White Doors Posted December 6, 2007 Report Share Posted December 6, 2007 Regarding Dancers and Coots areguments from another thread.... Let's have a debate about pacifists... Are they more moral? Are they realistic? Are they hypocrites? What say you MLW? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 6, 2007 Report Share Posted December 6, 2007 I would say no. And in some cases being a pacifist will make you immoral. If you know that an evil will be done, and nothing short of violence will stop it, then being non violent is wrong. I believe the issues regarding the duty to protect through vilence isf necessary and the moal ramifications were handled quite adroitly By Sri Krishna to Arjuna in the Mahabhrata. Arjuna didn't want to fight because of the violence and blooshed, believing it to be wrong. Krishna was able to persuade him by saying that doing what was right (the victory of righteousness) was better than holy worship or temple sacrifice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 6, 2007 Report Share Posted December 6, 2007 My answer would be - it depends on the reasons for your choice. If you have made this choice because it's better for you, then it's not the most moral choice. If you have made it because you feel that it is more moral, then by definition it's the most moral choice. Moral is a bad word to use here, by the way. I think you want to use the word 'ethical'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted December 6, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 6, 2007 My answer would be - it depends on the reasons for your choice.If you have made this choice because it's better for you, then it's not the most moral choice. If you have made it because you feel that it is more moral, then by definition it's the most moral choice. Moral is a bad word to use here, by the way. I think you want to use the word 'ethical'. If you feel being a pacifist is more moral and you see two young people beating up an old lady but refuse to intervene because of your beliefs, are you acting in a moral manner? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 6, 2007 Report Share Posted December 6, 2007 If you feel being a pacifist is more moral and you see two young people beating up an old lady but refuse to intervene because of your beliefs, are you acting in a moral manner? Not to jump in and take the pacifist's arguement, but that isn't what a committed pacifist would do. To be pacifist doesn't mean being docile. A true pacifist would interpose their body between the old lady and the thugs so that both could get beat up..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted December 6, 2007 Report Share Posted December 6, 2007 Gandhi was the last word in pacifism. His advice to the Ethiopians was to "allow themselves to be slaughtered," to the Jews of Germany to make "a calm and determined stand offered by unarmed men possessing the strength of suffering given to them by Jehovah," in order to "convert the Nazis to an "appreciation of human dignity. Apparently he was too used to working with the British. Naturally, his advice the the British was to "You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island with your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these, but neither your souls, nor your minds.' Link Aside from being a snake oil salesman, he was an abject fool. Pacifism is neither good nor bad. It is simply another ism attached to the latterday eurocentric notion that peace is a central good in and of itself. And it's a relatively recent ism...the founders of the US didn't see peace as a self sufficient good; "give me liberty or give me death" is not the thought of someone willing to 'make do'; "we will fight from the hills...and never surrender..." is not a thought common to a pacifist, and in fact if you asked an Arab today if peace is important to him, he'd look at you funny. The idea that peace is a good; indeed the central good of civilization, without caveat; is something unique to the west, and virtually unique to western history. Sure, peace has always been seen as ok, but never before as an overarching pathos like it is today. And unless the west sheds the idea, we're in for a rocky ride in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 6, 2007 Report Share Posted December 6, 2007 WD If you feel being a pacifist is more moral and you see two young people beating up an old lady but refuse to intervene because of your beliefs, are you acting in a moral manner? The question doesn't make sense in light of my post. Even with your ignoring of my post, your question doesn't make sense. A pacifist can intervene, can talk people out of violence, or can restrain people from committing violence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 Scott, Pacifism is neither good nor bad. It is simply another ism attached to the latterday eurocentric notion that peace is a central good in and of itself. And it's a relatively recent ism...the founders of the US didn't see peace as a self sufficient good; "give me liberty or give me death" is not the thought of someone willing to 'make do'; "we will fight from the hills...and never surrender..." is not a thought common to a pacifist, and in fact if you asked an Arab today if peace is important to him, he'd look at you funny. The idea that peace is a good; indeed the central good of civilization, without caveat; is something unique to the west, and virtually unique to western history. But 'liberty' is a state that, while maintained with the threat of force, is essentially peaceful. 'Liberty or death' is a warning to external forces that any attempt to impinge on our peace will be met with force. That tells me that the founding fathers valued peace as a 'good' thing. Pacifism, as Ghandi described it, is a different matter. There are examples where strong values have topped corrupt regimes without violence. Sure, peace has always been seen as ok, but never before as an overarching pathos like it is today. And unless the west sheds the idea, we're in for a rocky ride in the future. The idea came from the US constitution - the proverbial life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is the goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 Scott,But 'liberty' is a state that, while maintained with the threat of force, is essentially peaceful. 'Liberty or death' is a warning to external forces that any attempt to impinge on our peace will be met with force. That tells me that the founding fathers valued peace as a 'good' thing. Pacifism, as Ghandi described it, is a different matter. There are examples where strong values have topped corrupt regimes without violence. The idea came from the US constitution - the proverbial life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is the goal. You obviously missed what I said. Sorry for your confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 It is simply another ism attached to the latterday eurocentric notion that peace is a central good in and of itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 (edited) Gandhi was the last word in pacifism. His advice to the Ethiopians was to "allow themselves to be slaughtered," to the Jews of Germany to make "a calm and determined stand offered by unarmed men possessing the strength of suffering given to them by Jehovah," in order to "convert the Nazis to an "appreciation of human dignity.ScottSA took the thought from my mind.Pacifism doesn't work and it's a foolish idea. ---- With that said, how should people be "non-pacific"? I have no doubt that we should respond collectively. A pacific individual alone cannot confront evil. It takes collective effort. Edited December 7, 2007 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 Regarding Dancers and Coots areguments from another thread.... Let's have a debate about pacifists...Are they more moral? Are they realistic? Are they hypocrites? Are they more moral? More moral than who? What are they comparing thier morality to? Other people? Is the purpose of morality to become the most moral person in the world? Personally, my morality lies with pacifism. But, I must also admit that my avowed pacifism has never been put to the test. So am I really a pacifist? or am I not? I think not. I can imagine unpleasant circumstances in wich my family is endangered where I may become violent. But perhaps thats just daydreaming about being Bruce Willis and is not reality. That has never been put to the test either. I do know that I have been mugged and had no desire during or after the event to inflict harm upon the perps. I do know that a woman wanted me to inflict harm upon her wich I though I could do until it came down to brass tacks and without thought I said "I can't hurt anybody" - Revelation! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 (edited) Society cannot function unless it has people who are authorized to use force against people who refuse to follow society's rules. This means every society needs people who are not pacifists to take jobs such as a police officer. Without such people pacifists could not be pacifists because they would be forced to defend themselves against people who have no interest in pacifism. IMV, that makes all pacifists hypocrites because they expect others to do what they are not willing to do. Edited December 7, 2007 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted December 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 WDThe question doesn't make sense in light of my post. Even with your ignoring of my post, your question doesn't make sense. A pacifist can intervene, can talk people out of violence, or can restrain people from committing violence. If violence was the only way to stop the two thugs from beating up the old lady, you are saying the pacifist WOULD use violence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted December 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 Society cannot function unless it has people who are authorized to use force against people who refuse to follow society's rules. This means every society needs people who are not pacifists to take jobs such as a police officer. Without such people pacifists could not be pacifists because they would be forced to defend themselves against people who have no interest in pacifism. IMV, that makes all pacifists hypocrites because they expect others to do what they are not willing to do. Good post. That is were I was leaning towards as well. You are free to be a pacifist because other good people who are not, enable it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 If violence was the only way to stop the two thugs from beating up the old lady, you are saying the pacifist WOULD use violence? WD, How could that be ? Restraint isn't violence. Anyway, your question is more about 'what constitutes pacifism' rather than 'does pacifism constitute a moral choice'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 The agile pacifist counters the thugs fist with his face and restrains the hooligans boot with his bollocks...Tired of dodging the committed pacifist's soft tissue body parts which repeated landed their non violent opposition on the male hierarchical aggressor's fists....the unenlightened person walks off, knowing deep down the moral victory was not his...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted December 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 Restraint isn't violence Being handcuffed is not violent per se, but the process to put you in handcuffs almost always is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 Fine, then you want to discuss 'what constitutes violence'. I don't think holding somebody down who is attacking somebody constitutes violence, but that's just me. Not a very interesting topic, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 Not a very interesting topic, though. Feel free not to participate..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 (edited) I don't think holding somebody down who is attacking somebody constitutes violence, but that's just me. Really? I'm not going to let you hold me down. I'm not going to let you hold me down by breaking your arm. Now what? Edited December 7, 2007 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 (edited) I don't think holding somebody down who is attacking somebody constitutes violence, but that's just me.You cannot not 'hold somebody down' without being prepared to inflict serious damage. It is that threat of further injury is what keeps a person passive when restrained. The person would be able to escape easily if you were not willing to follow through on that threat. If you are willing to use violance if necessary then you are not a pacifist - even if you don't need to use it in the end. Edited December 7, 2007 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 (edited) I surrender, my knowledge of what constitutes a fight is incorrect. Thanks for bringing the brains... as opposed to bringing the pain.... Edited December 7, 2007 by Michael Hardner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted December 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 Fine, then you want to discuss 'what constitutes violence'.I don't think holding somebody down who is attacking somebody constitutes violence, but that's just me. Not a very interesting topic, though. You don't think disabling somebody physically in order to put handcuffs on them is violence? what is it then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted December 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 I surrender, my knowledge of what constitutes a fight is incorrect.Thanks for bringing the brains... as opposed to bringing the pain.... we'll let it go this time, pussy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.