OK, but I don’t think my question is a pot shot. Reading the wiki that the OP cited on pacifism it says:
“Pacifism covers a spectrum of views, including the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military…”
So is it really a pot shot to ask him if he, as a pacifist, thinks we should abolish our military?
A gradual lessening of all militaries would be a better solution, providing other methods of conflict resolution are actively sought. It’s not a simple problem, so there is no black-and-white solution.
So that still leaves a grey area in circumstances in which outside help is necessary to save your family from probable serious harm or death, but said rescuers would necessarily have to use force. For example, in an armed and violent home invasion, would you call the police, knowing that if you do not call you and your family will probably be injured or killed, but if you do call, the invaders will likely be injured or killed by the police.
I guess what I’m getting at is to what degree are you willing to let others do something for you that you are not willing to do yourself, and for such matters, what are the degrees of severity (yell, shove, hit, stab, shoot) and remoteness (self, family, friend, stranger in the community, professional in the community, stranger outside of the community, professional outside of the community).
(For example: re. severity, I would not strike a child who is trying to run off with my lunch, but I would strike a person who is trying to drive off with my car; re. remoteness, I would not run a sweat shop, but I would purchase a shirt from Walmart that was likely made in a Bangladesh sweat shop.)
For me, I think it is a case of what I can’t do myself, not what I won’t do myself. I can try to hold back, I can try to hold down, I can block. I cannot hit, stab, shoot, kick etc. I can throw things to distract, but not if I think that what I throw will harm the other person.
Thanks.
And you’re right-there are many grey areas. But there are as many grey areas in everyone’s experience, and trying to examine each and every possible grey area is an exercise in madness, in my opinion.
I guess the most interesting question I can think of for a pacifist would be: can you watch a movie such as Blade Runner or A Clockwork Orange (which contain a lot of serious violence that is elemental to the story line), and if so, how would/does it affect you?
I seem to have no problem with pretend violence-I understand that it is an enactment of a fictional story. I would prefer, though, that the movie be of either very high quality or very low quality. I appreciate a well made movie with exceptional acting…but I love schlock.
So seeing summary “justice” or “good” triumphing over “evil” (e.g., most Bruce Willis movies) is fine with you? Because I have a major problem with cinematic “formula” material that reinforces this cultural norm, in that it tends to make us all a little more stupid. Movies that are violent and satisfy your spleen instead of tweaking your head (or eliciting guilty laughter/mockery) seem like a bad thing to me.
Most Bruce Willis movies are neither good enough or schlocky enough for my tastes(Hudson Hawk being a notable exception). Well done realistic historical dramas, movies where the real consequences of violence on both the sender and receiver are examined-Basically, movies that show violence but do not glorify it.
edited to add: How in the world did you miss this line:
in such a short post?
Quality is pretty subjective and ambiguous. Was Avatar of high quality (I thought it absolutely dripped with “formula”)? How about Delicatessen? Little Big Man? The Patriot? Opinions will vary.
So very true. Would you like to present a list of 500 films to me to talk about? What a delightful way to hijack this conversation that would be-you could then snark on each and every thing I say, and nobody would bother to come in and discuss pacifism at all!
Or you could quit looking for ways to take whatever I say and put it in the worst possible light. Your choice.
Notable birthday for October 21st-Alfred Nobel.
Does that mean that you would, generally speaking, be able and willing to call police to intervene in a home invasion or public shooting if you believe the police would have to kill the perpetrator?
Also, could you respond to my latest posts on the Moriori question?
Goodness, laddo, I am not Kable, my goal is not to harrass you, I’m sorry if I got carried away.
Sorry if I overreacted-long convocation meeting gave me a headache.
It doesn’t take psychic ability to reasonably believe that the police might have to kill someone. Anyway, you seem to spend a lot of time fighting the hypotheticals people pose. For the sake of argument, can you just assume that you have reason to believe the cops would shoot an armed person threatening people? That’s hardly an unrealistic scenario, and while I know you can’t predict perfectly how you would act, you should be able to come up with some idea of how you hope you would act.
You said before that you had questions based on the Talk page on Wikipedia. I explained that the controversy on that page had nothing to do with what I asked about. I certainly understand wanting to be fully informed, but could you please say what information you want to learn and how that information might influence your answer? You’re never going to have every fact, but I think you have enough to make a preliminary statement in some detail.
That’s pretty ambiguous, but I’ll take it your answer to my question is a black-and-white “NO.” Such that you don’t think the USA should disassemble it’s military. As a pacifist who can do no violence to others it seems you do still value the ability of others to do violence on your behalf.
Philosophically, how can you justify that? Or is your stance more emotionally based rather than philosophical?
This has got to be one for the books. I have heard it said that Wiki is worthless as a source. I have heard it said that Wiki is o.k. at best as a source. I have heard it said that Wiki is pretty good but shouldn’t be the only source.
This is the first time in the entire history of Wikipedia that I have been told that Wiki was the only source I needed to make a decision about a major historical topic.
I’m sure you do-you’ve said so more than once. My decision is that I don’t.