Looking at this from an external point of view, I’d say Bob should let the people be slaughtered, then smash the purifiers, mostly because I hate pacifists and think they absolutely shouldn’t be protected by anyone doing violence on their behalf; they should have to live with their own pacifism.
Looking at it from Bob’s point of view, though…he should do whatever won’t make him feel bad about it. Given the attitude he’s displayed in this hypothetical, that sounds like he should go smash the purifiers. Because as Miller said, nothing gives the villagers more priority than Bob in the moral comfort arena, and if Bob will feel bad about not saving them, then he should go ahead and do it.
Although personally I don’t see much difference between these villagers and the racist that refused to be saved by a black man in a previous incident, so I’m not even sure why it would bother him, as long as we’re going with the version where there aren’t any kids and everyone there is making their own decision to voluntarily accept death.
I’d rather not go into detail since it’d be something of a threadjack, but pacifists tend to behave smugly superior and try to claim moral high ground while making other people feel bad, while being completely unjustified at doing so and in fact usually existing only because others protect them.
And when someone does try to protect them, they make that person feel guilty about it, like these guys are trying to do to Bob.
I shouldn’t think so. I’m sure Skald welcomes polite discussion.
“tend to”? How many pacifists do you know? I mean, I am one, and IRL I only know, like, two other outright pacifists (both Buddhists) and neither they nor I are like that at all. We’re not afraid to speak out about our pacifism, but we don’t dictate how others should act.
And I’ve gone into detail before, here, on how i don’t expect others to protect me with violence, and haven’t in the past.
You’re projecting. They’re asking Bob not to do it, but how are they trying to make him feel guilty? If he feels guilty, it’s entirely of his own doing.
Mnemnosyne, MrDibble is right when he says that discussing pacifism in general is not a threadjack. Please feel free to continue.
I don’t think I’d phrase it that way. I think pacifism is chimerical, pointless, and self-limiting, but pacifists have the right to be pacifists, and this group at least are consistent in their beliefs, and I respect that. I’d have to intervene to save the kids, but if the commune were all adults I don’t know that it would be right not to honor their wishes.
I thought it was clear that Bob, in the racist incident, was simply being a dick. He got called a nigger, got angry, and so let the guy die. That wasn’t the least bit heroic of him (though he might not care, since he doesn’t style himself a super-hero).
“tend to”? How many pacifists do you know? I mean, I am one, and IRL I only know, like, two other outright pacifists (both Buddhists) and neither they nor I are like that at all. We’re not afraid to speak out about our pacifism, but we don’t dictate how others should act.
[/QUOTE]
When I was a teenager, the pastor of our family’s church (a Pentecostal denomination, incidentally) was pretty much a pacifist, and a very selfish one. I recall him once giving a sermon in which he said that, if faced with a violent criminal intent on robbery, rape, or murder, a “saved” person should not resist but instead call the police, because it was okay for an un-“saved” person to use violence but not a “saved” one.
Anyway, I like Mnemnosyne’s “third option” of letting the peaceniks get smashed, THEN smash the purifiers. Only problem is if there are the kids in the village. They shouldn’t get slaughtered because their parents were tools.
That was the obvious conclusion to be drawn, but I didn’t bother pointing it out; it would just have led to a long public lecture in church. Also, this particular minister publicly and shamelessly decried the use of logic. He’d EXPLICITLY say that logical thinking was the tool of the devil.
I don’t get the problem either, but from a different direction. He’s already promised to not kill someone unless he has to. That means that he is already going to try to do what they ask, unless he just can’t.
And the villagers are right. At those power levels, there is no reason he can’t deal with them without killing them. If he really is going to keep his word about not killing someone he doesn’t have to, then he is not going to wind up killing anyone.
At the very least, he is not going to be killing anyone on purpose, so there is no conflict in the pacifists’ morality and his.
If, for some reason, they are stupid and blame themselves for the guy’s accidental actions–and I’d hate to be around these guys when someone has an accident–then it’s their morality and they have to deal with that blame themselves.
In no way should our superhero intentionally kill these people or intentionally let them die, as then he’s failed to live up to his own stated morality, as he killed them when he didn’t have to.
I find the whole ‘saved’ and ‘unsaved’ thing somewhat strange and open to abuse. I recall reading a book about The Troubles in Northern Ireland, the author interviewed an imprisoned Loyalist terrorist leader who stated that he had been ‘saved’ in his teenage years and as such he was already guarented a place in heaven as his status as a saved person could not be removed. Therefore he could do whatever he wanted without incurring sin, when asked if this included murder he just smirked.
I guess people can rationalise anything.
What is he going to do to stop the Purifiers without letting any of the villagers be harmed? Genuine non-snarky question.
