Could you explain how using violence to defeat the Axis in WWII perpetuated a cycle of violence in a way that surrendering to them would not have done?
Do you mean that once they had killed all the Jews, Roma, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and disabled people, and enslaved the Russians, they would not then have used violence to maintain their position? Or do you believe they would have stopped at some point short of that?
Regards,
Shodan
This is a statement I have a problem with. Why do you believe that stopping an act of violence with violence perpetuates a cycle of violence? Do you have any evidence for this assertion?
To return again to Skald’s point about the chimerical nature of pacifism: I think this idea posits an equivalence that does not exist. At the least, you have shown no evidence nor offered any argument in favor of this equivalence of violence. In my estimation motives and causes cannot be blithely ignored: a violent action undertaken in defense is not equivalent to an act of unprovoked violence which it attempts to stop.
Snarky_Kong offered an analogy which I think is appropriate: “Rape is no different than making love. Sex is sex.” Why should I believe that self-defense is equivalent to initial violence? Can you give any reason that this could be considered the case, or do you accept it as an article of faith? If the latter, I think you must at least concede Skald’s assertion that your philosophy is in fact chimerical.
You misunderstand me. The pressure of selection does not disappear under the influence of higher reason; it is not necessary to equate men with dogs to show that pacifism is evolutionarily unstable.
If I know that the people around me will never respond to anything I do with violence, it is through reasoning that I can arrive at the conclusion that I can procure greatest benefit for myself, and the greatest opportunity for spreading my genes, if I simply take from others all that I desire. Certainly, this is often the conclusion of base instinct as well; but instinct is tempered by the reality of reprisal and resistance; countless aeons of evolution have bred cautious instincts that shy away from violence unless it is likely to have a positive outcome. In this case my reason and my instinct are in accord, but my instinct’s prudence is conquered by my knowledge of safety.
In your pacifist world, reason itself is what overcomes the instinctive tendency to avoid violence.
What is the “truth” of what actions are right and wrong? I do not believe that there is any such truth existing outside the subjective morals of individuals; therefore any consideration of my or anyone else’s ability to discover that truth is meaningless.
You say that humanity as a whole is degraded when I force my judgment upon others; well, surely this is the case no matter who is doing the forcing, so why is it considered bad to resist someone attempting to force their judgment upon others? It seems to me that whenever two wills are in direct conflict, one must ultimately prevail. The only way to prevent anyone’s judgment from being forced onto any other person is to somehow create a world in which no two people ever disagree. What makes you think this is a realistic vision?
That same issue was more or less why I brought up positive action and the relative transfer of moral responsibility: it was an attempt to reconcile your statements about greatest benefit to humanity with the idea that violent resistance is always morally wrong.
I directed them originally at MrDibble, but do you think you could answer the questions I put forth in this post?
Actually I think it is because it is a counter-example to the cases where pacifism had some chance of success due to the reasonably moral nature of the society, or the surrounding society. And I include the '60s south in that. The authorities may have used dogs, and they may have used water cannons, but in the US they couldn’t machine gun the protesters. Nazi Germany falsifies the basic hypothesis of pacifism, thus the denial we see.
“violence” is an action intended to cause a lot of pain, injury and/or death. An “action” is something that is done by a person, that requires them to actively engage with their environment and other entities in such a way as to effect changes in either.
It depends. It is possible to do a small violence, or a large coercion, from a moral perspective. If I punch you once on the arm because you called me a name, that is immoral, but it’s small potatoes compared to blackmailing you into giving me a million dollars, no?
I’ve already answered this, but no, it isn’t. Intention is what determines moral responsibility. So, if I let someone kill you because I hate you and I want you dead, it’s not the same as if I let someone kill you because I, myself, do not wish to be a killer.
A less-violent, more-tolerant world.
I believe the two goals are compatible, and the second leads to the first, and it is the first that is the long-term goal. But nonviolence is only one facet of the greatest happiness goal, along with other political and philosophical underpinnings.
It’s something like Bentham’s calculus, but without the strictly short-term hedonistic component that I find tends to dominate, in the sense that pain and pleasure aren’t held as strictly equivalent - I am prepared to put up with a lot of pain personally for a long-term, far-future “pleasure” for others who aren’t me. So it’s utilitarian, and I suppose you could say it qualifies as and “ends justifies the means” calculation, although that always makes me a little leery to say - something about ends/means calculus irks me. It’s more akin to negative utilitarianism - I see the eventual outcome of continued pacifism as the least harm for the greatest number.
I would contend that we cannot say NAzi Germany falsified pacifism because it was not, generally, attempted there, so you cannot say with certainty that nonviolence would not have worked.
And the Brits in India had no problem using machine guns over water cannons.
It was attempted by the vast majority of the Jews.
Really? The “vast majority” of Jews attempted passive resistance and other non-violent techniques against the nazis? Did Jews attempt anything like the non-cooperation movement or various satyagrahas from the Indian independence movement? This is news to me.
As far as I was aware, most Jews went along, however unwillingly, either through deception or resignation. That’s not pacifism, that’s passivity. There’s a difference.
Then please, tell me what they could have done. March in protest? They’d be shot. Refuse to move into the ghettos? They’d be shot. Refuse to get on the trains? They’d be shot. Refuse to work as slave labor? They’d be shot. Refuse to enter the gas chambers? Gee, I wonder what would have happened to them.
Yes
Possibly.All of them?
Yes
Possibly.All of them?
Yes
Possibly.All of them?
Yes[
Possibly.All of them?
Yes
Let me guess…
Do you really think that 6 million Jews shot on the streets, as opposed to gassed in the hinterlands, would not have an impact? There’s no way it would even have gotten to the first million before the Nazis would be overthrown. Probably not even the first 100 000.
Yes. All of them.
The only difference it may have made is that the Germans would have had a bit less ammunition with which to fight the Allies.
Other than that? Nada. Zilch No-one would have overthrown the Nazis, least of all the German people - especially nonviolently (or would the violent overthrowing of the Nazi party have been OK by you?)
I disagree. I think it’s special pleading to think the Germans were so specially inhuman as to let people be gunned down en masse in the streets and do nothing.
And no, I wouldn’t be “OK” with the violent overthrow of the Nazis - if nonviolence worked at arousing the non-Nazi Germans, it’d have worked just as well to overthrow the Nazis. It worked in other places o effect change, what is the exceptionalism about Nazi Germany that makes it so impossible to work there?
No, just an awareness of history.
Besides, why would the German people care - or even know - about millions of people being gunned down in the streets of Poland? Most of the Holocaust’s victms were not German Jews.
When, exactly, has non-violence ever stopped an invader? And besides, other than in India, has non-violence - **without the threat of violence **- overthrown anything?
Resolved: I utterly deny all outward wars and strife, and fightings with outward weapons, for any end, or under any pretense whatsoever*.
And if you don’t like it, bite me. If all you brave violent men feel like you need to go around protecting others, have at it. I don’t give a crap about your efforts. And if you want to present me with riduculous scenarios in which I should be forced to committ violent acts, don’t bother; you can bite me as well.
And what will you do if someone bites you?
You’re asserting they wouldn’t care if 160 000 people were gunned down in Berlin? 600 000 in the country as a whole? Not rounded up and shipped away, just…shot?
When has it been tried?
US Civil right movement? South African End Conscription Campaign?
I think the Friends really need to add this bit:)
Well, there’s the rub. While I do utterly reject war, I actually have no problem with beating the everloving shit out of someone who attacks me. I know that sounds possibly hypocritical, but I think it’s quite a different situation than people killing each other because of what flag they’re marching behind.
I’m saying they’d probably help.
Besides, it’s a moot point. Very, very few people would stand there and let someone put a bullet in his family’s heads because they believe that if they and a hundred thousand other families die, there’s a chance that someone, somewhere might care. Anyone willing to think that way is just as inhuman as his killer.
So basically, your problem isn’t with violence, it’s with government.
:rolleyes:
Government-sanctioned violence, to be precise, as well as being involved in other countries’ endless blood feuds.