Is absolute pacifism, that is not offering violence even for self-defence or even when many people are threatened immoral? Although its an idea that’s been advocated by many idealists (such as Tolstoy) if actually implemented by a population not protected by people who do not adhere to absolute pacifism they’d be doomed once the next enemy came over the hill.
Not always-some can’t fight back.
Pacifists can only exist where warriors exist to save their miserable asses.
Is it immoral? That depends on what your moral code is.
Is it “dangerous”? Of course.
Even the kind of passive resistance advocated by Gandhi can work only if you are operating within a modern, civilized society. And even then, it’s still dangerous.
Personally, I think it is wrong. If you are choosing to do absolutely nothing to oppose or stop an evil, you are allowing it, encouraging it, reinforcing it.
Often while referencing Gandhi one will hear his suppossed answer to the question “What do you think of Western Civilization?”, when he famously replied “It would be good if they would try some”. Or some such sentiment - I don’t remember his exact wording.
This always irritates me; Gandhi succeeded because he was using his tactics against The British Empire, on of the formost perveyors of “Western Civilation”. If he had tried these same tactics against the Soviet Union or Maoist China he would have been shot or in a Gulag so fast it would have jerked him right out of his robe and slippers.
FTR, Gandhi did not advocate non-violent resistance no matter what. He said that it would be ideal to engage in that form, but, if one lacked the courage for such perilous activity, it’s far preferable to stand up for one’s principles and resist violently, than not to resist at all.
And, you know, Jesus.
Only through a hyper-literal approach and without prooftexting (ie looking into other Bible passage) that passage.
Not true, as I understand it there have also been isolated societies that were pacifist and survived because the more aggressive ones weren’t in range. Of course, that only lasts as long as the isolation does.
IIRC, he also once said something about how if you see a maniac running though the street stabbing people, shoot him. I don’t think he qualified as an “absolute pacifist”.
In a world of absolute pacifists, all it takes is one violent psychopath to rule them all.
Not if they ignore him; one guy can only do so much damage. Admittedly that’s something of a Twilight Zone scenario; the brutal thug somehow ending up in a world where he beats up or kills people and everyone just ignores it and refuses to either fight back or obey his demands.
They can passively disobey him or just tie him up and put him in jail or something.
How are they going to physically restrain him to jail him?
Nonviolently, I’d assume. Maybe trick him into jumping into a glue vat or something. Tell him there’s a tied-up virgin in it.
*Buffy: Hey Ken, wanna see my impression of Gandhi?
[beats him to death with a club]
Lily: Gandhi?
Buffy: Well, you know, if he was really pissed-off. *
I suppose there are people who could attack and kill a group who refuses to fight back. I don’t think it is as easy to do as you might think. Most who can do that wind up in jail.
You could overcome a person without doing great violence ,if you have a big enough group.
I am pretty much a pacifist. i have not had a fight since I was about 11. I was also a competitive weightlifter when I was young. Bullies left me alone and it suited me fine.
He said that if you would choose nonviolence out of cowardice, you’re better off resisting violently. I don’t see how “Go ahead and defend yourself… if you’re a coward,” translates to support for violent resistance.
“Everyone will do X or I will randomly kill small children until you do”
Sure, try to “ignore” that level of monstrous evil.
Whatever your feelings may be about Pacifism, I think it’s pretty hard to ignore the fact that many of the earliest Christians were Pacifists. It wasn’t until after the conversion of Emperor Constantine in 313 C.E. (when Christianity got mixed up with the business of the state) that pacifism started going out of style.