# Pacifist or not? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 17, 2005, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifist-or-not/317388 "2005-08-17T04:17:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifist-or-not/317388/41 "2005-08-18T10:15:08Z")
> [@Eolbo](#): > > As to pacifism personally I dont have the strength of character to be one but I will say this. If everyone turned into a devout hardcore believing Quaker the world would become overnight a better place. And if everyone turned into Eolbo or Mr Moto the world would remain exactly as it is today. That’s assuming on the first hand that everyone will do so, which I find hopeless wishful thinking. And on the second hand, you’re wrong as well. Because I’m by no means a pacifist, but I’m not an amoral and indiscriminate killer either. And neither are you. If everybody turned into us, granted we’d have no Quakers around. But we wouldn’t have Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-Il anymore either. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifist-or-not/317388/42 "2005-08-18T10:28:58Z")
> [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > But seriously, couldn’t we poke holes in any absolutist philosophy? I, as a self-identified libertarian, recognize the inapplicability to the hard-line application of same to the outer world. Sure we can. I think both philosophies are hole-ridden, which is why I’m not a subscriber to either one. Politically, I’m a conservative. This is hardly an absolutist position, especially given its many permutations in domestic politics. At best you could describe it in my case as a general philosophy or leaning. ---
**Author:** ![Donovan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ea666f/32.png) [@Donovan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donovan)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifist-or-not/317388/43 "2005-08-18T10:35:35Z")
> [@An Arky](#): > > 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). One example off the top of my head: Sgt York, a highly decorated American infantryman from the US initially applied for conscientious objector status but was denied. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Arky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/87869e/32.png) [@An\_Arky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Arky)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifist-or-not/317388/44 "2005-08-18T12:24:40Z")
Yeah, that’s a pretty good one. Keep in mind, though, that in the early stages, before we got involved, there was a pretty significant number of people who thought we shouldn’t get involved. While my wife is Quaker, I’m not, although as far as religion goes, I’d rather be a Quaker than any of the rest. I’m not any sort of strict pacifist (I don’t think strict anything works, except for open-mindedness), but I think that we should not have gone to war in many cases, like Iraq and Vietnam, not to mention the covert wars. I really don’t think war is usually terribly effective at attaining the political goals that are stated to justify them. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifist-or-not/317388/45 "2005-08-18T12:59:52Z")
"Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me.’ " -Eric Blair (‘George Orewell’) Ethically bankrupt? What is ethically bankrupt? To protect oneself and one’s family? To oppose evil? To protect the weak? I cannot follow that line of reasoning at all. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifist-or-not/317388/46 "2005-08-18T13:35:24Z")
I know this seems loopy but years ago I enjoyed the TV show Kung Fu. Would that charecter be considered a pacifist? He sought only peace and followed the Buddhist principle of one-ness but was able to defend himself and others when nessecary. What he was taught was to defend himself without anger and hatred, or a desire for vengence. One line from that show was “You cannot conquer evil in the world, you can only resist it within yourself.” No matter how much we want peace when you have something someone else wants they will try to take it. I don’t think it’s anti-pacifist to defend yourself when attacked but you must accept the consequences of any violent choice. I remember my Dad telling me about beating up the local bully when he was a young adult. Everybody was praiseing him and buying him drinks while he was looking around every corner expecting this guy to jump him with several friends. Fortunatly that never happened. People will use your violence to justify their own and the cycle continues. > [@](#): > > An eye for an eye until the whole world is blind Ghandi [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifist-or-not/317388.md?page=2)