If you aren't a pacifist, you are immoral.

Does pacifism allow violent resistance to violence in your book?

Quoting frank

The only moral path is pacifism. Comments?

If I am violently attacked I shall likely resist as personally militaristic-ally as possible.

Am I therefore immoral?

Quoting frank

To accept military action is to accept the violent deaths of many and the continued suffering of many more from the social and economic chaos created by war, and from the loss of loves ones. To accept the horror of war is clearly immoral

Is this suggestive, in the positive, for diplomatic engagement with historically defined state foes?

Quoting fdrake

Does pacifism allow violent resistance to violence in your book?

Coordinated military action of any kind is immoral because commonplace military strategies make indiscriminate lethal force a likelihood.

It's also immoral to value a city or cultural center over human life. So the moral response to invasion is to flee. During flight, immediate self defense is moral.

Quoting raza

If am violently attacked I shall likely resist as personally militaristic-ally as possible.

Am I therefore immoral

If your personal military includes your body and weapons that may be available to you at the time you are attacked, it is not immoral to engage your attacker in defense of your life and/or the lives of those in your immediate environment.

Reply to frank

Eh, this pacifism as an ideal gives a comparative advantage to immoral violence as a strategy. When a coordinated military shows up, you cede all ground to them no matter the strength of their imposition (so long as it is much greater) and no matter what their goals are. It's a very convenient moralism for any coordinated oppressor.

Methodologically, it's an ideal imposed from on high to a world too conflicted for it to work as intended. As soon as military power differentials show up, the targets of intervention become immoral if they resist.

I suspect any pacifist society will eventually erupt in a bloody, violent catharsis, much like an abstinent ascetic will eventually release their loins. Murder is a natural expression of social frustration. War is fun, at least for the politicians who wager they can win.

Quoting fdrake

, this pacifism as an ideal gives a comparative advantage to immoral violence as a strategy.

Possibly. Russians have historically robbed invaders of any prize by abandoning their cities. But if we stipulate that pacifism encourages invasions, that doesn't address the claim that any coordinated military action is immoral.

Have you read Augustine's City of God? He points to the storage of excess wealth that goes on in cities as the real cause of invasions.

I think it might be that cultural centers tend to be conglomerations of "necessary evils." Defending them is just one more.

Various members of the Maquis ended up in the D quadrant of the galaxy. They were probably better off than the comrades they left behind.

Quoting darthbarracuda

War is fun, at least for the politicians who wager they can win.

The environment of the average video game suggests you're right. What does that mean about us as a species?

Reply to frank It seems like every person is a potential murderer. Pull the wrong strings too many times and they're bound to snap eventually. Even the most benevolent person has their limits (and it seems like God has a relatively low limit himself if the Old Testament is to be taken literally).

From what I can tell, most murders come from jealousy or envy, as a sort of "revenge". It may start out as a benign sorrow, but over time, or after an especially traumatic episode, the murderous zealotry develops. It's megalomania, the idea that a person has the right to end another person's life.

Murder, and crime in general, is an inevitable aspect of any society because society is and always will be constituted by inequality. Crime, including murder, is a reflection of the current state of a society as much as it is a reflection of the individual's mental state. That crime is "separate" from society (and in particular, the state), is sort of an illusion, I think. That the "state" exists to keep crime in check is ridiculous because the state is the condition from which crime couldn't exist without. In my opinion, the state perpetuates itself by making problems that can only be solved by state intervention; i.e. the state creates the conditions of its own necessity.

Quoting frank

It's also immoral to value a city or cultural center over human life. So the moral response to invasion is to flee. During flight, immediate self defense is moral.

It's not the city you're fighting for. It's the principles it stands for. Liberty, for instance, is worth fighting for, and that would mean defending the state that provides that freedom as opposed to clinging to your life at all costs, even should it involve being enslaved.

I think I can agree that war is basically an evil. I don't know if I'd say immoral, because morality tends to refer to either acts or character and war is neither of those. What it is depends upon one's position in a society. For some it is almost like a natural disaster -- a regrettable context that causes suffering but which we have no control over. For others they have a direct say in whether or not to pursue war, and it is closer to moral deliberation in that context. But even then it is somewhat out of one's control, because it's not something a person does all on their own.

And even though war is basically evil, there can be greater evils than fighting a war. I don't believe that there is such a thing as a just war. It is evil. But sometimes a choice between evils is all you get.

Quoting darthbarracuda

any society because society is and always will be constituted by inequality. Crime, including murder, is a reflection of the current state of a society as much as it is a reflection of the individual's mental state. That crime is "separate" from society (and in particular, the state), is sort of an illusion, I think. That the "state" exists to keep crime in check is ridiculous because the state is the condition from which crime couldn't exist without

Thank you. That's exactly what I was thinking. The implications of the immorality of political entities is escaping me.

Should we think of a city or nation as a living thing that would be immune from judgment? Or what? What do you do with the fact that a thing that you're dependent on and to some extent defines you is inherently immoral?

Quoting Hanover

It's not the city you're fighting for. It's the principles it stands for

Honestly, I think this is mostly feel-good justification. Wars are fusions of multiple agendas.

But if one is fighting for liberty, is it really moral to kill another for the sake of your own freedom?

Reply to Moliere You're saying it's a moot point for most of us. Probably so.

Reply to frank For most of us it is something beyond our control. How we react to war is something else. But it's not something we really have a choice in, and so isn't much of a moral deliberation.

Still, it's worth noting that war is an evil, so I don't know if I'd say it's moot. People certainly talk about war like it's a good often enough that it's worth saying that there isn't such a thing as a good war, even if we happen to need to go to war.

Following the example of nature, specifically our older siblings the animals is a good basic default position. Early humans watched what plants animals ate to know that they were at least not poisonous, if not delicious. Except for food and self-defense most animals are surprisingly peaceful. There is little evolutionary advantage to risk injury by fighting all the time. They fight for territory and mating, too. But often these are more like quarrels than battles. To follow their general example is a good starting point, though obviously humans are different in many ways. (Which should go without saying).

I am usually suspicious of extreme or absolute statements of morality and behavior. We live in the relative world. Statements that frame things in “black-and-white” usually lead to “whack-and-blight” thinking, so to speak.

Quoting frank

Possibly. Russians have historically robbed invaders of any prize by abandoning their cities. But if we stipulate that pacifism encourages invasions, that doesn't address the claim that any coordinated military action is immoral.

Have you read Augustine's City of God? He points to the storage of excess wealth that goes on in cities as the real cause of invasions.

I've not read Augustine's City of God. Perhaps it's insightful in other ways, but demonstrably that's not why most military conflict takes case now. The barbarians sacking the city for economic resources is somewhat incidental nowadays, when its concomitant, terrorist depravity is legitimised through propaganda and noise. It's an antiquated picture.

Anyway, it doesn't address whether coordinated military action is immoral if you construe morality as an intellectual exercise towards good conduct out with any context of decision. That's exactly what I'm criticising; military resistance to military oppression and terror is a no-brainer but not a blank cheque. Morality without politics is empty, politics without morality is blind.

Quoting frank

But if one is fighting for liberty, is it really moral to kill another for the sake of your own freedom?

Yes, both yours and your own.

Are you suggesting that it would be more moral for the North Koreans to live for the next thousand years under an oppressive, murderous regime than to rebel today and live the next thousand years in freedom?

Quoting fdrake

The barbarians sacking the city for economic resources is somewhat incidental nowadays,

Really? Certain parties find themselves being invaded and it's just incidental that they're sitting on top of a lot of oil? Yes there are complexities to our world that didnt exist back when, but our prioritiea are fundamentally the same.

Quoting fdrake

Anyway, it doesn't address whether coordinated military action is immoral if you construe morality as an intellectual exercise towards good conduct out with any context of decision. That's exactly what I'm criticising; military resistance to military oppression and terror is a no-brainer but not a blank cheque.

In what context is the death of an innocent bystander ok with you?

Quoting Hanover

Are you suggesting that it would be more moral for the North Koreans to live for the next thousand years under an oppressive, murderous regime than to rebel today and live the next thousand years in freedom?

Inevitably innocents suffer in a bloody revolution. Life has no price. My interest in NK emancipation doesn't change that.

Quoting frank

Really? Certain parties find themselves being invaded and it's just incidental that they're sitting on top of a lot of oil? Yes there are complexities to our world that didnt exist back when, but our prioritiea are fundamentally the same.

Wars for land control have economic features of motivation and strategy, yes. Big difference between that and a city being sacked for its accumulated wealth. Dispossession's always been a thing, accumulation by dispossession and economic risk management through military force are more than a bit different. The barbarians don't want your stuff, they want to secure their interests or develop what's now their property, or both at once.

Quoting frank

In what context is the death of an innocent bystander ok with you?

Since I'm the moral arbiter of the entire world why don't you come up with some situations and I'll tell you once and for all if they're good or evil.

Quoting fdrake

The barbarians don't want your stuff, they want to secure their interests or develop what's now their property, or both at once.

True enough. Fact remains: pacifism doesn't inspire invasions. The promise of wealth does. Nobody's planning to invade the Amazon just because we know those people have no defense.

Therefore defense is first and foremost about protecting property.

Quoting fdrake

Since I'm the moral arbiter of the entire world why don't you come up with some situations and I'll tell you once and for all if they're good or evil.

That question suggests that you believe there are situations where you'd give a thumbs up to the death of an innocent.

'Course I dont believe that.

Reply to frank How is anything clearly immoral? Morality is heavily nuanced by our values and our psychology. What is immoral to one person may be considered moral by someone else. Therefore, your argument may be valid for you and others who share similar values and psychology, but may not be valid for someone else.

As an example, look up the thought experiments: "trolly problem" (choosing to kill one person to save 5 others) and the related "fat man problem" (pushing a fat man to his death to stop a runaway train to save others). One can make logical rules for what is most moral (e.g. actively choosing to kill one person to save more than one person results in a net effect of saving lives), but different people will choose differently, and often people will chose to save one life for many in the "trolly problem" but choose not to do so for the "fat man problem".... and the main difference seems to be that with the trolly problem, they are flipping a switch (not directly interacting with the person they are choosing to kill) vs with the other problem they have to directly interact with the man to kill him. You see similar behavior in everyday life, as "nice" people can sometimes be angry and confrontational when driving a car, or on online forums, where there is some depersonalization.

In the case of pacifism, your choice to avoid war may allow a tyrannical leader to walk in, send all the people that the tyrant considers undesirable to death camps, and cause the rest to suffer through a miserable obedient life as peasants in service to the tyrant. Your choice might have resulted in killing more people and caused much more suffering by choosing a pacifist approach. Perhaps we don't know what the outcome will be and have to make a guess of what seems best.

We can also take this in all sorts of directions, any of which could be argued by someone to be the moral decision, while considered immoral by someone else. One can argue that the society is killing a lot of other plants and animals to sustain itself, and therefore it is moral to kill them off to save those other plants and animals being killed. One could argue that a lot of people are suffering, and if we just kill off everything on Earth quickly, we can finally put an end to all that suffering (afterall, there are a lot of lifeless planets in the universe and there's nothing wrong with them). One could argue that the natural path of evolution is to let the strongest survive, so letting the tyrant conquer and dominate is a natural process that should be allowed. One could argue that nature has all sorts of examples of things killing things for evolution and survival, so it's no biggie for one group of people to kill another group, and let the strongest survive. One could argue that choosing the most peaceful loving action is always the best, regardless of what other people do.

Quoting frank

Inevitably innocents suffer in a bloody revolution. Life has no price. My interest in NK emancipation doesn't change that.

Yeah, well, this post just seems so poorly thought out as you sit wherever you are in your freedom, reaping the benefits others provided you, at the cost of countless lives.

Quoting frank

That question suggests that you believe there are situations where you'd give a thumbs up to the death of an innocent.

Exactly. I wear mostly black so that it doesn't show any of that disgusting Bangladeshi or Vietnamese blood from their dirty little hands on it. Then I sit in Starbucks, get fairtrade, and post mostly about metaphysics on here in my hard earned free time.

If that sounds ridiculous, horrible, sociopathic to you - it should. It's because you're not realising the consequences of your own issue framing. You're deliberating about what's moral or immoral without reference to any choices which are actually made. This comes equipped with its dual - an ethics of ideas without actions, in which disembodied propositions float above the world as impossible maxims. Ethical dilemmas, in all their ambiguity and sacrifice, are beneath this perspective.

I don't think pacifism tout court is admirable. Sometimes it can just be plain fucking stupid. If someone threatened to kill my cat (which I unfortunately do not have because allergies) I would go defensive. Defensive aggression, i.e. self defense, is perfectly acceptable I think.

In fact to lay yourself down prostrate in front of an oppressor is a passive evil because you are merely enabling them to continue oppressing you and other people. Pacifism sometimes seems to me to be a cheap way out of difficult moral problems that demand some degree of intervention.

However, there are a few caveats to this, I think. First and foremost, self defense should never be taken further than necessary. Additionally, and most importantly, the concept of irreversibility should be taken into account. The death penalty, for example, is absolutely wrong, in my opinion, because for the simply fact that empirical observations are always, on principle, about to be doubted. Guilt is never proven absolutely - it is only proven within reasonable doubt - yet death is an absolute punishment with no way of going back if it turns out the justice system failed in its operation.

Quoting fdrake

You're deliberating about what's moral or immoral without reference to any choices which are actually made. This comes equipped with its dual - an ethics of ideas without actions, in which disembodied propositions float above the world as impossible maxims. Ethical dilemmas, in all their ambiguity and sacrifice, are beneath this perspective.

Actually, it might do you good to climb up on this cloud with me and take in the bigger picture for a change.

Yes you're enmeshed in a web of necessary evils. But the only thing keeping you there is your own short sightedness, your own failure to imagine the longterm costs and consequences of your readiness to embrace injustice.

Stand up out of that web of greed and propaganda. If the world isn't in your hands, then whose? It's not particular instances of blown-up orphanages and the facts about why it happened that we need to look to to give morality meaning.

Do you have a vision of what the world should be? If so, then become the embodiment of morality and follow that vision.

Quoting Hanover

Yeah, well, this post just seems so poorly thought out as you sit wherever you are in your freedom, reaping the benefits others provided you, at the cost of countless lives.

Freedom of religion becomes a religion worth killing for?

There are many things I enjoy. I wouldn't sanction killing to get them.

Quoting darthbarracuda

someone threatened to kill my cat (which I unfortunately do not have because allergies) I would go defensive.

I appreciate your need to defend your phantom cat. Its organized military exploits I was really condemning.

Quoting frank

Actually, it might do you good to climb up on this cloud with me and take in the bigger picture for a change.

I've been through a very similar discussion on here before, with @SophistiCat. If you're interested give it a read.

Quoting frank

Freedom of religion becomes a religion worth killing for?

There are many things I enjoy. I wouldn't sanction killing to get them

The question isn't whether there are many things you wouldn't kill for. The question is whether there is anything you would kill for. If the answer is no, and that you'd allow yourself and your entire family to be enslaved and oppressed, then you strike me as immoral, caring for nothing other than the ability to breath.

Quoting jajsfaye

Morality is heavily nuanced by our values and our psychology. What is immoral to one person may be considered moral by someone else.

Opinions vary, yes. I'm deflational about morality without being a nihilist (relativism just being a form of nihilism).

Morality is a part of my experience. Tracing geneology is fun, but I have no interest in ontological issues related to morality. I'm an ontological antirealist.

Quoting fdrake

through a very similar discussion on here before, with SophistiCat. If you're interested give it a read.

Cool. I was pretending that you're the Quiet American after your Vietnam comment. Its just as well our discussion went silent.

Reply to fdrake Hrm! I missed that thread. It was a good read.

I think it's worth noting evil for what it is. In this case, war. I agree that this is a view somewhat distended from immediate decision making or even decisions we'll make. (After all, as I said earlier, war isn't even really a decision for the majority of us) -- but it's also something of a no-brainer. The evils of war are great, and so acknowledging this influences our attitude towards war, which in turn does influence how we react to war -- something which we do have control over.

I'd also say that the decision to defend your city from an invasion is a no-brainer, though. I think cases of revolution are justifiable to participate in. I'm not fully against all war, in the sense that it can be the right choice to be a part of a war, in my view. But it is also a sort of participation in evil, and that tone changes how we make that decision I'd say.

Quoting frank

I appreciate your need to defend your phantom cat. Its organized military exploits I was really condemning.

Same difference really.

Vladimir Putin wants to drown all the kittens. He sends forth his evil legions. Do you now appreciate our organised military defense of all these kittens? Or do you think we should all let them get curbstomped because it is more evil to do something about it?

I mean, this isn't really a choice. You are objectively a horrible human being if you are not willing to declare full nuclear war for the sake of your pets.

It seems to me that one cannot posit one's existence without formally limiting the existence of others. To say, "I exist", or rather, "I will continue to exist" is to stake one's flag into the dirt and claim a certain island of space as one's own. It is to say, my life is important, my existence is worth something. But do we have the right to do this? On what grounds can we say that we, ourselves, have a right to exist, and if push comes to shove, also have the right to exclude others from this space?

The self is an arbitrary locus of value. Simply being always-already is a formal violence against the other. There is no such thing as a purely pacifist existence, only a gradient of aggression.

Quoting darthbarracuda

It seems to me that one cannot posit one's existence without formally limiting the existence of others. To say, "I exist", or rather, "I will continue to exist" is to stake one's flag into the dirt and claim a certain island of space as one's own. It is to say, my life is important, my existence is worth something. But do we have the right to do this? On what grounds can we say that we, ourselves, have a right to exist, and if push comes to shove, also have the right to exclude others from this space?

If you decided to drown yourself you'd quickly realize the extent to which the life does not belong to You, the Homunculus decision maker. You'll fight. That being the case, I see no need to furnish a warrant.

And you pointed out that war isn't something any individual does. Is it out of our hands just like the will to live? The problem I see is that we'll have victims and no one taking responsibility for what happened to them.

Quoting darthbarracuda

There is no such thing as a purely pacifist existence, only a gradient of aggression.

I'll buy that.

Quoting darthbarracuda

The death penalty, for example, is absolutely wrong, in my opinion, because for the simply fact that empirical observations are always, on principle, about to be doubted. Guilt is never proven absolutely - it is only proven within reasonable doubt - yet death is an absolute punishment with no way of going back if it turns out the justice system failed in its operation.

Suppose the person is seen by dozens committing the crime, it is videotaped, there is physical evidence linking the person to the crime, and we have an admission? Epistimilogically, wouldn't we have the same level of certainty that the person committed the crime as we would that the criminal died at the hands of the executioner?

I mean, if you're right that we can't know who killed the victim, then we can't know who killed the murderer, and I suppose we can't even know if anyone really died at all.

Reply to frank Uh huh.

So how about this question I posted or has it been relegated to the untouchable category?

Quoting frank

To accept military action is to accept the violent deaths of many and the continued suffering of many more from the social and economic chaos created by war, and from the loss of loves ones. To accept the horror of war is clearly immoral.

“Is this suggestive, in the positive, for diplomatic engagement with historically defined state foes?”

Quoting raza

this suggestive, in the positive, for diplomatic engagement with historically defined state foes?”

No. Pacifism is radical. It's about human potential.

Quoting frank

No. Pacifism is radical. It's about human potential.

So it is not toward a realization of pacifism?

If pacifism is about "human potential" then surely there needs to be process instigated towards REALIZING the potential.

Is conversation, engagement with "the other", negotiation, NOT a process toward realizing the human potential for peace therefore pacifism?

If not why not?

Or do you mean "pacifism" is not something that requires to be actual but rather remains an ideal, like "heaven" or "utopia"? In a word, fantasy?

Quoting raza

So it is not toward a realization of pacifism?

If pacifism is about "human potential" then surely there needs to be process instigated towards REALIZING the potential.

Historically, hardcore pacifists expect this "realization" to be a next step in human evolution. They would say war is too deeply embedded in human life to expect progress by small steps.

Quoting frank

Historically, hardcore pacifists expect this "realization" to be a next step in human evolution. They would say war is too deeply embedded in human life to expect progress by small steps.

Who are we therefore having a discussion with? A hardcore pacifist or some other version?

Reply to raza That's an interesting question. Darth was the only one who actually listened to me, so I think most were talking to themselves.

Quoting frank

The only moral path is pacifism. Comments?

You made the statement. You claim to know of versions of pacifism.

Is the “moral path” version the hardcore pacifists?

Quoting raza

You made the statement. You claim to know of versions of pacifism.

Is the “moral path” version the hardcore pacifists?

I didn't address any practicalities in that post. Its just the assertion that all military ventures are immoral.

Versions of pacifism: separate issue. IOW, the OP was an invitation to examine a certain question; not to examine me.

Quoting frank

Versions of pacifism: separate issue. IOW, the OP was an invitation to examine a certain question; not to examine me

I was examining by asking the question as to what does applying a pacifist moral path look like?

Is it just a set of virtuous sounding words?

Reply to raza Why not just address the OP directly?

Yes, no, not applicable (n/a)?

Quoting frank

The only moral path is pacifism. Comments?

1. Are you able to describe this path or describe how it may not be comparable to a "engaging with historic enemies in negotiation and discussion" path?

2. Is engaging with historic enemies in negotiation and discussion not moral, in your opinion?

3. Is engaging with historic enemies in negotiation and discussion excluded as a viable path toward peaceful relations, in your opinion?

Quoting frank

(re: Pacifism) Its just the assertion that all military ventures are immoral.

4. Could engaging with historic enemies in negotiation and discussion be conceivably regarded as a move away from immoral military ventures, in your opinion?

Reply to raza Lol. Are you invading my thread like a trump-bot?

Quoting frank

Lol. Are you invading my thread like a trump-bot?

Ah. It's a solo thread.

Reply to frank Difficult questions, eh?

Are you self-confessed low hanging fruit?

Reply to raza You're a loony-bot.

My point has obviously found it’s mark as indicated by your fear to reply to clear questions.

Reply to frank Hello.

Have you heard of the Just War Theory? It gives a list of criteria to judge not only if going to war is just, but can also judge if not going to war could be unjust.

E.g. if the Nazis decide to commit genocide against the Jews, it could be your nation's moral duty to declare war against them to save other lives.

Reply to Samuel Lacrampe Yes. I'm just rejecting just war based on my own sentiment.

I wouldnt say it's moral to wage war on Nazis. It's an evil we embrace to combat another evil.

More later...

Reply to frank
I agree that war is intrinsically evil, but not necessarily immoral.

P1: The first principal of morality is "do good and avoid evil". In other words, "act in such a way so as to maximum the resulting good and minimize the resulting evil".
P2: Saving lives is intrinsically good, and taking lives is intrinsically evil.
C: Going to war that is expected to result in saving more lives in the long run than not going to war is good; and not going to war in that case is evil.

Reply to Samuel Lacrampe So you might knowingly do things that are intrinsically evil while considering yourself to be morally compliant.

Does this sit well with you?

There is no position that one can take in human affairs that will always guarantee a verdict of "Not Guilty" or "Not Immoral".

Reply to frank In 1964 when I turned 18 I registered as a conscientious objector with my draft board. They didn't act upon it, and when I reported for my physical I didn't pass. That was a long time ago. It has been easy to maintain a pacifist stance when unjustifiable wars like Vietnam, Iraq, et al have been the rule.

I can't find a way to justify not resisting the Axis Powers in WWII. Self-interest dictated that we resist--and protecting one's self is supposed to be moral. But the Allied Powers were not moral, either.

Japan and Germany had designs for reordering the world in their interests. European and American powers had been doing that very thing for several centuries, of course, and we all thought it was a good thing. I'm sure Germans and Japanese felt the same. We were all guilty.

But what would the justification be that would make it moral to just resign the game and say, "Ok. Herr Hitler; it's your turn to run the world; just send a list of requirements for your management of our affairs. We'll round up a few million more Jews for you, so you won't have to do that. Anybody else you want to get rid of... Communists? Jehovah's Witnesses? Criminals? Blacks? Homosexuals? Slavs? Retarded? Hey, we've got them all here You'll be busy!"

On the other hand, the negotiations with Iran (assuming that everybody was being honest) were the sort of thing the world should do: derail the development of powerful weapons that facilitates naked aggression. All of the negotiations in the Middle East that have delayed the definitive war of resolution between Israel and the Arab states has been worthwhile. Trying to dissuade North Korea from developing nuclear weapons was worthwhile; alas, the effort failed. Peace and Reconciliation in South Africa and in a few other places has been a highly beneficial thing, even if it didn't resolve all problems.

So, sometimes nations do things that keep its people in the "moral" column. As often as not, national policies commit citizens to the resolution of problems which may engage them in acts that will be judged immoral -- after the fact. What is one to do--flee to another country? How would that save one from all moral dilemmas?

I disagree that your rigid formula, pacifism or immorality.

Quoting Bitter Crank

But what would the justification be that would make it moral to just resign the game and say, "Ok. Herr Hitler; it's your turn to run the world;

Interesting that you ask that. I have a black hole that I keep in a jar. Through it, I explore alternate realities. In one of them there's a guy names Hans who lives in the Glorious Third Reich. In school he learned about the great victory of the Nazis over the Allies.

Hans is an odd ponderer. He approaches his buddies (they arent really his friends, but whatever). He says that there must have been innocent people who died during the Great Victory and so it cant be said that it was morally right. His buddies proceed to pounce.

His buddies tell him that life is full of hard choices. They ask if he would really give up the GTR? This the greater good, they explain. They reproach him for being so stupid as to condemn the very actions on which his own life and welfare depend.

"But you aren't saying it was right." He says to each of them. "You're just saying it was less wrong than something else."

"But what's the use of this pondering?" He's asked. "If there's no choice for the individual in any of it?"

"It's just pondering, he says." "Trying to get a vantage point on myself and my world."

They shake their heads. Hans heads back to the clinic where he does genetic testing on babies. If one is found to have defective genes, it's mercifully extinguished. One of the things they test for is a marker for Jewishness.

Reply to frank You condemn all war, even against those whose central goal is more war. You oppose all killing, even against those whose central goal is more killing.

Even if the net result of your strategy would be to create more of what you condemn, you still advocate it.

Since you don't judge your decisions by their results, are you just reciting to us your religion?

Reply to Hanover I didn't offer any strategy.

Has anyone defined terms...operationalized them? How would any of us know to answer yes or no without defining 'pacifist'?


Can a person be a pacifist and still be willing to engage in warfare if the cause is just? Was John Stuart Mill right about war not being the ugliest of things?

Reply to frank I think you made a mistake by not defining your terms, by using the word pasifisim and indicating an absolute stance you seem to be against all force including self defense or law enforcement rather than specifically matters of state.

Reply to gloaming Reply to Evonix
Hi! I think there are pacifists who reject violence even in self defense. I didnt argue for that form because I cant make it reasonable in my own mind. It's violence in defense of property that I focused on and I argued that national defense is on behalf of property rather than life.

Quoting frank

It's violence in defense of property that I focused on and I argued that national defense is on behalf of property rather than life

I agree with you that the value of life is greater than the value of property. It is always wrong for a government (like your local city police force or state National Guard) to kill looters. Nothing in a Walmart, K-Mart, Sears, Macy's, Nordstroms, Target, Bloomingdales, Penneys, 7-11, or Family Dollar is worth more than the life of the guy carting it away.

I would agree with you, up to a point, that national defense, or war, is fought to get property. The Germans certainly wanted property in WWII -- Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Baltic States, Byelorussia, Ukraine, western Russia, France, Belgium, Holland, Greece, Yugoslavia, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Austria, and Czechoslovakia, and more -- but they also wanted to get rid of life. For instance, the Nazi's targeted the intellectual resources of Poland -- it's leadership, academics, military personnel, etc. The same policy was carried out in the eastward march across the USSR: find, identify, and immediately execute the leadership personnel of the region. The Nazi's loathed more than just Jews: they also planned on getting rid of the slavs -- through starvation and bullets.

The westward expansion of the United States was about land, of course, but also about eliminating resistance from the inhabitants in place. That's why so many buffalo were killed and left to rot during the later stages of the expansion -- it was to starve the Plains Indians. Or we shot them.

:up:
Reply to Bitter Crank

Pacifism can be as violent as aggression. All that is being debated here is the private meaning applied, or presumed to belong to particular nouns.

Save philosophy: Kill the noun.

M