The point is that Pharoah as done evil and needs to be punished, because evil should be punished, and good rewarded. It’s not to teach Pharoah anything, specifically. Otherwise, Pharoah would have let the Hebrews go for a selfish motive (to stop the plagues), not because it was the right thing to do.
But what’s the point of the punishment, if not to correct his behavior?
Do you have any idea how psychopathic that sounds?
I feel exactly the same way about women who won’t put out. They’re not willing to do what is necessary to perpetuate the species, and yet they derive all those benefits from the actions of others that they feel are evil and beneath them. The only reason that they even exist, and are free to utter their immoral *“no, I won’t have sex with you, Terrifel” * inanities, is because their own parents created them-- with sex! And yet they figuratively spit on society by refusing to perpetuate it, even symbolically, through casual sex with me. Parasites, all of them. Yet they have the temerity to claim that their loathsome parasitism makes them somehow morally superior to women who accept money for sexual favors. The contempt I feel for them is beyond words, yet also strangely exciting.
Do you realize that the pacifist philosophy in question here began with Anabaptists during the Protestant Reformation who were not beneficiaries of “dangerous men standing ready to do violence on their behalf,” but were rather burned at the stake for heresy by those dangerous men? Somehow Amish and Quakers and Mennonites survived through several centuries without the benefit of friendly temporal authorities. Those who are truly committed to that sort of pacifism don’t ask anyone to do violence on their behalf, and generally abhor it when it happens in spite of their wishes.
Compared to many other religious beliefs, pacifism has a lot to recommend it. I’ll take a Quaker or Mennonite neighbour over an evangelical fundamentalist neighbour any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.
Not true.
A pacifist with a strong commitment to social justice can change the community in which he or she lives and for the better.
Gandhi, Rev. King, and Mandela spring immediately to mind as well as George Fox and Elizabeth Frye.
I’m not sure what sort of pacifists you know-my experience is mainly with the Friends and I can promise you, they work hard against despising anyone.
This summer, the nephew of a Friend that attends our meeting was executed in Texas.
This hit the meeting very close to home.
The Sunday before the execution,Howard (the uncle) , spoke during meeting.
He wanted to remind us that as the day of David’s exexcution approached, we had to remember, as strongly as we opposed the execution, other men and woman of good faith believed that it was right and just.
He asked us to hold them in the Light.
He asked us to hold the governor and all other officials involved in the Light.
He asked us to respect their convictions even if David did not receive a stay of execution.
My point is that the pacifists I know do not believe that they are morally superior to those that do not share their beliefs including those that support violent military action.
And we are aware of what we call annoying Quaker self-righteousness-trust me, any attitude that smacks of smugness is questioned-throughly.
I wouldn’t have phrased it as vituperatively as Lonseome Polecat, but he is correct. Pacifism is an absurd philosophy, and it is a philosophy which, if carried out, ensures the spread of evil.
First we must distinguish pacifism as a philosophy from pacifism as a tactic. there are specific times and places where non-violence makes sense. The American civil rights movement is the most famous. MLK would have accomplished nothing by using violence. By using dignified non-violence he was able to shame America into acting on its better instincts. Basically non-violence is an effective tool to convince a liberal democracy to change an unjust policy.
However pacifism as a philosophy goes further than this. It states that non-violence is an end in itself, not an occaisionally useful tactic. This is absurd, and I can’t understand why I even need to point out how it’s absurd. If it’s wrong to use violence to defend myself, it’s also wrong to use violence to defend others. If I see a drunk assaulting a woman, I cannot intervene, even to call the police, as the police would use force, perhaps even deadly force, to stop the drunk. Pacifism says that you can’t defend yourself, your family, your neighbors, or your country against assault.
What does this mean? You don’t have a right to have sex with anyone. You do have a right to not be assaulted, and to defend yourself against assaults. I don’t understand the analogy you’re trying to make.
Rwanda. The U.S. played the part of a perfect pacifist there. Of course that was out of a desire not to get involved rather than any moral conviction, but the end result is the same: hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead because no one would take up arms to defend them. That seems pretty fucking immoral to me. A simple show of force would have been sufficient to stop the poorly armed genocidairs as the PBS documentary Ghosts of Rwanda makes clear. As far as “non-violent means of protecting others,” if you can come up with an effective non-violent defense against genocidal sociopaths, I’m all ears.
As far as “an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind,” if we’re doing duelling quotable quotes I’ve got one too, from Edmund Burke: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
There seems to be an implicit false dichotomy in this thread that you’re either a pacifist or a bloodthirsty warmonger. I can’t speak for Friar Ted or lonesome polecat, but that’s not true for me. I’m pretty benevolent and I abhor violence. I generally prefer a non-violent solution to a violent one. But just violence is an absolutley necessary tool, and to do away with it makes the world worse, not better.
Or the bulldozer and the house.
I’m really not sure how you have arrived at this conclusion.
Being a pacifist does not mean you passively accept evil.
You combat violence by putting your body on the line if necessary.
Good men must always do something and before violence escalates into war.
Burke was speaking of the indifference that allows a Rwanda to happen.
.
I have to agree that a philosophy of strict pacifism, where all violence is renounced, is a recipe for malevolent rule by dictatorial regimes. I’m not a believer in the existence of good and evil in a spiritual sense, but human nature is simply not naturally “good”. There are people who will prey on their fellow human beings if they are allowed to do so. To many such people to make pacifism a viable strategy across the board.
This sounds pretty much like it. Unless you are saying that their rescuers were not part of the Multinational Force.
What?! I don’t have a right to have sex with anyone? I knew it! I knew I wasn’t paranoid! They all laughed, but the chastitists have taken over!
I’d like to think so. I also think that I should have the right to choose whether I use violence to defend myself, and that my choice doesn’t affect your right to make the same decision.
Honestly, it was more along the line of a ‘joke’ than an ‘analogy.’ However, if I wished to advance such an analogy, I might suggest that my exaggerated umbrage above seems to make about as much sense as a non-pacifist’s virulent ire at pacifist philosophy, which is presumably non-coercive. (Are there examples of brutally coercive pacifist regimes? How would that work, exactly? Shame-based fascism?)
No, I don’t have a right to have sex with anyone, but others do (mostly) have the right to offer it to me. They also have the right to withhold sex, if they so choose; and it’s rather silly of me to argue that they are morally beholden to have sex in order to preserve society. Likewise, I think it seems vaguely ridiculous to condemn pacifists for failing to endorse violence as acceptable. How does pacifism affect my right to not be assaulted, or to defend myself against attacks? In what way are the Amish, Quakers etc. infringing the rights of others?
…so run the Days of our Lives?
Terrifell I got that you weren’t serious, I just wasn’t sure what the point of the joke was. I certainly agree with you that you have the right not to defend yourself, should you so choose. I think it’s a silly choice, but it’s clearly yours to make. What I object to is Pacifism as a philosophy. To be consistent the pacifist must not only reject violence in his/her own defence, but in the defence of others. The pacifist cannot assist the victim of violence without violating his/her principles. As I said, this includes summoning the police, since the police are the entity we entrust to use the appropriate legal force to ensure order.
Of course the pacifist can try to use persuasion to cool a violent situation down, but who’s against that? That’s always the best option. But sometimes that option is not available, sometimes you’re dealing with a drunken psycho or a mob roused to genocidal fury. That’s where the pacifist’s ideals are tested, not in situations where even non-pacifists might prefer a non-violent approach. I assure you there is little non-violent resistance could have done to stop the massacres in Rwanda.
Again, I have nothing against pacifists personally. I agree with the poster who said they’d rather live next to a quaker than a fundamentalist. I believe Mr. Fox had a good heart. But as a philosophy pacifism is the enabler of evil. It does not work in a world of Milosevics and Bin Ladens.
Why? I can assist without resorting to violence.
Most situations where the police are called end in violence? Since when does police=violence?
A world of Milosevics and Bin Ladens exists, the opposite philosophy doesn’t have that great a track record of preventing or responding to them either.
CMC fnord!
No, I don’t, I have absolutely no idea whatsoever why anyone who is even remotely in touch with reality would consider it psychopathic to be willing to use deadly force to defend one’s life, or to defend loved ones, or to defend the community in general. Perhaps you’d care to enlighten me.
But then, I’ve actually had to face deadly violence on a number of occasions. Perhaps you haven’t.
Crowmanyclouds, again, I am aware that many, most situations do not call for violence. Who disagrees with that? For the Pacifist, however, violence is never acceptable. That’s where I disagree, not with the general idea that violence is a bad thing to be avoided whenever possible.
Of course the police only rarely use force. But ultimately their power comes from their nightsticks, handcuffs, tasers and guns. They have authority because they have the legal right to use appropriate force. The pacifist must object to this if he/she is to be consistent, and not be an ordinary person who dislikes violence but reluctantly allows that it is sometimes necessary.
And this brings up an ironic point. It is the non-pacifist rather than the pacifist who is best at keeping the peace. The police can defuse a potentially violent situation by their mere presence, without using force at all. They can do this only because they are prepared to use force if needed. As the trite saying goes “If you would have peace prepare for war.”
Bin Laden is still at large, but Milosevic was stopped a long time ago, mostly thanks to the actions of the U.S. military, belated though they may have been. Many Kosovars owe their live to military action.
Is this strictly true? It seems to me that a pacifist is perfectly consistent in assisting a victim of violence, *so long as they do so non-violently. * Surely there’s nothing to keep them from defending the victim by taking the attack upon themselves, is there? If I see someone being assaulted, would it be an act of aggression to shield the victim with my own body? Perhaps your pacifist associates have a different perspective on the matter, in which case I guess I’ve learned something.
I think it’s kind of a stretch to characterize pacifism as ‘enabling evil.’ It would seem logical, therefore, that despots would tend to rise to power most frequently in the most extensively pacifistic communities (Switzerland? Tibet? Central Pennsylvania?). In general, this does not appear to be borne out by history.
I’m also uncertain how pacifism as a tactic can be dissasociated from pacifism as a philosophy. Why do you feel that the civil rights movement was attributable to pacifist tactics but not pacifist philosophy? Do you believe that Dr. King would have embraced violent tactics if he thought they had a better chance of success?
Conversely, you cite Rwanda as an example of the danger of pacifism, yet acknowledge that the United States did not in fact withhold aid out of any moral principle, so it doesn’t seem that this supports your case at all. Was there a widespread pacifist movement in Rwanda that enabled the massacres?
I’ve really gotta go, but I just can’t resist pointing out that these aren’t good examples of successful pacifist countries. Switzerland has a very impressive military, and all adult males are required to serve. It’s a peaceful country, but far from a pacifist one. Tibet is suffering under a brutal occupation. Central Pennsylvania exists inside the U.S. Should anyone really try to oopress the Amish, I think the weight of the feds would be on them in a second. The Amish can live as pacifists because many other Americans don’t, which I think was lonesome polecat’s point.
Sorry I’ll try to address the rest of your post later tomorrow or Sunday.
I’ve really gotta go, but I just can’t resist pointing out that these aren’t good examples of successful pacifist countries. Switzerland has a very impressive military, and all adult males are required to serve. It’s a peaceful country, but far from a pacifist one. Tibet is suffering under a brutal occupation. Central Pennsylvania exists inside the U.S. Should anyone really try to oopress the Amish, I think the weight of the feds would be on them in a second. The Amish can live as pacifists because many other Americans don’t, which I think was lonesome polecat’s point.
Sorry I’ll try to address the rest of your post later tomorrow or Sunday.