I don’t think I would flip that switch. I’ve gone 55 years without having to use violence, and I’ve learned some great negotiating methods to make up for them.
A non-fighter myself, I prefer the term pacific, “peaceful in character or intent,” to pacifism, if only because it’s an “ism” and therefore comes with a lot of political/philosophical baggage.
Czarcasm - I don’t mean any offense here, but I think there’s quite a few people struggling here to understand your point of view, and your answers to quite a few of the questions are very… superficial? Cursory? Non-illuminating? I’m not sure of the right word, but I’m afraid I don’t understand your pacifism any better than I did at post number one.
If you could expand a bit on your comments beyond one-sentence, very literal answers to the questions, and explore why you answer the question that way, or how you think about a certain issue? I think that would be much more informative than essentially repeating in different ways that you don’t like violence.
Not “just” squeamish. I said that preferring non-violence to violence is morally good. But a lot of what you’re describing is squeamishness. You’ve said yourself it’s not a moral position (for the most part, at least).
Czarcasm, do you have a child?
If yes, would you do violence to protect your child from imminent harm?
I have a child(now grown). I cannot do violence to others, period.
You seem to suggest that while you wouldn’t use violence yourself you’re OK with others using violence on your behalf, even though you don’t like it.
That’s my basic problem with pacifism, although I do find it an admirable position in some respects it unfortunately has little connection to the real world.
Its like people lauding Mahatma Ghandi, sure his position was admirable but it only worked because for all their flaws the British Empire was unwilling to use the force necessary to oppose him, if Ghandi and his followers had tried peaceful resistance on the Nazi’s or Soviets they’d have steamrollered him and his followers into the ground.
I apologize for the sort answers. I am at work at the present time, but I will try to expand on my answers when I get home tonight.
Oh, and someone asked if I was a vegetarian. I am not…but I do enjoy a hypocrite burger once in a while.
Does it bother you that people are going to keep inventing fantastic scenarios to see if you would break your pacifism?
I do not mean to insult you, CZ, so please forgive me if I seem dismissive here. I find it difficult to believe and impossible to justify. It seems to me that, if one has a minor child – a baby especially – one’s highest duty is to protect that child’s life and safety, even if it’s at the cost of your own moral comfort. Refusal to do so seems a moral failing to me.
Not will not.
Can not.
Maybe it’s a mental defect. Maybe I’m a deeply flawed individual. I do know that I have never had an urge to hit someone that I had to overcome, even in the most dire of circumstances.
Nothing I didn’t have to face while I grew up, I assure you.
But a lack of ability doesn’t make you a pacifist. A quadriplegic is not a pacifist. If you’re willing to consider that violence may be morally required, but find yourself constitutionally incapable of it, that goes beyond squeamishness. It’s what most people would consider cowardice. Though of course I may very well be a coward myself by that definition.
A lot of “quit hittin’ yourself,” I imagine?
oh, yeh.
What does getting queasy seeing a dead squirrel have to do with pacifism? Roadkill is generally accidental, and even if intentional it’s not something you have to be a pacifist to not like. I mean, I get queasy seeing roadkill, and I’m certainly not a pacifist.
So would you say that your pacifism is more of an innate revulsion to violence, rather than a reasoned ethical position? In other words, I see a difference between what you have said and someone, who, while quite capable of doing violence, foreswears it on philosophical/ethical/religious grounds.
Also, weren’t you in the Military? I certainly may be mis-remembering, and my apologies if I am, but if I am not, how did you reconcile your refusal to do violence with your military service
I would say that my innate inability to violence has helped guide me to develop a wider ethical stance against violence when it comes to larger issues. I spent four years in the U.S.A.F. as a crew chief for “buffs”(B-52D Stratofortress). My job was to make sure there was enough baling wire and coathangers on hand to keep it from falling out of the sky. At no time was I required to carry a weapon or to be anywhere near a situation that might require me to carry a weapon.
Wait, you actually served in the military? Sure, you didn’t carry a weapon, but your job was to help make it possible for a plane to bomb people. If you were a pacifist, you’d be a pretty weak one, but since you’re not a pacifist, I guess it doesn’t matter.
I am curious why you characterize yourself as one. I’ve already used the analogy of not being pro-life simply because you don’t want an abortion, but a more apt one here might be calling yourself an anarchist because you don’t like the government and could never run for office yourself. Pacifism is a longstanding and noble (if misguided) philosophical tradition that you seem to stand apart from. So why use the term? Whatever you are (and I don’t see a need for a simple label for it) it isn’t an “-ism.”
Are you sure you’re not just a pantywaist?