Wiki has a decent write up on Pacifism. It shows the different varieties and reasons.
Nothing comforts a child more than the assurance that if anyone should ever try to do him harm, his father will scream for help in hope that someone willing to intervene will come to the rescue.
Average.
As far as I can tell, I am unable to do violence…but I can jump towards the attacker and try to hold him down until help arrives, which is probably what I would do.
Philosophically it seems like they should, unless one just does not like animals. To me your position seems less philosophical and more like you prefer to have someone else do the dirty work for you, and your justifying that with a noble sounding label than “squeamish” as someone said earlier.
You know what? I think I’ll stick with the common definition of the word.
Which means…?
I think a more appropriate term to describe you would be “passivist”. IMHO, a pacifist is a persons who advocates, promotes and pursues a non- or minimally violent world. If you are merely averse to violence and pain, that is not actual pacifism.
I do the former also, whenever possible.
Yes, and it shows that it is primarily a political philosophy of absolute opposition to war and military force. It is related to and often includes a philosophy of personal non-violence, but the two are not identical.
Protested against war and use of military force, check and check.
But you’ve said that there may be cases where military force is necessary, which is a non-pacifist position. And you haven’t been terribly clear about whether your personal non-violence is philosophically based since you say it is not a moral value. It seems like you’ve made a virtue of necessity, rather than taken a principled stance, though sometimes you seem to be claiming it’s both.
BTW, I’m not really interested in arguing over whether you are or are not a pacifist. Suffice it to say that you have not presented yourself as consistently pacifist up to now. You don’t seem to have a clear philosophical position, which is fine; most of us don’t. You also don’t seem particularly knowledgeable about the historical tradition of pacifism, which is also fine except for the implication I took from the thread title that you were holding yourself out as something of an expert. You may not have intended that, however.
From what I gather you don’t hold that war and violence are unjustifiable, so the common definition is not a fit.
Nothing, if it were thinner faced I’d have a theory.
Do you play violent video games? Do you ever watch violent movies?
“I do not think that word means what you think it means.”
Statement: The military works together as a team. Whatever the team as a whole does, every person in the team is part of it, and morally responsible for. When a military plane drops a bomb, every person that made that possible is a killer. That includes the mechanics that made the plane ready for flight, and the supply clerks that ordered the spare parts.
Do you agree with the above statement?
I think I see where you are going with this, but did you see post #73?
Not really, and only for the schlock value.
I’ve read it, and note that you wouldn’t do now what you did then. However, you claim to have an inability - your word - to commit violence, and thatg your job didn’t require you to carry a weapon.
I put it to you, quite simply, that getting a bomber ready to fly and drop bombs on people IS a violent act.
My question therefore stands.