Moral code?
See post #12.
So you wouldn’t shoot someone coming to harm you or your family, but would you call the police? Would you support a bill requiring the police to use only non-lethal force in all circumstances? Is there any situation in which you would vote to authorize military action (say, if the country were being invaded)? And what consequences would you accept for yourself rather than serve in the military if you were drafted (assuming you were eligible) in an emergency?
But again, pacifisim isn’t about your personal inclinations, it’s a moral stance and a philosophical one. It’s about what you believe is right personally and politically, not what you feel like you would do.
I would call the police. If it could be shown that non-lethal force was a viable solution I would support it. I would support my country(in a non-violent fashion) if it were invaded, but hope for minimal casualties on both sides. I would tell the draft board that I will not fire on others, and let them decide what to do with me.
What if you were thrown into ThunderDome? :eek:
My personal pacifism isn’t a moral choice. When it comes to the rest of the world, I wish there to be less violence overall. Maybe my hardwiring is guiding my morals just a bit-I don’t know.
I would ask for points upfront and a cut of the rental market.
edited to add: Including overseas rental-that’s where the big money’s at.
But if it weren’t shown that non-violence was a viable option, you’d be ok with the police using violence on your behalf, right? Would you have opposed the US entering WWII?
I’m not asking these questions as “gotchas,” I’m trying to see what your actual philosophical positon is WRT use of violence. (And I’m deliberately avoiding crazy hypotheticals like, “What if the penalty for not bearing arms in an invasion was that every child you know was raped for eternity?” I want to know what you think is right in real-life situations.)
Then you’re not personally a pacifist. A pacifist is someone who opposes the use of violence in all situations, not someone who doesn’t feel like it. Again, not wanting an abortion doesn’t make you pro-life.
I don’t understand this response, or how post #12 responds to my question. Did I offend you with the question? If you think moral code is the wrong term, feel free to substitute other ones like ethics, worldview, preferences, etc.
I’m not accusing you of thinking that you’re morally superior to others. I’m really trying to understand how you see your own moral code/ethics/worldview/preference fitting in to the bigger picture.
I don’t know if it would be o.k. I wouldn’t want them to harm another, and I couldn’t harm another…but realities usually trump realities, don’t they? I can only tell you what I think I would want.
I can’t do violence, I don’t want violence done on my behalf, and I prefer non-violent solutions over violent solutions.
So how would you label me?
Squeamish? I think preferring non-violence over violence is morally good, but I don’t think there’s a label for it. “Pacifist” probably works in casual conversation, but it’s not really accurate. If it’s not based on moral considerations but on personal distaste for committing violence, I’d say “squeamish” is the most accurate. I’m squeamish myself, but I don’t think it’s necessarily a good thing. I’m willing to benefit from violence done on my behalf, and I think violence can (rarely) be justified morally. I’d like to think that if I believed violence were morally justified in a given situation, that I could use it myself rather than rely on someone else, but I doubt it.
Do you feel there is nothing worth fighting for?
Have you ever played in a competitive sport?
Did you grow up in an urban, suburban, or rural environment?
So you think that, despite what I have written in this thread(and others), I’m just “squeamish”?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but what you describe sounds more like a gut reaction. I think that’s what you meant by saying its not a moral code you follow, but more like something that’s hard wired into you.
If we can imagine for a second someone with an aversion to blood, the sight of it makes them feel faint, but otherwise has no problems with the concept of blood. Compare this guy to someone in some religion who thinks blood is vile and a sign of the devil. You’re more akin to the former rather than the latter, correct?
If you could flip a switch and make your not have that aversion to violence, would you do it? Deep down, if its not a philosophical issue with you, then you would probably notice that in this world, violence is necessary to solve some intractable problems. Someone like you who doesn’t even consider it is at a considerable disadvantage, anecdotes aside. If you would force yourself into violence in certain situations, would you? Or does a part of you deep down feel this is a moral issue and object to violence that much that you would not make yourself capable of it even if you could?
Are you a vegetarian?
What if the person/people who came to help used violence to save you? How would you feel about that?
There are things worth dying for, but I can’t think of anything I would physically fight for.
Played baseball. My father(the asshole) signed me up for boxing to either “toughen me up” or get the shit kicked out of me. I learned how to block pretty well, but unfortunately I have a glass jaw. When the teacher trying to tell my father all this, he replied that maybe I would learn how to hit if I got knocked out a few times. They had to restrain the teacher.
I grew up in a very small town in Northern Idaho.
I think that one’s already been asked.