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

[Michael Hardner]

You don't think disabling somebody physically in order to put handcuffs on them is violence?

what is it then?

Honestly, I never thought of it. I always thought of violence as attacking someone.

[Peter F]

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......

...and that is exactly what happened when I got mugged!

[Rue]

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?

Generalizing as to all pacificists is dumb as their motives may not be the same. Some pacifists are probably moral and realistic others hypocritical and self-serving. It all depends on the situation they are reacting or not reacting to.

Which brings us to the next question-unless you know what the scenario is, how do you go about constructing your moral judgement on the person(s) you feel is being passive to it?

[Wilber]

If a pacifist means that a person decries any violence and insists on living their life that way regardless, that's moral IMO. Of course they will have to depend on non pacifists in order to remain alive pacifists.

Edited December 9, 2007 by Wilber

[Peter F]

If a pacifist means that a person decries any violence and insists on living their life that way regardless, that's moral IMO. Of course they will have to depend on non pacifists in order to remain alive pacifists.

No. A pacifist would let someone kill them rather than take a life.

[Wilber]

No. A pacifist would let someone kill them rather than take a life.

That's what I said. A dead pacifist is no longer a pacifist.

[Peter F]

That's what I said. A dead pacifist is no longer a pacifist.

Wilber:

Of course they will have to depend on non pacifists in order to remain alive pacifists.

...and, I would suggest, that a dead pacifist has proved thier pacifism.

[myata]

A rational pacifist will not use violence first, and in any situation unless its the only way to avoid loss or damage to life.

Violence means disproportionate force, not any force.

[Wilber]

Wilber:

...and, I would suggest, that a dead pacifist has proved thier pacifism.

Yes but that would be all they have proved or accomplished. I don't have a lot of time for people who choose to die stupidly.

[Wilber]

A rational pacifist will not use violence first, and in any situation unless its the only way to avoid loss or damage to life.

I think that describes a majority of people but it isn't necessarily rational. A wise person once told me, if you know that your only options are fighting back or getting the crap knocked out of you, only an idiot will let the other guy take the first punch. Obvious really but easier said than done for anyone who has an aversion to violence.

Violence means disproportionate force, not any force.

Disagree. Violence is violence. Whether a particular application of violence is disproportionate or not is a matter of opinion.

[Peter F]

Yes but that would be all they have proved or accomplished. I don't have a lot of time for people who choose to die stupidly.

Thats okay. It's not your moral code they are living/dying by.

[Brain Candy]

As long they are truly passive and NOT passive aggressive (as most are) then i see nothing bad about them except they might be ignoring reality.

[Brain Candy]

.

Edited December 10, 2007 by Brain Candy

[M.Dancer]

That's what I said. A dead pacifist is no longer a pacifist.

Somewhere in here there is a pun waiting to be plumbed.

[Wilber]

Thats okay. It's not your moral code they are living/dying by.

It's OK as long as I never have to depend on one of them and they realize that they can have no expectation of anyone intervening on their behalf if they are in danger. Of course the members of organizations such as the military an police don't get to make those choices so there will generally be someone around to make sure that they are able to remain alive pacifists in spite of themselves.

It comes down to the definition of pacifism. 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.

[Canadian Blue]

I'll admit that I find pacifists respectable, and have read some books on pacifism by Kurlansky. However pacificism is not an ideology based in any kind of reality. While Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were able to use non-violence it was only truly allowable due to the liberal ideas which were already present at the time. If either Gandhi or MLK was in Nazi Germany, Pinochets Chile, or Suharto's Indonesia, they more than likely would have been shot on the spot. So in my opinion non-violence is effective in liberal democracies, however it cannot be used against totalitarian regimes and the current crop of islamofascists we face today.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I once heard a quote by an author (can't remember who):

"Fantasy is the luxury of the free society"

It was pertaining to the people who drive around with "9-11 was an inside job" bumper stickers.

The point was: if we were really living in a country in fear of our own government, would you really want to drive around with a bumper sticker like that? It's only with the confidence that we live in a free society that we can engage in such speculation and fantasy - kind of like going to an S&M parlour knowing full well you really aren't going to be stuck chained up in a cage forever - only for a brief period of fantasy completely under your own control.

How does this pertain to pacifism? Same idea: Pacifism is a luxury provided by strong military countries. Europe and Canada are chalk full of pacifist anti-war types. But that luxury has been enjoyed since 1945 under the blanket of security provided by the "terrible american war machine".

[Canadian Blue]

I was watching Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Real Time with Bill Maher the other night and couldn't help but get a quote stuck in my head: "The people who live in freedom tend to spit on freedom the most." While the 9/11 conspiracy theory types like to talk about how the government committed 9/11 and are capable of the most evil things, they can't quite comprehend why that same government wouldn't simply get rid of them.

Hell even Noam Chomsky who is about as left wing as one can get thinks that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are complete bullshit.

[myata]

Disagree. Violence is violence. Whether a particular application of violence is disproportionate or not is a matter of opinion.

If any application of force were deemed to be violence, then mission becomes impossible from practical point of view. Some force is always needed to maintain the order. E.g somebody behaving in unruly manner needs to be restrained, before they potentially hurt somebody; a border dispute may result is a shootout; a boat illegally fishing in our waters has to be detained. None of the above would make one, a country or individual, non-pacifist.

The bottom line is that the violence will be with us for a long time to come. A pacifist will not bring new violence in world, and use the least amount of it to deal with that what already existed. Over the time, this should lead to less violence in the world - the most one may hope for.

[Wilber]

If any application of force were deemed to be violence, then mission becomes impossible from practical point of view.

Violence is just a description of a particular action. Whether it is right or wrong, justified or unjustified has nothing to do with whether an act is violent. If you kill someone to save your own or someone else's life, you are committing a violent act however justifiable it may be.

[M.Dancer]

Violence is just a description of a particular action. Whether it is right or wrong, justified or unjustified has nothing to do with whether an act is violent. If you kill someone to save your own or someone else's life, you are committing a violent act however justifiable it may be.

On a side note, the coroner's report on my father's death some 41 years ago described it as a violent death. He was killed in an industrial accident.

Interesting the language, n'est ce pas?

[White Doors]

A rational pacifist will not use violence first, and in any situation unless its the only way to avoid loss or damage to life.

Violence means disproportionate force, not any force.

Violence is violence. Self defence IS violence. what a silly thing to say.

[White Doors]

Generalizing as to all pacificists is dumb as their motives may not be the same. Some pacifists are probably moral and realistic others hypocritical and self-serving. It all depends on the situation they are reacting or not reacting to.

Which brings us to the next question-unless you know what the scenario is, how do you go about constructing your moral judgement on the person(s) you feel is being passive to it?

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

[BubberMiley]

People who are opposed to pacifism are always only opposed with respect to their own decision whether or not to choose violence. How many white Americans were opposed to Martin Luther King Jr's pacifism?

[bush_cheney2004]

People who are opposed to pacifism are always only opposed with respect to their own decision whether or not to choose violence. How many white Americans were opposed to Martin Luther King Jr's pacifism?

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

Edited December 18, 2007 by bush_cheney2004