I think a lot of us have such a strong reaction to suggestions of a pacifist response because we equate it with inaction, or taking action with goals other than effectively eliminating or significantly diminishing the threat.
What’s called for here is warfare and law enforcement that is not devoid of compassion for non-enemies. And it appears to me that that is exactly the course the West is on.
The cowards that are our enemies will make that as difficult as can be, by blending in with civilians.
From a lot of what I’m reading, the Afghani people aren’t too keen on the Taliban, either. When they no longer fear a reprisal, they might welcome Western forces as liberators.
“Absolute Pacifism” is like pure Communism. Both would be great systems if they were possible. But humans aren’t emotionally advanced enough to do it. Communism will be abused by those running the system, and absolute pacifism is self-destructive because there are too many violent groups who see it as a buffet.
I consider myself a pacifist, but my stance is “I will never start a fight, I will never engage in a fight if there is any other option. But if my enemy only recognizes violence, and will not give up unless forced to, then I’ll break his nose and both his legs … then walk away.”
A group of absolute pacifists, when faced with a violent enemy, will allow themselves to be destroyed and thereby eliminate the followers of their philosophy. Pacifism is great so long as you know when it should be applied, and when it should be put on the shelf for its own survival.
But immoral? No. Pacifism is never immoral. And violence is not always immoral. Pacifism is simply sometimes “misguided.”
of course, upon one’s definition of evil. Most of those arguing that “inaction/ineffective action in the face of evile is evil” seem to rely upon a consequentialist moral philosophy. They “add up” the evil in a context, then determine the morality of an action by whether it would increase or decrease that quantity. I suspect that few actually explicate such an exercise, but it seems inherent in teh “mazi train” family of hypotheticals.
There are other ways to view morality, and other standards by which to judge actions. I am not a pacifist. I find pacifism to be impractical as a general principal if I accept that the continuance of my life has an inherent value. I do not find pacifism immoral. In fact, I think it is one of the most moral philosophies that I have encountered. Since I am not a consequentialist, the practical difficulties imply no moral stain.
Sabotaging the trains is nobel, but I believe it would be far more effective to kill all the Nazis guarding it and then liberate the occupants. Then blow up the train.
The problem is that now these “pacifists” justify the use of violence as a means to an end, they just refuse to be the ones who implement it. Esentially some one else has to (for lack of a better term) pick up their slack for them since they find the dirty work distasteful. Fairly selfish if you ask me.
It’s like being a concientous objector. Yeah, he can help as a medic and by carrying stuff, but he is a detriment in combat since the platoon is effectively down a man in terms of firepower.
Violence is not always the solution either. IMO part of the reason we are in this mess is be cause of Clintons jackass Tomahawk strikes against tents and stuff. War and violence should be avoided, but at some point (like when you have lunatics crashing planes into your cities) its time for action.
That would be my method too, but I’m not a pacifist. I just wanted to point out that it was possible for pacifists to take an active role against evil while maintaining their belief in nonviolence.
Moral codes often impede the effectiveness of our actions. But even I as a non-pacifist have one. There are certain actions I’m not willing to take even if it means the resulting action I do take is less effective.
There are lots of people that are not suited to combat. The vast majority of us are not soldier material. It takes a high level of physical fitness and mental preparation to be a soldier. Forcing people who are not suited for combat into a combat situation really only endangers the rest of their team. But those who are not suited for combat still play a vital role. Soldiers only make up a small segment of our society and without society there isn’t anything to fight for. And many folks who might not be suited for combat may be suited for other support roles that are necessary. So it’s not just pacifists that are relying on others to do the dirty work, it’s most of us. But there are still ways that we can play a part.
A pacifist would not make a good combat medic, but they would serve a useful role as a field surgeon. We also need people to help distribute food to the Afghan population. It is vital that we have their support. Food distribution is dangerous work in Afghanistan. Land mines, the terrain, severe weather, risk of disease, and the Taliban themselves make it dangerous work. Such work can be done by very brave pacifists.
The strike against Afghanistan was warrented but ineffective. After all, it was a strike against a terrorist camp in response to a terrorist attack. The attack against the Sudan was almost certainly a mistake. A misidentified target in a hasty bid for retaliation. A mistake I hope we will avoid in this campaign as we are taking the time to carefully plan.
Clinton was in the middle of a scandal, if I recall correctly, and really didn’t have the political pull to do much more at the time. It isn’t accurate to blame Clinton for Bin Laudin’s grievences against us. Bin Lauden seemed to really go off the handle during the Persian Gulf War. And last I checked he also blamed us for the Russian invasion of Chechnya. I don’t think reality and Mr. Laudin get together too often.
This guy who was a reservist, when I told him I couldn’t serve because I have a heart condition, just said that I’d just have to find some way to serve back home. I kind of liked his attitude. he was a cool guy even though I only knew him for about ten minutes.
And did you notice all your posts say post 666 on them?
I think this is a pretty healthy philosophy to have because you kinda get to have it both ways, and I think I’m in the same boat. The thing is flexibilty and the ability to adapt to a situation. Avoid a fight at almost all costs, but when you are forced into it make it so that this particular fight will never rear its ugly head again. You can and should be pacifist to a point, but when the line is crossed, the line is crossed.
I first heard this article read over the waves by Rush Limbaugh (sp?). Most everyone is arguing whether pacifism is evil, but I want to take it less theoretical. Sorry if its a hijack.
When Rush tells the story, he is inherently implying that most if not all ‘liberals’ (his favorite word) are pacifists. Not only that, but anyone against a FULL FLEDGED BOMBING of Afganistan and Iraq is a pacifist, b/c anything less wouldn’t be going full board.
Although I may agree that full-on pacifism may help a very evil enemy, I don’t know any who are against fighting, any time any place no matter what. Althought I may agree that people didn’t want to defend their land in England in the 1940’s, my grandparents didn’t know any. Frankly I wonder if there are enough to worry about.
I do know people that think America should be careful, move slowly, and try to limit civilian and INNOCENT casualties. That is far from pacifism. But be certain, Mr Rush and Mr Kelly are simply using their bully pulpit to find an outrageous notion, tie it in with ‘liberals’, then lambast them for thinking such. Problem is, hardly any ‘liberals’ ever think what Rush claim they do.
A very few do, BTW, and God Bless them, because w/o their extreme, very minority imput and constant watchguarding of the political process, we may be bombing countries. Just like I thank God that the ACLU and the NRA stay extreme in some of their views, because without these extreme viewed watchguards, our political system wouldn’t check and balance.
I think this is a nice summary of Kelly’s arguments and shows how confused his argument is. For one thing, pacifism (which, at any rate, is not necessarily an all or nothing thing but can come in degrees), as others have pointed out, does not mean doing nothing. It just means not doing violent things (and, again, there are degrees on that…He is lumping a lot of people together who probably have differing views on how far one should go).
For a second thing, he makes the assumption that those advocating whatever the hell he advocates doing are going to be more effective at stopping a future attack than those advocating a less violent path. This is a highly, highly debatable assumption.
Probably Kelly’s worst paragraph, as I noted in a discussion of this article in a previous thread is that he says:
While it is hard to decompose this many logical fallacies in one paragraph (probably some sort of world record), I think I will merely point out that the claim that the terrorists want America not to fight is, to me, bizarre. Can anybody make a rational case to this effect? It seems much more compelling to me to believe that the terrorists were hoping to to provoke a response, and the sort of backlash such a response might cause in parts of the Muslim world particularly if the response looked in any way indiscriminate. If anything the correct logic is more like, “The terrorists hoped to provoke a response; the militarists want to provide such a response…” [Once again, like “pacifist”, “militarist” is a vague term that encompasses a lot of ground and I think there is some argument to be made that there could be some military options that would not play into the terrorists hands. However, I think there are clearly ones that would. Fortunately, we have avoided such actions so far.]
Historically, I believe that the ideas of pacifism as advocated by M.L. King and Ghandhi required that you use non-violence even in self-defense. In fact, that was sort of the whole point. (A position of “we will just not be the initiators of violence” is a pretty weak definition of pacifism.) However, I don’t think it means you “disregard even self-defense”. It just means that you defend yourself without resorting to violence.
I do, but sometimes it’s hard to spot in simple text since I can’t hear the change in your voice or witness your eyes rolling as you say it. I figured if you were being sarcastic and I missed it, you’d be back around to clarify it.
Ironic that my “mark of the beast” post is spent arguing that active pacifism can be moral. Ah well, I’ve moved past my 666 post count with this one.
since nobody wants to discuss teh consequentialist underpinnings of their moral evaluations, let me make a brief hijack attempot of my own.
pldennison
I am not intimately familiar with Ghandi’s biography (much less his thoughts), and I am uncertain exactly what you mean by “pure pacifist”, so–would you care to elaborate on this point? I mean, I saw the movie twice and I’m relatively certain that he never layed the smack down on anyone.
The issue is not physical or mental aptitude for soldiering. The issue is preaching a philosophy that you feel applies to you but does not apply to other people. You can’t be like “I believe in peace and non-violence” but then expect that other people will have to fight to protect you.
Just to clarify, I interpret “pacifist” to mean that you are opposed to violence of any kind, by anyone, for any reason. This should not be confused with pacifist tendencies. That would be a tendency to search for a non-violent solution as opposed to an absolute belief in refraining from violence.
I believe that it becomes an immoral philosophy when everyone else around you is fighting for their lives and you refrain because “you don’t believe in violence”.
I see what you’re saying, but what is a pacifist to do when the others are fighting? Is he to give up his principles because he hasn’t successfully recruited everyone else to lay down their arms? Is he supposed to disrupt the war effort in every way possible because otherwise he is a hypocrite?
I think what you are saying is that it’s convenient for pacifists to advocate peace because there always is someone else around to take up arms if it’s absolutely necessary, and protect the pacifist along with everyone else. I can’t argue that this is true. But if the pacifist’s goal is to work towards a solution where there will never be a need for someone to take up arms in the future… well, that’s valid work. I don’t feel he should give that up, whether or not others are fighting “for” him.
Well, that’s a problem with hypocrisy, not pacifism. I have never met a pacifist (and I have known a few) who felt that other people should engage in violence to protect pacifists. Indeed, several pacifists I have known were very troubled by their understanding that given the current state of the world such an outcome was likely.
In this case, you are definitely talking about hypocrisy, not pacifism, since the scenario you posed above directly contradicts one of the tenets you propose for pacifism.
This has already been addressed, but I think it bears repeating. How is the pacifist morally responsible for the free choices of other human beings? At what point does a pacifist suddenly become immoral: when he chooses non-violence? When someone else chooses to harm him? When you choose to defend him? When you suffer harm for defending him?
The movie was (as they always are) . . . less than accurate about many things in Ghandi’s life. As a young man, he was more than willing to fight for Britain in WWI, the Kaffir War and the Boer War; only because Indian subjects weren’t able to carry weapons in those conflicts did he confine himself to a stretcher unit. Even so, he helped recruit several hundred Indians to aid the British in their war efforts. He earned the War Medal from the British for his work in the Kaffir war.
Ghandi approved and condoned violence in some situations, and was certainly more than willing to let other Indians die for his causes. (Not to mention others–he infamously recommended to both the Czechs and the Jews that they willingly go like lambs to the slaughter before the Nazis.)
I’m not saying he was a bad man, but he was not a pure pacifist, nor was he the cartoonish, peaceful imp popularly conceived by Western society.
I don’t think anyone has ever maintained that Ghandi was born a pacifist. My own understanding is that he developed his philosophy of nonviolent resistance during the course of his experiences in Africa. As I say, I am not intimately familiar with his biography. Do you have references that he aided the British in their prosecution of warfare after he began espousing non-violence as a philosophy?
Well–these are two different things. Can you supply some references for his approval of violence (after he began espousing a pacifistic philosophy, of course). As to the second point, a “pure” pacifist would seem pretty much required to be willing to allow people (himself or others) to die for any number of causes, wouldn’t they?
Perhaps you would supply the exact text this recommendation. I find myself cynically suspecting that your summary is perhaps not 100% accurate. I do recall that he sent an almost embarassingly idealistic letter to Hitler encouraging Der Fuhrer to embrace all races, creeds, etc. I think he also encouraged England to surrender. That doesn’t seem to be a contradiction of non-violence, though, simply an example (and a compelling one, IMO) of the short-term pragmatic disadvantages of pacifism.
I certainly agree that he was not the sanitized saint so often portrayed in popular conception. He was a man, and he certainly had his fair share of failings and weaknesses (including a strange preoccupation with enemas, IIRC). I am open to the idea that he was not a dedicated pacifist, I simply am asking to see the evidence.
