Not sure where this question goes. Anyway, do you agree or disagree with this quote?
“Pacifism is a juvenile ideal refuted on every page of history.”
From:
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton081605.html
Are there really that many hard-core absolutist pacifists out there? I haven’t seen any on the dope.
I’m not really sure what the writer of the article is trying to say. Sure, sometimes wars are a necessary evil. Was the Iraq war?
As for Cindy Sheehan, the right seems to be far more obsessed with her than the “liberal media.” I agree that her opinion doesn’t carry any more weight than anyone else’s. Again that leaves us with the question: Was the Iraq war worth it? If Cindy Sheehan is getting any traction it’s because increasing numbers of people think it was not.
I am an absolute pacifist. I cannot control the world. The world has always fought and always will. But I can control myself, and I simply will not participate in it. I know that our armed forces protect our nation and that without militaries the world would be overcome with tyrants and all that. But I alsoknow that if everyone practiced pacifism, the world would be a hundred times better off. And pacifism can only be practiced one person at a time. Even if it is not practical, I feel like some people still have to try to live that ideal just to keep it alive, and I feel personally called as one of those people.
E.S.: So, you would have been a pacifist in NAZI Germany? I’m sure you would have sheltered Jews given the opportunity to do so, but you would not have fought against soldiers who came to take them away? Suppose that you lived in Alabama in 1950, and that a mob was coming to your house to lynch a 14 year old Black boy (you were sheltering the boy) for whistling at a White woman. You would have done nothing physical to stop the mob? Nothing? What if it wasn’t a mob, but just one crazy White teenager who was going to bring the Black kid to the lynching place? Supposing it was in your power to physically stop this teenager for completing his task. Would you not stop him?
In the strict sense of the word pacifism is
It doesn’t necessarily mean a complete refusal to use force, especially to defend onself.
In this sense, that is what the UN was founded for: to try and give countries a peaceful way of settling disputes. I wish it was given more opportunities to fulfill that promise; instead it has (recently) been used as a justifier for war. 
John Mace, I’m not sure. I don’t live in those times and places. I recognize that there are limitations to my beliefs. I feel no obligation to have a consistant sense of morality, only the one that I feel convicted of here and now. All I know is that peace is better than killing, and they only way to prevent killing is if every one of us wakes up every day and manages not to kill someone in the course of that day. It doesn’t sound too unachievable and I’d at least like to give it a shot.
Jesus was a pacifist. Christianity is a failure.
I’m duty bound because of a position I hold to respect the personal beliefs of pacifists. That’s not particularly hard to do.
I’ve met an awful lot of them over the years, especially considering that I don’t exactly run in pacifist circles. Pennsylvania, where I grew up, is home to a lot of Amish, Mennonites, Quakers and some Bruderhof communities. Most of these folks truly lead lifestyles consistent with a personal pacifist belief.
I’m not under any illusions that our society as a whole can be run this way, so to a great extent these people and communities benefit from the contributions of others to the military. They’re hardly alone in this, though.
A just society provides a means for such people to avoid direct participation in war if their beliefs are truly sincere. Between an all-volunteer force and a conscientious objector system during times of an active draft, our country has satisfied this requirement.
Yup. My wife is a Quaker, and it’s “no war, no way”. A quaker can be a conscientious objector for religious purposes, officially. But that doesn’t stop them from providing support in other ways, and many certainly do. One shouldn’t mistake an unwillingness to wage war as an unwillingness to do tough things to better the country. Quakers built schools for black kids in the 1800s and provided community-building service to many of our country’s poorest when such things weren’t popular. I would venture that having firm pacifist convictions (and living them) takes fortitude.
Anyway, an all-volunteer force is the way to go. You’ve really got to want to do it to be effective. I wonder how many people who were drafted and went to war totally against their will were successful, effective soldiers? (I’m sure some dopers could provide a couple of examples, but I’ll bet they are rare).
Actually, in a strict philosophical sense pacificism is a very strict doctrine which proscribes violence of all kinds.
I don’t think that it is a viable course of action. I can’t believe that it is morally correct either. What good is a moral code which does not allow for self defense or the defense of others?
OK, but that’s a very different statement than the first one you made, about being an absolute pacifist. Sounds like you are a pacificst when you feel safe, but if that situation changes, your pacifism might change as well. You are, therefore, not an absolute pacficst, but an opportunistic pacifist. I don’t mean that in any derrogatory way (“opportunistic” can have a derrogatory meaning), just as a point of clarification.
To most people "absolute means (emphasis added):
Perfect in quality or nature; complete.
Not mixed; pure.
- Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional: absolute trust.
- Unqualified in extent or degree; total: absolute silence.
Unconstrained by constitutional or other provisions: an absolute ruler.
Not to be doubted or questioned; positive: absolute proof.
This is the form of pacifism I follow. I almost certainly would not engage in any wars for our country unless our own soil was being attacked. I would fight to defend me and mine but I wouldn’t volunteer for armed forces, nor do I believe anyone should.
I’m not entirely naive. I realize the way the world climate is it seems necesary and may even be necessary to fight. I think it isn’t, but then again, I don’t plan to run for any political office nor dictate policy. As even sven says, pacificm can only be practiced one person at a time and I practice it as much as I can.
Well, I understand that. And I do respect these views. But I’m curious about the fact that both you and even sven have recognized that this is a belief that has limitations and doesn’t always fit with our world as it currently exists.
If a belief doesn’t fit with our world and its systems, is it a belief that can be maintained or defended honestly?
The best commentary on this was written by George Orwell in 1942:
Our own soil was attacked four years ago. I went to the roof and watched the smoke rise myself. I still drive past the Pentagon every day and see the shift of color of the stone where it was rebuilt.
Given this, did you support military action in Afghanistan? Or did it fall outside of that militarism permitted in your personal pacifism?
I"m a pacifist within a pragmatic framework. I believe systems of human social organization can exist which do not incorporate organized structured bands of people deliberately inflicting violence on other people (i.e., a military force) and that such systems, insofar as they are capable of running the entire world, could if implemented end all war for all time.
I believe that while we’re waiting for such systems to arise and flourish, most of the time the proper response to being told by one’s nation “Get thee hence to that Foreign land and shoot holes in the Enemy” is “Fuck you, no”, whereas most of the time the proper response to being told by one’s nation “Get thee hence to the barricades and shoot holes in the Enemy which hath invaded us” is “Yes sir”. I would say exceptions to both generalizations have existed in the past and will continue to exist for as long as we have nations and wars.
I believe it is a moral imperative for each individual to make their own assessment of the relative morality of participating in any given war, and to make their decisions accordingly.
I’m a pacifist when it comes to violence being implemented against me.
Almost everyone’s a pacifist to a certain extent. Except for a few bloodthirsty maniacs, who doesn’t prefer peace to war? Especially modern war, where the opportunities for Achillies like glory are few and far between. The OP only makes sense with regard to absolute pacifism, where violence is categorically rejected under any circumstance, even invasion of one’s homeland. This is the pacifism of those religious orders Mr. Moto mentions. This philosophy seems foolish to me, while the preference for peace seems like simple common sense.
The article the OP linked to seemed to equate opposition to the Iraq war with absolute pacifism. I don’t see this equation, especially since many people opposed to the Iraq war supported the Afghanistan war and the first Gulf war.
Just as an aside, I know a CO who served as a medic during Vietnam. He performed his duties under fire and saved many soldiers. (From what little I can gather as he doesn’t talk about his experiences much.)
What if a country had an evil dictator like Hitler but the country was pacifist. How do you attack others if your own soilders say NO!
Being a pacifist is a personal committment. That doesn’t mean that you wouldn’t defend someone if the situation arose.
The idea that Ghandi promoted was peaceful non cooperation. We refuse to resort to violence but we also refuse tyranny and unjust laws.
It takes just as much courage to commit to that as it does to seek vengence or to choose the violent option.
One thing seems certain is that no matter how peaceful a nation you are if you have something somebody else wants they’ll come take it.
I certainly agree that choosing pacifism takes courage. But that courageous stance isn’t necessarily a wise or just one.
How does Hitler become dictator of a 100% pacifist country? What does it mean to be a dictator if no one listens to you? No one. That proposition makes no sense.
You’re making up your own definition. A pacifist means someone who eschews violence. Doesn’t matter if the violence is to defend someone else.
And if he ever committed even one act of violence, for whatever reason, then he wasn’t a pacifist.
Which just goes to show how self-defeating pacifism is.