Poll: Pacifism and Killing

[Euryalus]

[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

 

[JoJo]

Indeed. Imagine if there's two masters and each has an orphan slave. One is a pacifist and so his orphan can get away with being lazy and not working for free and there's nothing the master can do! On the other hand, the other master can beat his orphan for the smallest transgression and in time the boy will become perfectly obedient out of fear. Pacifism makes no sense!

Spoiler: Okay, seriously...

I largely agree with your viewpoint. I'm a man of peace by nature but I recognise there are times when there is no peaceful solution. When an oppressive nation is sending troops into your country, when a madman is holding a gun to your child's head and fully intends to pull the trigger... it's perfectly reason to respond with lethal force when life is threatened and there isn't a likely chance of a peaceful resolution: in the real world those situations crop up unfortunately often. You should never be the one to initiate violence in my opinion, though.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Pacifism is good. As an idea.

Like all human ideals and plans to "make the world work". Democracy, Communism, Altruism, ect. They are all in theory very good things that could help us all be peaceful.

However, it can't be an ideal, yet, in reality. Something eventually comes up and breaks up the mechanisms, people end up breaking the rules, and it's no longer ideal.

Heck look at Trigun for a second and ask yourself if anyone but Vash could do what he does without killing. They kind of make the point to show he's something of an exception that can get away with it.

And even he had to kill. Forced to. Not to live, out of anger, or for his own fun. Just made to kill people like a tool of mass destruction.
So even Vash can't always really do it all the time in the end.

That said, I don't blame anyone for trying to not kill anyone ever. It's not that bad of a thing to try.
People just seem a bit too bloodthirsty when it comes to "the ends justify the means". To the point where it's used as an excuse for escape the guilt of doing something truly terrible.
I can't even say I'm never that bloodthirsty either. Nor that I can't understand the occasional need to do something less than noble "for the right reasons".

Can Pacifism "work"?
If you mean can someone live by if flawlessly, then no. Even Vash doesn't really do that. He still fights, he just can't kill. However, we should try to make doing things like killing be a last resort, not the first thing that comes to mind.
Head toward the ideal, but be flexible enough not to always follow it.

That's the problem with ideals. They too often need you to deal in absolutes, but the world can't work like that all the time. It isn't impossible, but I don't envy people who go for it.

There IS always another way, but we just may not be able to do it, so we have to adapt.

 

[senordesol]

Technically there *IS* always another way...if you're willing to live with the consequences. You could allow what is precious to you to be destroyed or absconded with. That *is* an option. And that's technically the tenant of 'pacifism', isn't it? You must not interfere with the things happening to you or around you. You may passively inject an opinion, but take no dynamic action.

In that vein even Vash isn't a pacifist as he uses violent, dynamic action to achieve his goals; he just skilled enough that it doesn't result in the death of his opponents.

 

[dyre]

I haven't seen Trigun, but in general I find that anime as a medium does a terrible job at portraying philosophy. You get these one-dimensional, oversimplified, absolutist portrayals of pacifism, rule of law/ social contract, justice vs revenge, individualism vs society, etc, invariably followed by a whole lot of poorly written rants by one character followed by exaggerated gasps and eye widening from another character.

IRL, most intellectuals don't deal in absolutes, because the world doesn't function neatly where you can always defuse a situation without violence. I've never met a pacifist who stated that violence should never be used, ever. Most pacifists make allowances for self-defense, defense of others, just war (though they can be pretty cynical about it), etc. I see pacifism as more of a strong desire to seek nonviolent solutions rather than a total, absolute rejection of violence.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Vash isn't a pacifist. Vash fights and shoots people, but Vash doesn't kill. The only reason that Vash doesn't kill people is because the plot demands it to be so. No human being could guarantee that every shoot he takes won't kill the person he's shooting at, and no human being can effectively shoot the gun out of someone's hand, the only reason that this works for Vash is because he's a superhuman character in an anime.

So no, Vash the Stampede's "pacifism" would not work in real life because in real life there's no way to guarantee that taking violent action won't result in killing the other party, and true pacifism doesn't work either unless one is willing to live with the consequences of doing nothing to prevent violence. People can only be pacifists when there are others willing to commit violent acts on their behalf (the military and the police).

 

[geK0]

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.

 

[Queen Michael]

Me, I'm of the opposite view. I'll admit that sometimes, very rarely, there will be situations that are not best solved by killing.

 

[Dragonheart57]

It helps to be an immortal badass who can disarm somebody by shooting the gun out of their hands in a quick-draw. Seriously though, in small-scale conflict there should always be another way, unless you're dealing with a psychopath. In larger conflicts, not so much. Sure, a solution may exist, but I don't think the kind of people who become leaders of countries care much about that when war is so much easier.

 

[SKBPinkie]

If you're as powerful as Vash or Superman, pacifism is perfectly viable. And hell, if you are that powerful, pacifism just makes sense.

However, seeing how that sort of power doesn't exist, killing has to exist.

 

[Abomination]

Pacifism is cowardice. It's not fear of violence, it's fear of consequence. It's fear of responsibility. It's fear of the slippery-slope fallacy.

While the ends do not always justify the means they also frequently DO justify the means.

Violence to prevent violence can frequently be a great tool - especially for long term-stability.

Vash is a superhuman character. He's more accurate with pistols that some of the greatest special forces snipers with precision barrels. His method only "works" because it's a damn anime. In the real world he'd have either killed a ton of people or be dead himself already.

 

[Agayek]

Eh, yes and no.

I mostly agree with the OP. There's some people who simply refuse to abide by anything but the rule of violence, and pacifistic resistance against such people is worse than pointless; it's actively destructive. Sometimes, you simply have to be willing to kill because the alternative is worse.

That said, I have to disagree wholeheartedly on the idea that "there's always another way" isn't true. There is always alternative and choice, in every situation. Those alternatives may well lead to failure or death, but that doesn't change the fact that they are still there.

 

[treeroy]

Yes, I believe in pacifism. You might think there is little choice in a situation, but that doesn't make it morally right to kill someone.

I don't believe it is ever right to kill someone. Taking another life is simply wrong, under all circumstances for me.

Pacifism is cowardice. It's not fear of violence, it's fear of consequence. It's fear of responsibility. It's fear of the slippery-slope fallacy.

While the ends do not always justify the means they also frequently DO justify the means.

Violence to prevent violence can frequently be a great tool - especially for long term-stability.

Vash is a superhuman character. He's more accurate with pistols that some of the greatest special forces snipers with precision barrels. His method only "works" because it's a damn anime. In the real world he'd have either killed a ton of people or be dead himself already.

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.

 

[Sarge034]

"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." -Winston Churchill


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

That about sums up my thoughts on that. I see pacifism as cowardice. In this world there will be violence but pacifists are fine setting safe at home while others kill and die for them. They are not willing to contribute to the safety and wellbeing of the group but they expect protection from those who do. It really rustles my fucking jimmies.

 

[Sarge034]

snip

Could you please take a look at my above statement and comment on that. I am curious to see what you have to say.

 

[Agayek]

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's very easy to die. Being willing and able to do so doesn't speak terribly well of you.

It does take conviction, which does such people credit, but that's about the full extent of it. By refusing to fight for your right to life or whatever else is being threatened, you are implicitly forfeiting that right. It's the ultimate expression of surrender.

Now, that said, I do agree with you that killing is pretty much always morally wrong. There's really no other way to put it. The deliberate ending of another's life without their permission is almost universally wrong.

It's an acceptable wrong when protecting the lives and safety of innocent people however.

 

[wulf3n]

They are not willing to contribute to the safety and wellbeing of the group but they expect protection from those who do.

When have pacifists ever expected others to fight for them. Pacifism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism] is in fact the opposite. A Pacifist would not want someone to fight/kill/die for them, as it goes against what they believe in.

That's not to say Pacifists haven't benefited from those that disagree with the philosophy, nor that there aren't people who hide behind pacifism for the very reasons you mentioned, however that's not really pacifism.

 

[treeroy]

"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." -Winston Churchill


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

That about sums up my thoughts on that. I see pacifism as cowardice. In this world there will be violence but pacifists are fine setting safe at home while others kill and die for them. They are not willing to contribute to the safety and wellbeing of the group but they expect protection from those who do. It really rustles my fucking jimmies.

You seem to have an odd view of what pacifists think.

Pacifists are not against violence only on the premise that they themselves are being defended. I know of no pacifists who like their own country's military. They do not "expect protection" from the military; that's the whole point.
And "not willing to contribute to the safety and wellbeing of the group"? What on earth are you talking about? There's much more to our protection than guns, you know. From raising children in a good way, to peacefully campaigning for certain rights, to politicians stopping violence through conversation, you can contribute to the good of society without joining the army. Indeed, many pacifists would say that in one sense, a society that demands violence is not one that we should be protecting. (I'm not sure if I worded that very well, sorry)

So a few things:
- Just because violence exists, does not justify our own violence
- There are many ways to tackle violence and protect society without using violence
- It is not cowardly to stick to your morals and refuse to harm others

 

[Someone Depressing]

Pacifism, just like Communism and The Ellen Degeneres Show, News at Breakfast, and many other things, look good on paper, phenomenal, even.

But in executional... they don't turn out that well.

 

[lacktheknack]

"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." -Winston Churchill


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

That about sums up my thoughts on that. I see pacifism as cowardice. In this world there will be violence but pacifists are fine setting safe at home while others kill and die for them. They are not willing to contribute to the safety and wellbeing of the group but they expect protection from those who do. It really rustles my fucking jimmies.

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.