Poll: Pacifism and Killing

[Therumancer]

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.

It's political, nobody today wants to be seen as an aggressor. Previously you did have things like "The Ministry of War" and the US still I believe maintains a "War Department" (I could be wrong though) although it was much more in the forefront during World War II. It's sort of like the whole one upsmanship game during the Cold War where we in the US came up with the ideas for the "Star Wars" defense system and Russia came up with a similar concept they were going to call "Star Peace". When we attacked Iraq one of their major weapons stockpiles for The Republican Guard that was reported hit during the "shock and awe" stage was in a place called "The Palace Of Peace" as well.

It should also be noted that almost all wars are fought for "defensive" reasons when you get down to it. After all every piece of land occupied right now was at some point occupied by someone else. Reclaiming/defending territory that was unfairly seized is after all how China sells it's current belligerence in The Philippines and over Japan's Island territory.

Likewise not all attacks/threats are military, yet can only be viable stopped by force and making someone else stop what they are doing. This is something a lot of people, especially on the leftward end of things, tend not to understand. For example if we see an East Vs. West war, it's likely to occur due to Western powers like the US defending itself economically from nations like China. Countries like the US having moved away from an actual industrial/production based economy are dependent on their ideas, patents, developments, and services. Nations like China that provide manufacturing services but also refuse to acknowledge those rights and produce "knock off goods" cost trillions of dollars annually. Right now one brewing tension between the US and China is that the US borrowed tons of money from China, but at the same time China has been stealing even more money from us... not to mention what they have been causing other western countries with a similar economic basis (like France). People are hoping for a peaceful resolution, but inevitably as tensions continue we're going to see China try and leverage it's debt, and the US is going to respond by actually getting serious about the thefts and saying "we'll subtract the debt from what you owe us for your crimes". Either that or there is going to be a flat out war when the US needs to defend it's own stability by doing enough damage to China to force it to accept international patent/copyright law (although there would be no need to conquer it).

Honestly while a lot of people like to think economics prevents wars, most wars begin because of them (no matter how they are dressed up) with one group pretty much defending itself from predation by another using it's military when it can't through the exercise of soft power.

That said, as I pointed out, due to this technicality everyone likes to also play the diplomatic game and say "we're not war mongers" through their naming, it makes it easier when you write the history books. Truthfully unless the world is united under one culture (which I am a believer in, but won't get into here) this is going to continue as the interests of one group will always inevitably come at the expense of another, and eventually it's always going to snowball into a war. I am just hoping during the next big one people keep it going until one group controls everything as opposed to letting the world remain divided in the name of "diversity" so we can go through the same crap again in a few decades... and also prevents a baby boom so resources won't be stretched and we can actually ensure a relatively high standard of living for everyone without running at a planetary deficit.

 

[Esotera]

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.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery.

In all seriousness, I'm pretty sure that it's a recent trend naming these organisations as a ministry of defence, rather than a ministry of war. At least this seems true in the US & UK.

 

[Euryalus]

SNIP!

-snip-.

I have, only once through and just recently, so I haven't had the benefit of time to let it marinate but I still think the show pushes vash's type of pacifism. SPOILER When wolfwood dies, he has a rather poignant last speech to himself about how vash was right and there were other ways to do things. Killing wasn't necessary for most of wolfwood's life.

That's why I wonder about it. The show SHOWS how inviable a straight up killing is always always wrong philosophy is, but says something different. Had there been a lack of wolfwood's final moments I would have thought Trigun was going for a distinction between bad and wrong. Arguing that while always bad, if its the best option its not necessarily wrong. As it was presented though I'm not sure the show says that?

I'm split between Legato and Wolfwood's final scenes I guess. I feel the show presents one thing and says another. With Legato it shows that sometimes certain actions need to be taken regardless of whether or not they're ideal.

With wolfwood it kind of says that pacifism is obtainable?

 

[Euryalus]

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.

I stand by the "there isn't always another way" quote, though I see your point. Sometimes dying is the only option

 

[Saltyk]

SNIP!

-snip-.

Let the snipping continue!

I had to rewatch the scene on Youtube.

I think it's more that Wolfwood accepted that Vash's ideals were "right". And he regretted all the lives he ended in his life, which would include prior to his actions in the series. Wolfwood states that if he is reincarnated he's like to be reborn in a place without violence, theft, and killing. Someplace where he could be close to Vash and the girls. Sort of showing that a life spent killing is a life wasted.

At the same time, all of the Gung Ho Guns die in the story. Either killed by Wolfwood or by the other Gung Ho Guns. And Vash had to kill Legato in order to save others. Something which was very difficult for him. Even when confronted by Monev, Vash refused to kill him, despite all the people he killed. During a Gun Fighting Competition, Vash actually made sure no one died, despite that he wouldn't be held responsible for anyone's death in that situation. But he killed Legato.

I don't think you should take these events separately. I think you should take them together. Wolfwood rejected killing at the end of his life, though he had to kill to protect people on several occasions. And Legato embraced murder and even stated that it was intoxicating to him. He could literally only be stopped by ending his life as he didn't seem willing to stop otherwise.

Vash embraced Life. Knives and the Gung Ho Guns embraced Death. But in the end, even if killing is wrong, one can't always avoid it. Sometimes, in order to preserve life, one must end a life. Something that Vash struggled with the entire series. Even up until the end. Imagine how many lives Vash would have saved if he had killed Knives early on. Knives is solely responsible for all that befell the people of Gunsmoke, after all.

There is a manga which has many differences (I haven't read it, but I know of it and some of the differences). One of the differences is that in the end, both Vash and Knives die, apparently depleting the last of their Plant Energy fighting each other. In the anime, Vash and Knives live with Vash taking Knives with him.

Spoiler: Oh yeah, Plant Energy

In case you missed it, Vash and Knives are sentient Plants. In fact, at the core of all the "Plants" in the series, are similar Plants that generate the energy for the people. Vash is actually able to communicate with these Plants. In the manga, Vash has many unique abilities that he can use with his Plant Powers, the Angel Arm is the most powerful representation of these powers. And Vash's hair slowly turns black as he ages, and using his powers hastens this. By the end of the manga, Vash's hair is completely black save for one sliver of blonde.

At the end of the day, I think Trigun shows that there is no easy answer. Killing is wrong, but allowing others to kill is also wrong. You can only try to live your life living up to certain ideals, but in the end those ideals will be challenged. They may even be wrong. And in the end, while Knives is obviously wrong, so is Vash, even if his ideals are better. I think the manga ending better represents this with the anime ending being a bit too "happy ending" and just ignoring the ultimate question of what's to stop Knives from causing more trouble.

 

[Agayek]

I stand by the "there isn't always another way" quote, though I see your point. Sometimes dying is the only option

Fair enough.

And yea, sometimes there really isn't anything you can do that would have a meaningful impact on the outcome. That doesn't mean you don't have options though; just that they all share at least one result in the end.

My point is less "You can get away with no negative consequences by not killing in every situation" and more "You always have a choice, and there is nothing that can truly make you cross that line, if you are willing to accept the consequences."

 

[Sarge034]

To all I'm replying to. My comments are about the US and US law because I'm too tired to be as ambiguous as I would need to be to include other countries.

Also, please watch this speech from Ronald Reagan for a condensed version of my views.

Spoiler

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.

By proxy, all the time. The military is charged with defending the constitution which guarantees the peoples rights. So if true pacifists had a problem with the military fighting on their behest why have they not left the country?

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.

That's my point.

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.

Then there are no true pacifists as I know of no pacifists lining up to be invaded. They enjoy the security that others provide without contributing to that security in any way and going so far as to denounce that security. As for the "not willing to contribute" bit, it is what it sounds like. See the above lines. In addition I'm thinking about the draft dodgers during Vietnam. It is in the constitution that during times of great need the military can conscript through the draft just like the right to free speech, the right to peaceably protest, and all the other rights the "hippies" fought to keep tooth and nail. But when it came time to honor their side of the constitution they bailed. The were hell bent that the government was going to play by the rules and then decided they were not.

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.

Is the implication that those who join the armed forces or are otherwise engaged in violent actions, such as police, don't raise children in a good way, peacefully campaign, or hope for peace?

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)

I would agree. A society, such as fundamental Islam, that demands the use of violence for violence sake is not a worthy society, but I would also say that a society that refuses to protect itself is not a worthy society.

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

- It does if you want to remain free and alive
- But what about the situations when violence IS the only answer
- It is when it places others at risk for you and you still reap the benefits

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.

I think that you need to learn some more about Gandhi and the Dalai Lama.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/dalailama.asp
http://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm

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

Sometimes it is. I'm not advocating for violence just for the sake of violence but to swear off violence all together is just as bad.

 

[the December King]

Better add in a lil' spoiler warning here, on the whole Trigun thing, in case I offer up something nuanced in my rant.

...

Vash can attempt to 'enforce' a no kill policy in a lawless world because Vash is greater than human, despite all of his pretending to the contrary. He is superhuman, or inhuman with incredible powers, if you will. Vash doesn't have to kill to neutralize a situation, he can render a murderer impotent with tricks and disarming tactics, super speed, etc.

I, however, do not see this as pacifism. He does not want to fight, and urges others not to kill. But he does pull the trigger when he needs to. He can just afford to use his much greater powers to enact his will, his desire to not see others killed.

Most of the time. But not all of the time.

EDIT: I missed your post, Saltyk, you pretty much summed it up to me, and more accurately too!

 

[DerpHerpilous]

The question of "when to kill" isn't a simple one to answer, but this is my take on the subject. Violence is a word that has quite vague definitions. It can apply to both confronting with the means to kill and confronting with the means to subdue. In fact, pacifism can easily apply when using the second definition. You don't necessarily have to become a doormat if you refuse to kill someone, but that doesn't mean you won't end up killing someone by accident either.

Let's bring up police as a for instance. All of them are armed with firearms, mostly with a pistol during everyday patrols and sometimes they have shotguns or in extra dangerous cases, assault rifles. A case can be made for using tasers instead of pistols, though I personally don't think that it is viable due to the many restrictions that tasers have such as wire length, charge capacity, etc. The only reason they aren't used as much as pistols is because pistols are simply more effective especially if you miss with the first shot because you can simply fire a second one, a luxury many tasers do not have. Unfortunately, they are also lethal. They could use rubber bullets, but even those are lethal to use. However, cops aren't expected to simply kill law breakers, they are expected to subdue and bring them in alive. It is the reason we call it "being arrested." Our current technology simply doesn't allow for as effective means to subdue when it comes to tools meant for this.

However, I also don't agree that pacifists are somehow reaping the benefits of military action or have no way of contributing to making society safer. A violent person who doesn't join the military or police force is essentially equal to a pacifist who does not join the military or police force. They both can be harmful to society in their own ways and they can also be benefits to it. A pacifist could want to make the society they live in a safer place to live in, so they might invent a new non-lethal way to take down criminals that is on par with effectiveness of firearms, as could a violent one.

So the question of violence vs. pacifism is like most questions about life: complicated. It can't be said that violence is the only answer for one type of confrontation, it just might be the only answer we have right now. So if you are a pacifist who is loathe to think of soldiers killing people for your freedoms, go develop a non-lethal weapon that is on par with their current ones, or better yet make it more effective. I am quite sure the military would be interested it at the very least.