Quite right. I switched A’s and B’s roles, thanks for the catch.
Nicely explained. I’m not convinced, but I can see where you’re coming from now.
I think I see where our positions diverge from the shared position of violence is bad.
A pacifist desires to eliminate violence, and due to its cyclical nature hops off the merry-go-round. The hope being that other people will see this exemplar and also hop off.
A violence-as-last-resort hopes to eliminate exploitation and waste caused by violence. This is done through societal pacts, police forces, etc. Those who would initiate violence to force their will on others are met with the overwhelming force of society, and as you say might makes right.
I can see the attractive nobility in your system, but don’t share the rosy view of human nature it requires (and I generally consider myself an optimist). Even given abundant resources so that by your very broad defininition societal violence is inflicted on noone, human desire can expand to covet more. If someone willing to do violence to achieve their desires enters a paradise of universal pacifism their violence will be amply rewarded. That may be an acceptable end state for you, but not for me.
To me the key difference is what happens when something disturbs the world from its steady state peace, that is someone decides to use violence as a means to get what they want. In World A the violence committed by the person is only limited by their own point of satiation. In World B the person is quickly subdued.
Garula:
My position is that each time any person chooses to act violently, the world becomes a worse place as a result. Hypotheticals where everyone is nonviolent may be of interest to philosopers like Kant, but not to me 
I see little signifigant difference between your description of ‘world B’ and the world we’re living in.
hdc_bst:
I don’t think ‘my system’ requires a rosy view of humanity. I have no expectation that everyone can act nonviolently all the time. I haven’t even claimed that I can. I don’t think that has much bearing on the fact that every act of violence is harmful.
I do believe that the goals of all people (maybe even all life) are compatable. We just have incompatable ideas of how to persue our goals. Animals are only able to solve the resulting conflict through force in the short term, and sometimes by evolving into symbiotic relationships over great expanses of time. As human beings each of us has the benefit of reason, and I think we should use it to solve these conflicts, no matter how sure we are that we are right and the other guy is wrong.
What’s the difference? How is a desire to live on that land over yonder and a willingness to kill anyone in my way to achieve that goal any better than a desire to kill you and take your farm?
Umm… what?
You claim that people do not have incompatible goals, only incompatible ideas about how to achieve those goals. I’m asking what relevance this claim has in the real world, and why we should treat bad people differently if you are correct.
The relevence of this claim is that there are no people who’s overall interests are contrary to your own, just people who are persuing the same goals you are, through means which you don’t understand and/or don’t agree with. So fighting them is not necessary since you can use reason to resolve conflicts.
Also, I don’t think there are any ‘bad people’.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that since my ethical system only causes problems for other people in extremely convoluted hypotheticals, I don’t see why people have a problem with me believing as I do. I’m saying that I’m never going to land up in a situation where the only possible action is to kill someone else, so why is that the prime focus of people’s objections to my moral stance?
It’s not a leap I can see, but OK?
What do you want to do? Like I’ve said many times already, you can go ahead and beat the crap out of him, it’s no skin off my nose. I would drop the stick and reason with him, since I really don’t believe in these horror-movie knifemen. And hey, if he turns out to be a Michael Myers, well, there’s always the pepper spray. And if his arm is up to prevent that:rolleyes:, well, he can’t really be stabbing me very accurately, can he? That’s my call to run past him.
Do you see how that works? The only situation where my only choice is deadly violence, is so convoluted that, while I may plan for it, it certainly isn’t the basis for my morality. I base my morality on the everyday situations I might face, because if you’re prepared for the unusual but not the everyday, you’ll suffer moral crises a lot more.
- Yes, although I only support funding a self-defence force, though, not an aggressive military.
- No, I refuse to serve in any current military under any circumstances. But that’s not as a result of my pacifism and entirely as a result of my politics. If the UN had a dedicated military of its own, I might be willing to serve in that in a noncombatant role.
- I have no problem with other people exercising their option of self defence as their morality dictates.
But one more person would have been killed, should they have used lethal force. It may not matter to some that this crazy person died by their hand, but it would make a difference to me. Particularly when there were other options that would have very likely resolved the problem.
Prove it. If two people want sole use of a location that can only effectively be used by one of them, how are their goals not contradictory?
And even if their goals are not contradictory, why should the aggressor be treated any differently because of the distinction you are making?
If you answered me previously, I missed it and I apologize. And I understand the point about convoluted hypotheticals. So perhaps we could use a real-world example.
When the Nazis and Soviets invaded Poland in September 1939, could you explain how they were pursuing the same goals as the Polish people, and how reason could have been used to resolve the conflict? Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m sorry, but that statement is, simply, idiotic.
I once punched a man because his girlfriend, whom he beat regularly, was trying to get herself and her child on a bus and away away from him. He’d made it clear that he was going to beat her and the kid again if he got them home. Was I violent in helping her? Damn skippy. Did I prevent more harm than I caused? Damn skippy again.
Even more breathtakingly stupid. What planet do you live on?
Upon reflection I have decided that the above is needlessly insulting. Which is not to say that I agree with the sentiments NoJustice espoused–just that I should not have been so vehement.
Look. We live in a finite world; a world with scarcity built into it. Every time we make one choice, we close off others. It is simply not possible to live without doing harm, and pretending that such is a possibility is silly. To live responsibly is to make choices, which means making value judgments.
When I punched the guy trying to prevent his girlfriend from boarding the bus to escape him, it was because I judged, from the available information, that she was going to be in danger from him if she were not removed from the situation, and because I’d have hated myself for doing nothing. His right to be free from having violence inflicted upon him was reduced when he initiated a violent situation. I obviously didn’t kill him (I wasn’t armed, and there was no need anyway); but if he had been putting her, the kid, or me in danger of our lives and endangering his life was the best way to stop that, I would have been morally justified in doing so.* To say that no violence is ever justified, even in self-defense, is to say that no one has the right to bodily integrity if another person contests it. And to say that no killing is ever justified is basically the same thing, because when you begin a violent encounter, you always take the risk of killing someone.
*Note that I’m not saying I would have done so. I might not have been able to, physically or emotionally, but that’s a separate issue.
I had a similar situation with a guy who was in the process of beating the shit out of a woman in the middle of the street. I screamed like a crazy person “Get the fuck away from her, asshole! I’m gonna call the cops!” He stopped and she was able to get away from him. Violense is never the only option, nor is it always the most effective. She may have paid for that intervention with another beating.
Do you really think there are people who define the meaning of their life by their sole use of a location? I doubt it. Their desire for sole use of a location is their means, not the end. That’s what I mean when I say they have compatable goals, but contradictory ideas of how to go about accomplishing them.
Umm… what?
hate to do that again, but… I really do have a hard time understanding what you’re asking. “why should the aggressor be treated any differently” differently than what?
I don’t think nazis count as a real world example. Not because the Nazis didn’t exist but because for some reason people are unable to remain grounded in reality when discussing them.
I agree. I just think, if ones goal is to do the least harm, and the most good, it is counterproductive to intentionally do harm. While you may judge that your violence can prevent more harm than you cause, that is an illusion.
I once again have to point out that there are more options than violence and inaction.
I personally don’t care much about ‘rights’. I think it’s an overly simplified view of the world. I care about results. And the choice to enfore your judgement on another person has bad results which go far beyond the immediate harm to the person you punch.
That would seem to depend on which morality you subscribe to. The problem is, he could declare himself to be morally justified in his actions as easily as you can.
points at name
I don’t care about justification, I care about results.
So in other words, you threatened him with violence. From the cops and not from you, but what’s the difference, really?
This. Do you think that, if a police officer had magically appeared, there would have been no threat of force?
I didn’t immediately punch the guy. I told him to let the woman board the bus and to leave her be; the bus driver had already made the threat. The guy attempted to pull her off the bus again, whereupon I hit him, and the bus driver (thank Zeus!) closed the door in front of us when he retreated.
I’m perfectly willing to resolve disagreements without recourse to violence when it is possible: partly because violence is generally the worst possible solution because it tends to escalate, but mostly because I’m a pussy who doesn’t like throwing hands. But SOMETIMES violence is necessary, because some people won’t be persuaded to stop their aggression by anything but retaliatory aggression. Or, I suppose, telepathic mind control.
The difference is that I handled it non-violently. Threats are not violence, nor was the threat to call the cops a guarantee of a violent outcome. Believe it or not, cops handle most incidents without even drawing their weapon.
My goal is not to do no harm. That is, frankly as unobtainable as building a perpetual motion machine. It’s in conflict with the nature of the world we inhabit, and is, as I note in the thread title, chimerical.
My goal is to do as little harm done as practical. My goal is to resolve the situation with as little force as possible.