Pacifism

[jatkins]

At several points in my life, I have self-identified as a pacifist. I have been both a political pacifist and a personal pacifist, though now I find the former position to be less tenable than I once believed it to be. While I hold it is logical, reasonable, and moral to reject violence as a means of solving problems, the limitations of this philosophy are increasingly apparent. These limitations have expressed themselves as philosophical problems. Among them:

1.)Pacifism offers me no satisfactory present-tense solutions to problems like Saddam Hussein's dictatorial and genocidal regime. While I vehemently disagree with the notion of intervention and control, as I believe that sociological forces within a country will react against any perceived control and domination by the United States in such a way as to actually prolong the rise of a prosperous democracy, I cannot embrace horrifically damaging embargoes or inaction either.

2.)In a classic hypothetical situation, where violence is clearly the only means available to me to save the life of another, I've had significant difficulty justifying inaction to myself.

3.)It has been increasingly hard to reconcile pacifism with my sense of civic duty. I hold both of these conceptions extremely dear to me, and the thought that they might one day come into conflict is not particularly appealing to me. This is most evident in my position on the draft, noted on earlier threads. I believe that I am on the record as saying something almost irredeemably cheesy (and a paraphrased ripoff of Gandhi) in the vein of "I am willing to die for my country, but not to kill."

These are just a few of the problems pacifism poses for me right now. No matter where I end up on the spectrum, you can rest assured that I will remain a pacifist of convenience. That is to say, as a total wuss, I'll probably try to avoid all physical confrontations, because they would all inevitably end with me curled up on the ground in fetal position experiencing inexpressible levels of pain, regardless of whether or not I fight back. That much is a given.

So what do you guys think? How many of you are pacifists yourselves? Those of you who are, how do you resolve the quandaries I've laid out above? And those of you who aren't, how do you justify the conception of taking the life of another human being?

[syphos]

Read:

http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/catalogue/books-pacifism.html

The Dude: And, you know, he's got emotional problems, man.
Walter Sobchak: You mean... beyond pacifism?

[patio11]

I'm an ex-pacifist -- lived a sort of sheltered life as a child, thought it would be possible to do away with war entirely because it was entirely the result of bad men doing bad things, even did a little Gandhi idolization myself. Then I came to a realization somewhat similar to yours, although mine had a sizeable religious component to it (not a shocker, I can't choose pizza-toppings without getting God involved in the equation at least tangentially, and this is definately one of those questions that comes under His primary jurisdiction). And I wish I had a good solution for you, but I don't.

So how would I justify personally taking the life of another human being?

Because I have a hierarchy of duties as a moral actor, and the preservation of life is not always at the top of the hierarchy.

Because sometimes the alternatives are even worse.

Because evil exists in the world, it has since The Beginning and it will until The End, and if good men do not fight it it will win.

Because force/power is an instrument, and like any other instrument can be used or abused. To prevent those who have it from limitlessly abusing those who do not, sometimes other people who have it must intervene, and some of these confrontations will inevitably test force against force, and war ensues. But war is preferable to slaughter.

Because I am as secure in my belief in Good as I am in my belief in Evil, and, God willing, I trust myself and others to know the difference.



Best wishes for courage as you ask yourself the tough questions.

Patrick McKenzie

[BrendoForHisOwnSake]

My only issue is that I try to identify and align my personal politics with what I believe the best courses of action would be in a given situation. If I were to believe that war was avoidable without a huge detriment to the world, [i.e. isolationism that wouldn't allow for a international holocaust], I'm sure I'd be more willing to identify myself as a pacifist.

Outside of that, I think we should just make one huge freaking bomb as big as Earth cut out a hole shaped like America and drop that on everything.

M'kay. Maybe not.

[THE DING]

Hi Jatkins.....The Ghandi thing ain't cheesy....can think of really long list of worse role models...really short list of egual or greater value.....

I remember being asked not to intervene in a violent manner..
intervention should not be violent at the outset. It should be cold calm and controled. Ready for possible violence..able to deal with possible violence but never willing violence as the outcome. Controlled intervention could result in escalation of violence already in progress but is not the intent. Intent is to defuse the situation or direct the person engaged in violence to a different focus. If someone is assaulting another with fists or King Kong is "whuppin" them with a baseball bat....that can usually be handled by just inserting yourself by asking what is going on or "do you need any help" or getting in the way and taking a couple of lumps..calling 911..one can only respond by being themselves, after all both parties may get indigant and ask one to "butt-out" so you would. Oh well. These are the easy situations. The hard one is the gun in the face of someone who is unable or unwilling to respond on that level for whatever reason. Intervention then must be tailored to either surveillance..a call for assistance..or other passive mode unless trained for active intervention. Active intervention does not mean you should just shoot the the preditor even if the law allows for it.
The first thing is to have the firearm no longer pointed at the victim. If you are not trained and motivated enough to announce your presence and arrest the individual requesting he drop the weapon and thus focus him and the firearm on yourself you better stay in passive mode and document the incident while attempting to summon assistance. Rather than surrender the individual may do aomething else irrational and you may have to kill him in self defense to prevent a murder. Unless you truly understand and know yourself and, in this case, you, not only do not exceed your grasp but don't push past 80 percent of your capabilities until forced don't get between a deadly weapon and a potential victim because you may end up with two victims..yourself and the person you sought to assist. Deadly force is the "court of last resort"...it is final....it can not be made good...it is the last option looked to and only in defense of the innocent and defenseless. A weapon is never to be seen unless it is the last thing a murderer sees before he tries to take a life...they are not to be brandished..used to threaten nor as a substitute for a genetic deficency. They are tools and must be used as any tool is....C-O-R-R-E-C-T-L-Y!!!!!!!!!!

To bring peace is a wondrous gift....so maybe you aren't a pacifist....maybe you are a bringer of peace.
God Bless and Keep You Safe.:)

[jatkins]

Having thought all of this over some, I realize that there may be no resolving these questions. As many doubts as I may have about whether or not pacifism is indeed realistic enough, they are just that: doubts. They are not certainty. And I'm probably not going to give up my entire ethos because of that uncertainty.

And there are some things that have not changed. I still feel that there is a need for dedication to the idea of pacifism. The idea that considerable blocks of the anti-war protest organizational leadership are apologists for violently oppressive communist dictators doesn't tell me I need to distance myself from the movement: rather, it suggests that people like me need to be more vocal, that we make ourselves heard above the raving hypocrisy that are ANSWER and its ilk.

I still don't believe that there is any such thing as a "good war," or even a "just war." A war can only be "just" relative to the injustices it prevents or ends, and in this case it is merely less unjust than the alternative. Because it is never just for innocent lives to be taken.

I still believe that invasions and "nation building" (however well-intentioned) stultify social, political, and economic development. Oppression, real or perceived, is at the very heart of the political instability of much of the world.

I still believe that violence is only ever repaid with violence. It is our duty, as the most powerful nation, to be the one to end the cycle. And I don't mean through one final, massive attack to destroy our enemies, since this always seems only to leave us with more enemies. I mean by refusing to engage. If the United States had not invaded Afghanistan after 9-11, think of the meaning that would have conveyed globally. And even if you're a realist: think of the massive international legitimacy that would have given us. Now let's say we'd used that clout to get the UN to fund a massive campaign to develop and improve the Palestinian autonomous territories while brokering a two-state peace agreement. Certainly, we'd be tightening airport security at home, and developing our domestic intelligence apparati, but we'd also be using our victimhood not to guilt the international community into following us to war, but to meaningfully reduce terrorism while improving people's lives (these are our goals, on both sides of the aisle, right?) without firing a single bullet or dropping a single bomb. Could we see the dividends as early? Perhaps not. On the other hand, I think they'd last a lot longer.

Or let's take a step further back: what if we simply hadn't ever supported the Taliban or Bin Laden to begin with? And the same question is equally applicable to Hussein. A war is always the result of a failure on the part of the parties involved. As the only true actor on the world stage anymore, it is the United States that is saddled with the responsibility for many of these wars. This much is clear: we must stop creating the very situations that seem to bring us to war. Our misguided attempts to surreptitiously alter the world through violence and subversion must end.

I feel that the value of pacifism is its moral rectitude. A nation beset by violence that does not rise to vengeance is a nation that the international community will rally around. Pacifism, in the day of instantaneous media, has the capacity to shift world opinion dramatically; perhaps it will not convert the terrorists themselves, but it will deprive them of their recruitment base, and rob them of the political sympathy their cause thrives upon. I still believe that this is the way, the only way, to ever truly defeat terrorism.

On a personal level, I still don't feel comfortable handling a handgun. I hope never to have occasion to own such a thing, or even a non-lethal alternative. I hope I am never put in a situation where I have to make a life-or-death decision. I'm human. I don't know what I'd do.

In conclusion: I'm still a pacifist, pending further analysis. I'm sure you're all absolutely ecstatic to hear that. Thank you all for indulging my ego.

[Pattybar]

JAdkins writes....

I still don't believe that there is any such thing as a "good war," or even a "just war." A war can only be "just" relative to the injustices it prevents or ends, and in this case it is merely less unjust than the alternative. Because it is never just for innocent lives to be taken.

The idea of a just war ought to be more like "Justified" war -- and the basic question is whether more injustice will result from fighting it or not fighting it -- Additionally, since war is a complex set of actions and reactions, changing it from a bianary just/unjust choice to a degree of justness allows for a more accurate picture of how we do assess a war.

You are nearly correct about the innocent lives, perhaps it is better to say that it is not a just action to intend to take an innocent life? BUT --- and here is the consequentialst aspect of it all... isn't it the case that if taking one innocent life could prevent the deaths of millions of innocents, that the whole campaign would be justified --- even if the precise action which took the one innocent life was an injustice?

Patty

[jatkins]

Originally posted by Pattybar
The idea of a just war ought to be more like "Justified" war -- and the basic question is whether more injustice will result from fighting it or not fighting it -- Additionally, since war is a complex set of actions and reactions, changing it from a bianary just/unjust choice to a degree of justness allows for a more accurate picture of how we do assess a war.
A war might theoretically be justified given a hypothetical situation in which we have total knowledge of all possible variables and outcomes. However, I don't feel we ever have such knowledge in the real world. War rarely resolves the issue, and as we're finding, it hardly ends the violence. And even when it might be possible to suggest that we have no choice but war (in WWII for instance), this is because of a failure at an earlier stage to avoid these conditions (oil embargo on Japan, deployment of naval patrols in their waters, the TREATY OF VERSAILLES). All of these things could foreseeably have lead us to war, and yet we did them anyway. Then we acted shocked when nationalist potentates rose to power in Germany and Japan, when they invaded their neighbors, and when Japan sunk one of our destroyers. And we were outraged after Pearl Harbor.

You are nearly correct about the innocent lives, perhaps it is better to say that it is not a just action to intend to take an innocent life? BUT --- and here is the consequentialst aspect of it all... isn't it the case that if taking one innocent life could prevent the deaths of millions of innocents, that the whole campaign would be justified --- even if the precise action which took the one innocent life was an injustice?
Who among us can accurately make that decision? Who actually knows what the numbers are vs. what the numbers otherwise will be? And who knows how many lives we otherwise could have saved with the clout we wasted on Iraq? I think we could have ended, or at least meaningfully reduced the intensity of, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I think what we've done instead is give Israel every excuse to go on the offensive to end terrorism against itself; after all, it's what we did in the same situation. This, in turn, will only lead to more terrorism, and the cycle of violence is renewed.

[BrendoForHisOwnSake]

Forgive me for not trusting the Just War Theory, if that is indeed what is being discussed in these pror posts.

One of its original modern proponents was Saint Thomas Aquinas, who supported- you guessed it- the freaking crusades.

[THE DING]

Hi...fellow travlers, Warning..dis ist ein long vun und shotted from das hip..sorry about pelings...uh spellimg..you get the idea

Jatkins....you keep sounding like a peacemaker (and I ain't talking about the Colt Single Action Army Revolver Model 1873, which was never called a Peacemaker by the manufacturer). Don't want to own one. Okay. Why should you be forced to? No reason whatsoever. Why should you be belittled for that stand? No rational reason, whatsoever. Why should you have doubts? You are a human responding to exsternal stimuli. Thank the Creator you take time to "smell the roses" or you could say "observe and analyze" and then act, whether by questions posed to others for input or long hours in research of the "dusty tomes", relevent to your quest.
(Now it gets serious-er)
I was the Non-Comissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC) of the President's Amnesty Program for Vietnam era Deserts and Draft Evaders. (weird when you consider I was arrested for draft-evasion..is different story for other forum)
The following is a personal opinion of so-called pacifists based on first hand experience as a Federal Officer.
In the course of my duties I apprehended some and some surrendered. The so-called pacifists ran away from a requirement of the law of this Republic in place at that time and where therefore fugitives in flight and wanted felons. The deserters where only wanted by the military and a $100.00 bounty was offered for their return to military control by civil peace officers. Evaders had federal felon wants out. All wants for deserters and evaders whould show up in routine operations where civil peace officers initiated backgroud info-requests.

I saw the cowards, the whiners, the pacifists who ran or used violence against myself and my subordinates. They said they where pacifists. I can not equate those individuals, who appeared by their actions, to be, of low moral character with those I did not come in contact with.
Who where they?
The active military who pursued and where granted Honorable Discharge as Conscientious Objectors...or who served and died bringing medical and spiritual aid to thier fellows and the "enemy".
Or those who where individuals bound by Honor to do their Duty for their Country (i.e.: you and I)and "ruined" their lives by backing their beleifs by standing trail to expound the truths they must live by and gave up thier liberty in our defense. They have my respect and admiration as men of Duty, Honor, Country, and impecible personal character as they are true, trustworthy and dedicated individuals.

So I still feel you are heading towards being a bringer of peace.

Now..sit down...okay? I am a Moslem and I agree with the observation you made that we all should have seen it coming.
Well, hot damn, some of the "good" ideas to contain the "red manace" during the so-called cold-war are now the infamous bringers of unintended consequence. Unless you haven't heard, the world as we thought we knew it came to an end when the wall came down and the Soviet became the no-longer Union. That was punctuated by horrific mass murder on a beautiful September morning in New York, D.C. and a field blessed by the blood of heroes who tharwted the infidels' next attack.

As a child of the Family of Abraham those murderers are infidel.
What is infidel? An unbeleiver not a nonbeleiver.
My family consists of Jews, Christians as well as Moslems.
(Agreed...appears to be a rather dysfunctional family)
An unbeleiver is one who knows God's word and for whatever reason twists it to justify murder and the enlavement of their fellow beings.
That is infidel

Why won't someone (from either side) say we have had enough and reach out his hand and say..."let us not seek blame nor-retribution. Let us reconcile in God for our childrens sake and never revisit the hatred except as instrution of what we will never do again"

It is that simple, damn it!

I can see a United States of Abraham...Isreal...Palestine..
Jordan..The Lebannon all equal...all with there own representatives working together in the District of Jeruselem.
Can no one else. What a tool for good they could build.

All have been called to JIHAD...the struggle to realize God's Will in their lives. It is a daily struggle to do the right thing. It is hard because the closer one comes to living by God the more one is attacked by the advisary (satan).

Seek the Divine will and place your trust that God will give you the strenght to rise when you fall. Did not God give the strenght neccesary for the Prophet Jesus, blessed be his name, to make the final blood sacrifice for all? The Prophet Mohammed,
blessed be his name, was forced to enjoin secondary Jihad as Christian killed Christian, Jew, Pagan and Moslem alike.
Yes, there is a time to strike down the infidel wherever you find them and we find them in all branches of my family. They are those who preach or do MURDER in the Name of God.

To My Moslem kin I say, God is Great. There is no God but God.
To My Jewish kin I say, To Life, next year in Jeruselem.
To My Christian kin I say, May the peace of Jesus be with you.

To all (beleiver or not) May God the Merciful and Compassionate
gaurd you and guide you, may he bless you in your struggle to return to Him in Paradise.

Okay....back to "normalcy" have a wonderfull Thanksgiving.
What is to be thankful for? Everyday above ground is a good day.
(uh-oh...you don't think we is gonna get busted for violation of the non existent seperation thingie do you now that God has been mentioned? to quote they great Jewish Grandfather of fame and fiction: Oi-Vey!)

Love all

[Pattybar]

Originally posted by BrendoForHisOwnSake
Forgive me for not trusting the Just War Theory, if that is indeed what is being discussed in these pror posts.

One of its original modern proponents was Saint Thomas Aquinas, who supported- you guessed it- the freaking crusades.

And.. had you read modern just war theory, you'd see that wars for the purpose of religious conversion are not allowed... nor are those aimed at monetary/territorial gain.

Please, know what you are rejecting before you do so. Just war has progressed a lot since Aquinas, and even Aquinas probably should have rejected the Crusades.

Honestly, I cannot see ANY way to run a debate case concerning war/international violence without knowing the basics of modern just war theory. Even (gasp) realists have a reason to know it--- and others need it to have a real REASON (not conjecture) to accept or reject action.


Patty

[BrendoForHisOwnSake]

Thanks Patty, I didn't actually know what was being referenced as Just War Theory or not. Any authors?

Though while I'm at it, many would consider those modern outlines of what constitutes just and legal war are based in the very western-centric and abusive norms of old. I'm not giving my position on the issue- I'm just sayin'.

[THE DING]

many would consider those modern outlines of what constitutes just and legal war are based in the very western-centric and abusive norms of old.

Good point....anybody have a handle on Saladin and the way his outlook has been "re-interpreted" to justify continued fear of
"crusade" mentality not to mention the old man of the mountain
and his world view concerning forced theocracies? (Usama-done lost-it: not guite the Jihad he called for as it seem, at least to me we are doing Jihad to his infidel pork-eating self.)

Third Reich Nuremberg Laws...law of the state...implementation of said laws led to "Final Solution" of the so-called Jewish Question and became solution applied to anyone who questioned the state.

Is seeing the results of the Reich's state policy what led to where we are now...a justified resort to a lesser(?)level of unaccetible violent imposition of order so the escalation of a perceived(?)trend may be averted. If so action can be justified. If economic...my rules..cause I got the gold and the bigger bat,then no justification whatsoever, just the other side of the Reich's coin. (Reich used as obvious example)
Same for religious imposition/extermination....NO WAY!
Here comes the damn "but", we are required to defend the innocent and helpless. That and that alone is the only justification I can accept.

Rermember the egg problem Gulliver ran across in Lilliput?
and where did lili put it.....aaaarrrrggh!!!!

Oh the more it changes, the more it stays the same /Al Stewart
:brickwall

[jatkins]

Originally posted by THE DING
As a child of the Family of Abraham those murderers are infidel.
What is infidel? An unbeleiver not a nonbeleiver.
My family consists of Jews, Christians as well as Moslems.
(Agreed...appears to be a rather dysfunctional family)
An unbeleiver is one who knows God's word and for whatever reason twists it to justify murder and the enlavement of their fellow beings.
That is infidel
I guess this is where I see the problem with most ideologies of war. I don't believe that there are "evil" people in the world. There are normal people shaped by their experiences in such a way as to make them commit acts of evil, certainly, but that does not speak to "evil" intent. That people can believe they are doing good while they are doing evil is something that can and must be remedied. The key, to me, is the victim/blame dichotomy that predicates the cycle of violence. We are all perpetually trying to claim victimhood, and trying to externalize blame. Each new attack upon us begets a greater feeling of victimhood, which we translate into popular will to commit violence. That violence then victimizes others, who blame us, and victimize us all over again. The only solution, I believe, is for one side to say, whether they believe it or not, that they are to blame. To accept responsibility for the cycle itself. Since the cycle requires at least two participants, it will be as much true as false. More importantly, that party must then vow to end the cycle. They must choose forgiveness over revenge. I'm not religious, but this is a belief shared by every religion of which I am aware.

Why won't someone (from either side) say we have had enough and reach out his hand and say..."let us not seek blame nor-retribution. Let us reconcile in God for our childrens sake and never revisit the hatred except as instrution of what we will never do again"
Imagine if Ariel Sharon said to Yasser Arafat "I forgive you and your people for your sins against me and my people. Will you forgive me and my people for our sins against you and yours?"

Seek the Divine will and place your trust that God will give you the strenght to rise when you fall. Did not God give the strenght neccesary for the Prophet Jesus, blessed be his name, to make the final blood sacrifice for all? The Prophet Mohammed,
blessed be his name, was forced to enjoin secondary Jihad as Christian killed Christian, Jew, Pagan and Moslem alike.
Yes, there is a time to strike down the infidel wherever you find them and we find them in all branches of my family. They are those who preach or do MURDER in the Name of God.
As an active agnostic, one could say that I'm constantly seeking the Divine Will. It is hard for me to put my trust in God. Instead, I put my trust in my conscience. And if God did indeed make me, S/He gave me that conscience for a reason. Augustine even suggested that the conscience was the tool God gave us to determine His will.

[jatkins]

Originally posted by tutakai
Many would use this kind of pseudo-analysis to reject anything and everything that just happens to be associated with "western" cultures or with "modernism". It doesn't strike me as a particularly sophistocated analysis to argue from labels.
Greatest turn I ever heard on a kritik of westernism:
"Turn, kritiks of underlying logical assumptions are a construct of a classical model of logic that, at its basis, is intensely western."

[thedancingbear]

Cultural relativism is a product of Western thought.

The snake is eating its own tail at last,
IS

[patio11]

Don't forget "Turn, cultural relativism is a Western construct used to delegitimize non-Western cultures by classifying them as culturally absolutist."

Its a weird, weird debate world when I can win rounds by sticking up for the discursive rights of Al Quaeda.

Patrick McKenzie

[THE DING]

Originally posted by patio11


Its a weird, weird debate world when I can win rounds by sticking up for the discursive rights of Al Quaeda.

Patrick McKenzie

Hot damn....! Not only is that "bare nekked" truth but you might want to offer Mel Brooks the movie rights.