Being a pacifist.. does it make you a more moral person?

[eXploiTeD]

Being a pacifist makes you less moral, not more.

[BubberMiley]

Millions...and it wasn't just "white Americans". See Black Panther Party or Malcolm X / Nation of Islam....as in "any means necessary".

Yes, of course there were many in the Black community who felt that change was only possible through violent insurrection. There were even sympathetic whites who felt the same way. But your average suburbanite, including those who were by no means pacifist, slept better at night when the Black community's most prominent leader spoke only of non-violent struggle.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, of course there were many in the Black community who felt that change was only possible through violent insurrection. There were even sympathetic whites who felt the same way. But your average suburbanite, including those who were by no means pacifist, slept better at night when the Black community's most prominent leader spoke only of non-violent struggle.

If you say so....I don't recall such sweet dreams in the 1960's Civil Rights and Voting Rights struggle. Such a sweeping generalization doesn't match up well with the record, "black" or "white". America is/was a lot more complicated than that.

[BubberMiley]

If you say so....I don't recall such sweet dreams in the 1960's Civil Rights and Voting Rights struggle. Such a sweeping generalization doesn't match up well with the record, "black" or "white". America is/was a lot more complicated than that.

But King's pacifism gave his cause a credibility that would have been usurped if the "burn, baby, burn" mentality had won out. Ultimately even his opponents found his righteousness inarguable. If he had preached terrorism instead, their struggle would likely still be at square one (like, say, the Palestinians).

[bush_cheney2004]

But King's pacifism gave his cause a credibility that would have been usurped if the "burn, baby, burn" mentality had won out. Ultimately even his opponents found his righteousness inarguable. If he had preached terrorism instead, their struggle would likely still be at square one (like, say, the Palestinians).

True for King's cause, but his was not the only dynamic in the struggle, pacifist or not. King preached "non-violence" more than "pacifism". Indeed, it was the very real threat of "burn, baby, burn" that empowered nonviolence in the eyes of some, but certainly not all "suburbanites".

The "struggle" was already well underway long before Dr. King came along, and would have proceeded with or without his contributions, perhaps in a different way. Either would/did include violence.

[margrace]

Well from the sidelines, the violence you preach may catch up with you and yours yet. We will wait and see how rightous you are.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well from the sidelines, the violence you preach may catch up with you and yours yet. We will wait and see how rightous you are.

Posted bravely from the "sidelines"....of course.

[Moonlight Graham]

I don't really think it makes you a more moral person, though i tip my hat to those that do believe in it because it proves they are trying to be moral.

But pacifism is a flawed theory. It only works when the people you are standing up to will have compassion for you. Its not going to work in Darfur, or Nazi Germany. Not fighting the Nazi's and having them slaughter & enslave the planet isn't my idea of logical thinking. But Pacifism works if your opressors won't kill/harm you because of compassion or public/private pressures, such as in Ghandi's case.

[BubberMiley]

But pacifism is a flawed theory. It only works when the people you are standing up to will have compassion for you.

Human nature will eventually succumb to the realization that the pacifist has the moral authority. Slaughtering people is no fun when they don't fight back--it kind of grates on your conscience. Even the Germans in WWII were fueled, ultimately, by a population that is not far different from you or me. Without atrocities like Dresden to get their dander up and without their own sons being killed in battle, they would sooner realize the error of their ways and agree to peace.

[August1991]

IMV, this thread should have died with Riverwind's post:

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.

[ScottSA]

Human nature will eventually succumb to the realization that the pacifist has the moral authority. Slaughtering people is no fun when they don't fight back--it kind of grates on your conscience. Even the Germans in WWII were fueled, ultimately, by a population that is not far different from you or me. Without atrocities like Dresden to get their dander up and without their own sons being killed in battle, they would sooner realize the error of their ways and agree to peace.

What rot. You obviously don't have the slightest historical background.

[M.Dancer]

Human nature will eventually succumb to the realization that the pacifist has the moral authority. Slaughtering people is no fun when they don't fight back--it kind of grates on your conscience. Even the Germans in WWII were fueled, ultimately, by a population that is not far different from you or me. Without atrocities like Dresden to get their dander up and without their own sons being killed in battle, they would sooner realize the error of their ways and agree to peace.

Unlike Scott, I will assume this is biting satire.........

Edited December 18, 2007 by M.Dancer

[Rue]

It's dumb is it Rue? Ok then... poor response, but I must admit, much more succinct than your normal diatribes.

Psst still waiting for a response.

[Wilber]

Unlike Scott, I will assume this is biting satire.........

Ya think?

[AngusThermopyle]

Human nature will eventually succumb to the realization that the pacifist has the moral authority. Slaughtering people is no fun when they don't fight back--it kind of grates on your conscience. Even the Germans in WWII were fueled, ultimately, by a population that is not far different from you or me. Without atrocities like Dresden to get their dander up and without their own sons being killed in battle, they would sooner realize the error of their ways and agree to peace.

Actually I believe the opposite is the truth. Remove the the checks and balances to such behaviour and the worst will tend to come out in people.

Do you honestly believe that without opposition the Germans would have just turned to each other and said, "hey Franz, I think we should stop doing this, I'm feeling pretty guilty about all of it."? I don't think so, if that had been the case there's a damn good chance you either wouldn't exist now, or you'd be speaking German and worshipping the might of the Third Reich. I am kinda wondering where you came up with such an outlandish notion though.

[White Doors]

Psst still waiting for a response.

Post an intelligent reply and you may get one.

We aren't wikipedia here, you can post an opinion with what YOU think pacifism is.

Go on now, you are a big boy. Time to take the training wheels off.

[Peter F]

Wilber:

Pacifism that will not use force under any circumstances is a selfish indulgence made possible by the sacrifices of others. Those pacifists would be extinct without them.

Regarding Sacrifice; the whole point of pacifism is a willingness to be sacrificed to meet thier moral goal. Perhaps what you mean is violence by others (Riverwinds police and military) enables pacifists to be pacifists.

If not, then the sacrifice of others, pacifists as well as non-pacifists, has enabled my continued pacifism (maybe).

So the implied claim that without non-pacifists there'd be no pacifists is not established.

Pacifism certainly is a selfish indulgence. So is killing for a greater good, or sacrifice for the greater good. All are selfish acts because they are performed simply to satisfy ones idea of achieving a personal standard that the performer feels self-satisfied with.

No sacrifice by anyone has or will allow me to be a pacifist. The dead of WWII (to continue an example used by others in previous posts) may have made it unlikely for me to be a german-speaking Nazi-worshipper, but it has nothing to do with me hoping to be a pacifist.

That is up to me alone.

If you successfully kill someone bent on murdering me does that enable me to be a pacifist?

Is my pacifism dependant upon the actions or inactions of others? No. It may enable me to live for a little while longer but has nothing to do with my pacifism.

[Moxie]

Pacifist = Coward, they use their pacifist mombo jumbo idiology because the lack the moral where-with-all to do what needs to be done. Our Military fights whilst the cowards beak off in their basements screaming War Monger. They accomplish nothing, they receive my utter scorn for their lack of spine.

I'd like to see what they'd do if someone tried to take their Game Boy or Ipod from them using violence?

[Peter F]

Pacifist = Coward, they use their pacifist mombo jumbo idiology because the lack the moral where-with-all to do what needs to be done. Our Military fights whilst the cowards beak off in their basements screaming War Monger. They accomplish nothing, they receive my utter scorn for their lack of spine.

I'd like to see what they'd do if someone tried to take their Game Boy or Ipod from them using violence?

A pacifist would let them take it.

[jbg]

Personally, my morality lies with pacifism.

We learned on September 11, 2001 (and should have learned with WTC I, Khobar Towers, the embassy attacks and the USS Cole attack) what the wages of pacifism are. Terrorists are emboldened by a policy of withdrawal and isolation.

Pacificism had tragic results with the embassy seizure by the "students" including the thug "I'm a Dinner Jacket" President of Iran. Similarly, the US had given way on the Panama Canal, China and other areas, so much so tha tour allies doubted that we could be trusted. They didn't see it as pacificism; they saw craven surrender, and thought supporting our enemies safer than supporting the US.

Back when mobility was limited to horses, i.e. when the Christians beat the Muslims back from Vienna and Tourres, leaving that chunk of the world unpoliced was bad mainly for the likes of Marco Polo. Pacifism wasn't nearly as dangerous Now, Jihad is global and unrelenting in scope, and isolationism/pacifism is just unacceptable.

[Peter F]

We learned on September 11, 2001 (and should have learned with WTC I, Khobar Towers, the embassy attacks and the USS Cole attack) what the wages of pacifism are. Terrorists are emboldened by a policy of withdrawal and isolation.

Pacificism had tragic results with the embassy seizure by the "students" including the thug "I'm a Dinner Jacket" President of Iran. Similarly, the US had given way on the Panama Canal, China and other areas, so much so tha tour allies doubted that we could be trusted. They didn't see it as pacificism; they saw craven surrender, and thought supporting our enemies safer than supporting the US.

Back when mobility was limited to horses, i.e. when the Christians beat the Muslims back from Vienna and Tourres, leaving that chunk of the world unpoliced was bad mainly for the likes of Marco Polo. Pacifism wasn't nearly as dangerous Now, Jihad is global and unrelenting in scope, and isolationism/pacifism is just unacceptable.

Horseshit. Are you claiming that 'Pacifists' allowed the 9/11 attacks to succeed?

That 'Pacifism' allowed China to be Communist? That 'Pacifists' gave up the Panama Canal? That the USofA lacks allies because of American Pacifism? That the USofA's NATO allies and many other Allied nations not involved in NATO are supporting Terrorism?

Your contention is absolutely rediculous. There is far more to American History than pacifism. As you well know.

[jbg]

Horseshit.

I didn't curse at you.

Are you claiming that 'Pacifists' allowed the 9/11 attacks to succeed?

Absolutely.

That 'Pacifism' allowed China to be Communist?

As a practical matter there may not have been much that the West could have done about that. The West was pretty well drained, financially, emotionally and otherwise from the two World Wars that had just finished, and Korea was too much for the world to handle at that point in history. Perhaps the nuclear threat could have been used more effectively, while the US still had a monopoly, to ensure that the new Communist government behaved itself.

That 'Pacifists' gave up the Panama Canal? That the USofA lacks allies because of American Pacifism? That the USofA's NATO allies and many other Allied nations not involved in NATO are supporting Terrorism?

Yes. America's allies learned, from those experiences that siding with the US was no guarantee of safety.

Your contention is absolutely rediculous. There is far more to American History than pacifism. As you well know.

Of course there is far more to American history than pacifism. Your name-calling doesn't change that.