he considers it and is tempted, to say the least.

As someone else said, Vash's view is not viable as anyone else would have died a hundred times in the series. Vash is more accurate with a pistol than a sniper with a rifle. He's able to change the trajectory of a giant spinning object with five bullets. He shoots people without killing them (statistically improbable as even shooting someone in the leg can kill them).

That's sort of the point of the character. Living up to his ideal is hard. Even for him.

Vash is similar to Kenshin Himura in this. Kenshin never killed an opponent he fought in the series. Yet, it's only even possible because Kenshin is so much more skilled than 99% of the people he fights that he can get away with not killing them as most of them couldn't even hit him. However, that series also makes it clear that sometimes the only way to stop someone is to kill them.

I think both series seem to think that not killing people and pacifism are nice ideals, but ideals that no one can truly live up to. It only takes one person who rejects the idea of pacifism and is willing to harm people to get what he wants, to find the fault in it.