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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Ghandi