Civilians — by definition those who didn’t fight — were slaughtered by the Germans in house-to-house raids. Somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 of them were gunned down in the streets during the uprising. So much for your argument that forcing the soldiers to do the killing in plain sight would have prevented more killing.
After the surrender, all the remaining inhabitants were forcibly evacuated and another 90,000 people were sent to death camps. If the uprising had been successful, those people would not have died, and another quarter-million or more would not have been forced out of their homes.
The Polish resistance was able to kill slightly more Germans than the casualties they took, despite being outgunned and outnumbered. The occupying army had also had months to prepare fortifications, which the resistance could not do. Because they fought, the German army had to focus its attention on the area, send in reinforcements and supplies, and it threatened their control of that entire front. The Warsaw uprising alone tied up at least half a million German soldiers and destroyed several hundred vehicles.
The lesson I take away from all that is that not fighting is a good way to get sent to a death camp. Fighting might get me killed, or might not, but either way it’s better than getting gunned down with my family, our corpses burned in a bonfire along with the other unarmed people who trusted in the innate goodness of humanity.
I’d hardly call in the Polish ghetto “in plain sight” of the non-Nazi German civilians, which was what I was talking about.
How come it’s OK to play counterfactual what-ifs like “if the uprising were successful”, but it’s “not much of an argument” (to quote Voyager) when I do it?
I have no doubt it was strategically successful. That’s never been my complaint.
Again, I am not talking about just “not fighting”.
Yes. So what?
It wouldn’t be my preferred action, for that reason.
160 000 Jews in Berlin still wouldn’t be sneezed at, if they all protested (along with their sympathisers)
This assumes the protest is announced beforehand, and there is a chance for preparations to be made.
I’m not talking about media exposure, I’m talking about people seeing things in the flesh, as it were.
My argument is a little more than that - it’s “It worked in other places and times, what is the specialness that makes ordinary Germans so unrepentantly inhuman that it wouldn’t work on them”. So far, I’ve gotten Alessan’s implication that most every German was an outright murderous antisemite, and yours that they just didn’t care. Neither of those jibes with what I know (the Rossenstrasse protest, Germans and other Europeans hiding Jews, etc)
I’ve never heard of the Rosenstrasse protest, which shows how effective it was in curbing Nazi violence. In any case, Eastern Europe had a history of anti-Semitism going back to the Middle Ages (“Christ-killers” and all that…) Add to that the excellent job the Nazis did of scapegoating the Jews as the cause of their post-WWI woes and the propaganda overwhelmingly showing the inferiority of the Jews. If one is convinced that Jews are evil, disease-spreading vermin, there’s no more outrage at shooting Jews in the streets than at an exterminator tenting a cockroach-infested house in your neighborhood. Do remember that the “righteous Gentiles” were a small minority.
To get away from Nazis, I’d like to get back to a much earlier point. I really want to know how one resists “non violently” to a home-invader attacking you and your family at gunpoint with the full intent of murdering/raping them. Do you try to reason with them? Do you throw yourself in front of the gun (as though he would be satisfied and stop after that?) Do you chain yourself to your couch in protest? I’m not being snarky, I really want to know.
I shouldn’t answer for the other side in a debate, but I have the sense that MrDibble will assert that the harm to humanity in killing the home invader is equal to that of the home invader killing his intended victims.
I actually think he would say that it was worse - otherwise there would be no reason not to do it, since the harm would be equal. I also think he contends that a person would be morally harmed by saving his family in this way.
Is there a distinction between “non-violence” and “non-lethal force?” I understand (sort of) the “not killing the intruder” thing, but what if you respond to a lethal threat with a non-lethal response - say, a baseball bat to the elbow of the gun-holding hand, or pepper spray, or a kick in the nuts? Is all violence morally equivalent? Again, I just want to know.
No, I wouldn’t assert that. I prefer not to subject human lives to that sort of calculus if I can avoid it.
Yes, that would be my first resort. After that, I would attempt non-lethal subdual, which, in my case, would involve pepper spray. All the while, I would be encouraging my family to run, via our pre-planned escape routes.
I should add that home invasion here is not easy. We have (unarmed) security footpatrols on our street, CCTV cameras, burglar bars and alarms, plus 2 Staffordshires. 'snot like I have my street door open waiting for someone to come in.
I don’t think that’s the optimal action in a situation like that (as opposed to protest action)
You may not mean to be, but that last one reads as nothing but snark to me.
Anyway, like I said, I wish people would leave my family and rape out of this debate, it gets old very quickly. Let’s just say I’m no less committed to NV now than I was as a single bachelor, and move on from their, shall we?
When I refer to non-violence, I’ve been referring to non-injuring force. I have no problem with pepper spray. I wouldn’t personally kick a guy in the nuts, either, but I’m OK with someone else doing it, or the elbow-breaking thing. But not as a first resort.
Which is why I call your position “chimerical.” We CAN’T avoid subjecting human lives to that sort of calculus because of the world we live in.
To live is to make choices. Every choice we make opens up some possibilities and closes off others. To live responsibly and morally requires that we recognize the possibility of negative consequences to our actions and to choose, as best we can, the outcome that creates the most possible good. It is NOT possible to entirely avoid doing harm, because of the finite and entropic nature of the world.
Of course we can - we can refuse to judge the relative morality of the humans we interact with, at all. Only act on their actions without questioning underlying motive.
I guess I’m not a utilitarian, then, because that seems to require a degree of omniscience I can’t muster.
I have a vision of how the world could be, and I try and act in accordance with how I think a human living in that world should act. But I do not act in the here and now and actually expect things to work out morally as a consequence. That’s far too weird for me.
Of course it isn’t. But it is possible to do the least harm one can.
Skald et al have made a great defense of morally justified violence. I think that he, and others taking similar positions would agree that an overall reduction in violence would be a good thing. There is a strong utilitarian argument that violence is wasteful.
If we look at attitudes surrounding violence (use of force) I think we can make a continuum…
unfettered psychopaths … violent in response to small slights … will meet violence with violence … will use minimal non-lethal force … absolutely opposed to any use of force.
I, and I suspect most people arguing against pacifism, am in the middle of the spectrum. MrDibble I would place in the fourth category. Were I to choose a makeup of society I would much rather live next to category fours and fives than ones and twos.
What harm can a pacifist cause me? They may consider me immoral (let me note that the very agreeable MrDibble does not do this), which I can certainly live with. The only potential harm would be if they became politically active in such numbers and pushed through reforms to hamstring law enforcement or the military. I think that reality and the successfulness of more utilitarian philosophies is adequate protection against this.
How can a pacifist help me? Societal pressure can be a powerful force. If the public discourse paints violence in a poor light category twos may be shifted towards category three.
Fight the good fight pacifists! This non-pacifist supports you as much as he doesn’t understand you.
I’m sorry, but the section I bolded is bullshit. My argument does not require omniscience or any other sort of supernatural knowledge. Quoting myself:
I’m happy to acknowledge that my course cannot lead to the ideal circumstances all the time, because I don’t have perfect knowledge. What I do have is the ability to reason from past experience, current evidence, and so forth to make judgments. My problem with your complete refusal to consider killing as an option is that it is so rigid; it assumes that you know the best possible outcome in every circumstance (i.e., that no one ever die violently) based on utterly unfounded hypotheses about the nature of life.
I’m a Christian, so I’m supposed to be all about turning the other cheek and stuff (and boy do I know from personal experience that holding grudges does nothing except harm yourself). I wouldn’t be able to answer hypothetical questions because, well, they’re hypothetical, and I tend to be a little irrational in stressful situations, and I could do anything from freezing up in terror, bolting at the first sight of danger, throwing myself in front of the gunman, or trying to bash someone’s head in with a lamp.
My stance on pacifism is basically of the “speak softly and carry a big stick”* school–that is, one can sheathe his sword in a battle because the threat of force (or at least the threat of Really Bad Consequences) is sufficiently great enough that the other side gives up before any blows come to pass. I don’t believe people to be fundamentally good. Sure, there are those who might be more decent or sane: some have stronger consciences; others just fear getting caught. But I’ve been picked on for no reason other than I was considered to be an easy target. I didn’t know how to fight back or even stand up for myself; my only methods of self protection were to attempt to avoid people who were jerks, carry myself in a manner that didn’t attract attention, and build so many walls around my psyche that to this day I have problems forming significant relationships.
I don’t know how I would have turned out if I had, say, a friend on the football team who’d made it clear nobody better mess with his buddy, but I certainly wish I had such a friend.
*I’m simplifying here. I’m more than aware of the shortcomings of such a system, namely, the risk of it turning into an arms race of Bigger Sticks. Still, I seem to remember something about game theory and an idea called “Mutually Assured Destruction” that has put a kibosh on using our Biggest Sticks…
I did say “a degree of omniscience”, and I didn’t mean supernatural. In order to make the moral judgements you want to, you need an insight into motive that I don’t claim to possess. This isn’t to say I’m advocating paralysing inaction here, just a refrain from making moral judgements of people, which is the action you would have me take.
As do I. But mine are only judgements on probable actions about to happen, not on the morality of the actors. That’s something I think you can only evaluate after the fact.
“No one ever dies violently” is the best eventual outcome of a sustained policy of pacifism, but not an immediate goal of mine. My immediate goal is that I not become another killer. This may confirm for you the egoist part of your initial assertion, but I don’t see it that way, as the goal isn’t self-serving, but rather exemplary.
And I don’t agree that “if everyone renounced violence, people wouldn’t die by violence” is an unfounded hypothesis, and it’s the basis of my belief. Currently unobtainable, yes, with the current societal setup, I agree completely, but that’s not why I live as I do.
ETA: dotchan, game theory is one of the reasons I believe as I do.
Assuming that the use of lethal force is the only way to prevent other people from being killed, does an assessment of the morals or motives of the aggressor important at all? If killing or letting others die are the only alternatives, does it matter if the aggressor is evil or if he is insane and thus not morally responsible for his actions? If killing is done for revenge - I can maim you to prevent a needless death but I’ll kill you because you’re a bastard - then I’d agree it was unjustified.
Maybe evaluating motives would change the way one feels about ones action, but not the need for the action.
So what? The fact that you see your goal as “exemplary” doesn’t change the fact that it is utterly selfish; it is concerned only with what benefits you, rather than what benefits others.
Oh, I’m not saying that “if everyone renounced violence, people wouldn’t die by violence” is an unfounded hypothesis. It’s a tautological hypothesis. Of COURSE no one would die violenltly if everyone renounced violence. But what evidence have you that the nature of human beings, or of the world, is such to allow that? Do you have some mechanism* in mind to counteract the last 3 million years of primate evolution? Some technological advance to do awarewith scarcity and limited resources? A cure for hearts filled with jealousy, anger, and hate?
I refuse to continue to respond to this false dilemma argument from here on in. Outside of the wildest hypotheticals, there is always something else you can do. You have to jump through all kinds of hoops to reach a point where lethal force is “the only way”.
What levels of force are acceptable? You mentioned being okay with pepper spray, and left the window open for ball-kicking/elbow breaking.
Let’s look at a less false dilemma… you are leaving the theater with MrsDibble and young Bruce Dibble when you’re accosted by a man with a knife. At what point in the following hypothetical sequence of responses are your principles violated? (Also feel free to object if you think my hypotheticals become too outlandish)
Btw. any other pacifists in this thread, please jump in also, I’m addressing MrDibble because he has been the most active.
You hand over your wallet.
Our hypothetical attacker becomes agitated and attacks.
You bodily impose yourself between the attacker and your family so they can run.
Our hypothetical attacker focuses on you.
You turn and run.
Our hypothetical attacker is gaining on you.
You turn back and use your pepper spray.
Our hypothetical attacker shields his eyes and manages to knock away your can. You turn to run again and he grabs you in a bear hug.
You pound on his knuckles and stomp at his toes.
No dice.
You gouge for his eyes.
You both collapse on the ground and he grabs you by the throat.
You try to knock his head against the ground.
He doesn’t let go.
You grab whatever’s at hand (a convenient mop handle) and start swinging.
After writing all that, I guess I’m trying to see - are there pacificists that see some levels of force as acceptable, and if so, where they draw the line.
For example: the church shooter from last weekend was stopped from doing more damage by people without guns. Even if his gun didn’t jam, I think the church people could have kept the killing to a minimum without killing him. I also believe that if every parishoner was armed to the teeth, they couldn’t have prevented the shooting of the pastor.