Pacifists: noble idealists or cowardly hypocrites?

Great Debates
1

Before I go into the meat of the debate, I want to point out that I’m only talking about pacifists who’s philosophy is ‘using force to solve problems (on a personal level) is wrong’. Specifically, pacifists who’s philosophy is basically “don’t start fights” or “I’m opposed to waging war” are not what I’m talking about here, only pacifists who decry the use of force in self-defense or to solve other problems between people.

“Violence is never the answer” sounds nice, and even though I don’t agree with it I would argue that someone was certainly good who sincerely believed in that and was willing to accept the consequences of living by that philosophy. If I had ever encountered such a person, I would consider them a noble idealist and would respect them for having strong principles and sticking to them despite the bad consequences.

However, I’ve never encountered such a person in real life. All of the people who would describe themselves as pacifists of this sort do not actually live by the philosophy they espouse. While quite willing to say that other people are wrong for advocating violence (in self-defense for example) with an obvious smugness over their superior philosophy, they are not willing to actually give up violence as a solution to problems, they just won’t get their own hands dirty. In all cases that I’ve seen, these self-described pacifists were quite willing to call in the police, who use violence, to protect themselves. Rather than simply give up a stolen stereo, or try track down the thief and non-violently persuade him to return it, they’d call the cops and let the police get the property back.

Since I am not aware of any pacifists willing to actually give up violence but plenty who are willing to say that they have and hire agents to actually do the dirty work, I conclude that pacifists (of the type I specified) are simply cowardly hypocrites who are merely unwilling to get their hands dirty, and don’t wish to live by the philosophy they advocate.

2

Pease is a noble cause but trying to accomplish it by passivity is dangerously naive. I’ve vented in another thread.

3

They are a noble legume, but peace is a noble cause. :rolleyes:

4

The fact that you have never met someone you would think of as a noble idealist doesn’t mean they don’t exist. You’re painting a large section of humanity with a fairly broad brush, there.

I have known quite a few violent, dangerous asocial people who owned guns, but used peaceful means to solve problems. Would you call them cowards and hypocrites for not sticking to their guns, literally and figuratively?

I believe in nonviolent solutions to problems. I have managed to avoid violent solutions, and have never been in a fight in my life (aside from getting beaten up in school…). I believe that it is possible to solve a great many issues without resorting to violence. There are some problems that can’t be solved without violence, and I don’t know whether or not we should solve those problems.

5

**

How large a section of humanity is opposed to all forms of violence and would never use it or allow others to use it on their behalf? I don’t imagine the list is very long.

**

How violent, dangerous, and asocial were they if they used other means to solve their problems? Because they don’t sound so dangerous to me.

Marc

6

Unless said gun nuts claimed that “kinetic energy administered via dense metals solves everything!”, they aren’t hypocrites. They’re just equipped to handle burglars and society.

7

That’s my point. It’s not that there are too many people claiming to be pacifists who use violence to solve their problems, it’s that there are too many violent people who find peaceful solutions. How many times have you heard someone talking trash about how they’d mess somebody up if they felt like it, but when it came down to it, they caved in to peace? For every person claiming to be a pacifist who calls the cops when the stereo gets stolen, there are probably dozens of people who would love to take a baseball bat and go looking for their stuff. Instead, they call the cops and wait patiently by the phone for the authorities to handle it.

8

Is this the official straw man thread?

9

What about the Quakers?

10

In high school during the Cold War, I was a founding member of our school’s Student-Teacher Organization to Prevent Nuclear War (STOP Nuclear War).

We had a man come speak to our little group and he thought we should disarm 100%. If we got invaded we (the whole country) should just lie down. Through this display of pacifism the enemy would realize the error of their ways and not invade us.

I remember asking him, “But what if they just run over us all with their tanks?” He replied that pacifism was the final answer and you had to be totally devoted to it. You couldn’t just try it, but have an Uzi behind your back in case it doesn’t work.

I remember that even my 17 year old idealistic self thought this was pretty lame. It seemed a little naive (even to me) to base your life (and the lives of everyone else in the country) and the theory that if you’re really nice to people they will always be nice back.

11

So provide me with a counterexample, it shouldn’t be hard if I’m unfairly painting a large section of humanity with my brush. I have seen no evidence that noble idealist pacifists of the type I specified exist, and the evidence that I have all points towards pacifists of the sort specified being cowardly hypocrites. While it’s not logically impossible for a ‘noble idealist’ to exist (and I’m sure that some do exist somewhere), it appears that they are vanishingly rare in the real world and that most people who identify as pacifists are, in fact, either cowardly hypocrites or not pacifists in the sense that I specified.

And just how large of a section of humanity are we talking about, really? I listed rather specifically the philosophy that I was objecting to, and it certainly doesn’t appear to be a widespread belief from anything I’ve seen. While there might be a lot of people who would describe themselves as pacifists, not all people who describe themselves as pacifists are the ones I’d call cowardly hypocrites - note that I rather specifically excluded certain people who identify themselves as pacifists from that description.

Did thes violent, dangerous, asocial, peaceful people say that not using violence to solve problems was immoral? It’s not the same situation unless the people who use non-violent solutions also say that it’s immoral to use non-violent solutions. Unless someone is a ‘violentist’, who argues that peaceful solutions to problems are wrong and that everything should be decided by a fight, then there’s no hypocrisy in their reaching nonviolent solutions to problems and your violent-yet-peaceful people are not relevant to this discussion.

Do you say that use of violence is always wrong or not? If you say that it’s not always wrong, then you aren’t one of the people I was talking about. If you do, then what you’ve said above is just a cop-out.

Let’s just use two simple examples instead of vague principles: You come home and see Fred walking out of your house with your stereo, and he tells you “oh yeah, I just robbed your place. Later!” Do you call the police and tell them what happened, thereby asking them to use violence on your behalf, or do you just try to talk to Fred about it but don’t try to involve the police in any way?

You come home, and Fred walks up to you and starts beating you up. The first thing he does is break your leg so you can’t just run away. Now, do you fight back (directly using violence), call the police (indirectly using violence), or just lay there and take it (sticking to your principles)?

12

It would only be a straw man thread if I was actually making a straw man argument. That would involve me stating something and pretending that someone else had made that statement, which is pretty clearly not the case here.

13

I believe Pacifism is a noble, admirable ideal. I also believe it has limits. Realistically, there are times when pacifism simply won’t work. I’m not sure I’d call it naive, just, idealistic.

14

This thread is not about ‘what should everyone in the world do’, it’s about whether or not people who profess to believe in a particular type of pacifism actually live by those principles or not. And again, someone who would like to do X but does Y instead isn’t a hypocrite, while someone who says X is bad but gets people to do X for him is.

15

I would not ask the police to use violence. From what I have seen of police procedures, whether or not violence is used is entirely up to Fred in this situation.

In the circumstances you describe, I would probably just lay there and take it, as I doubt Fred would let me call the police (again, still not indirectly using violence).

16

Either you wouldn’t call the police, you’d just soak up the theft and live with it, or you’d ask the police to get your stuff back, which is asking them to use violence on your behalf.

No. First, it’s up to you - the police won’t do anything to Fred unless you ask them to. Then, it’s up to the police - they may use Fred’s actions as an excuse, but application of any force is at their discretion, not Fred’s. If you walked over to Fred’s with a gun and told him to give back your stuff or you’d shoot him, would it be entirely up to Fred whether or not violence is used in the situation?

Further, even if Fred complies with the police and no violence actually occurs, it’s the threat of violence backed by willingness to use violence that gets you your stuff back. If that wasn’t the case, why wouldn’t you just go over to Fred’s yourself and tell him to give it back? Sorry, but asking armed men who are known to use violence on people who do not comply with their directions to get your stuff back is asking people to use violence on your behalf whether you like it or not.

Also, how can you really claim to believe the above, when you wouldn’t you use violence to defend yourself against Fred in your answer to the second question? Just declare that it is your procedure to fight back if attacked, then whether or not you use violence is up to Fred just like in your example with the police.

17

autz: I remember asking [a pacifist speaker], “But what if they just run over us all with their tanks?” He replied that pacifism was the final answer and you had to be totally devoted to it. […] It seemed a little naive (even to me) to base your life (and the lives of everyone else in the country) and the theory that if you’re really nice to people they will always be nice back.

I think this guy who spoke to you may have had a somewhat different take on the issue from most “practical pacifists”. The most famous, and probably overall most effective (though certainly not perfect) “practical pacifism” technique was probably the “Non-Violent Non-Cooperation” movement of Gandhi. Gandhi’s chief principle was that the core of “nonviolent resistance” is resistance: that is, it is crucial to unite in refusing to do what your oppressors want you to do, while also refusing to use violence against them. You will succeed (eventually) not by being “nice” to them, but by making them realize that their violence isn’t working in getting you to knuckle under.

This was an extremely key concept for Gandhi; he famously said that “violence is preferable to cowardice.” That is, it is bad to use violence against somebody who is harming you, but it is even worse to use non-violence as an excuse for not resisting them. Pacifist or not, you must still refuse to obey evildoers or to help them in harming others, even if they hurt or kill you for it. You have to resist oppression and protect the innocent; that’s non-negotiable.

Gandhi was no dummy, and he recognized perfectly well that nonviolent resistance didn’t always provide the quickest or easiest solution to conflicts. It requires very strong solidarity among large numbers of people, willingness to make sacrifices and endure setbacks, and the pressure of publicity and popular opinion against the oppressors who are hurting the nonviolent. The advantage of nonviolence, he felt, was that it was better for everybody in the long run.

And I think there are indeed a lot of people who subscribe to those principles who live up to them in practice. They might not meet the requirement of never relying directly or indirectly on violence in any way, though, since our society is so predicated on violence as a form of deterrence (e.g., even if you yourself never call the cops on a malefactor, the cops are still out there and still willing to use violence, which is a deterrent to many potential malefactors).

18

How do you get from this statement to “calling the cops = doing violence?”

You don’t think the possibility of getting arrested, tried, and imprisoned might have anything to do with Fred’s decision?

In answering the original question, I assumed I had already asked Fred not to take my stuff. Rather than risking either of us or my stereo getting hurt, I wait to contact the police.

I don’t see the conflict here?

19

Calling the cops = asking someone to do violence on your behalf. If someone says ‘X is evil’, then calls on someone to do X for him, I consider that worse than just doing X himself; not only is he being hypocritical by using violence to solve his problems despite saying that it is bad to do so, but he won’t even do the dirty work himself and instead gets another person to do it for him.

Most mob bosses would seem qualify as pacifists under the rules you’re trying to use; they never personally do violence to anyone, and never come out and tell someone to do violence on their behalf. I hardly think that someone who runs protection rackets and orders hits qualifies as a pacifist, but…

How is he going to get arrested and imprisoned without violence or the credible threat of violence coming into play? You’ve got someone using violence on your behalf to solve the problem even if he complies only to threats of violence. You can’t say that you live by ‘violence is never the answer’ if you also say ‘if someone steals my stuff, I will have armed men recover my property, then take him and put him into a cage, and they will beat or shoot him if he refuses to do what they say’. That’s using violence to resolve the problem whether you want to admit it or not.

Do you seriously believe that if the police forswore using any sort of force at all that it would even be possible to arrest petty criminals? “Stop or I’ll say stop again!” “Hey, you’re the guy who killed Marge! I’m placing you under… hey, come back here or I’ll yell at you…”

You mean “rather than stick to my principles and not ask someone to use violence to resolve the problem, I threw them aside once I needed violence to solve a problem and called on armed men to threaten the guy to make him return my stuff”.

You said that you wouldn’t fight back if attacked, yet you also said that if person Y has a procedure where he’ll use violence if person X does some activity, then X is to blame when Y uses violence in response to X’s activity. I think the conflict is clear.

20

Orwell on Ghandi