Is Pacifism a Dangerous Western Disease?

From their own point of view, Pacifists see war as wrong and to be fought under no circumstances. Yet the power of Pacifism is confined to western democracies. If a threat ever developed, a West dominated by short-term Pacifist moral sentiment would be unable to fight preventative wars, just like Pacifism made France and England unable to fight Hitler when he was still weak and condemned Europe to a long, bloody and, in the words of Churchill, "unnecessary war". In principle I would agree with them that war is wrong, but we have to protect our interests and our security. When Pacifism is confined to the most civilized and developed portion of mankind, it has the effect of hamstringing these powers vis-à-vis the more aggressive powers. At the moment, there is no obvious long-term threat to our security, but if one develops and Pacifism prevents us from dealing with it, it'll be like a disease that cripples us in the face of danger.

War or the threat of it, is the only way the most difficult conflicts of interest can be resolved. At the moment, Pacifist Europe has the USA to save it from the consequences of this infection, but should the USA fall into this state as well, our future might lie as the slaves of despots who are willing to inflict the wars that we might be too "moral" to wage. Technological and economic superiority gives us room for Pacifism at the moment, but it will not last forever. When this superiority disappears, Pacifism will have to disappear also. Otherwise, in the end, the source of that morality would disappear. Pacifism is doomed to disappear anyway, but it could pull its sponsor civilization into the grave down with it.

I thought Japan was pacifist these days. That does, though, come from the traumatic events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Does not pacificism really start from the Buddhist and Confucian paradigms and so is not unique to western democracies?

In the past Japan and Tibet were 2 of the most warlike nations on earth. Buddhist and Confucian paradigms only seem to be popular with conquered nations.

If everyone was pacifist, there would be no war.

Pacifism isn't weakness, it's evolution.

That is not really true.
Japan's history might be dominated by fuedal wars, they were fuedal wars only. It was untill the 1910's when Japan invaded Korea (they tried it somewhere in the 16th century but it failed), which was the first serious attemt to attach a foreign country. Wars in Japan were fought between nobles (Samorai's) and/or warlords (Shoguns). One of the most important things in Japanese society os honor. It wasn't honorable to kill an entire village of defenceless civilans, so it was bearly done.
One way to attack an enemy war to hire a ninja. Ninja's were swift warriors dressed in black, assassins. They lived in places were people came so drop their payment, and called the person they want to be killed. If the ninja exeplted the payment, they killed the person.

Pacifism isn't weakness, its common sense of not wanting to kill innocent people you don't know...

Originally posted by Cecasander
That is not really true.
Japan's history might be dominated by fuedal wars, they were fuedal wars only. It was untill the 1910's when Japan invaded Korea

Click to expand...

Actually...Japan attacked Russia and won in the early 1900's. before the occupation of Korea.

It's as dangerous as any other extreme idea is, only the danger from pacifism doesn't come from damaging people yourself but from leaving yourself open to oppression by a foreign element.

The way I see it, pacifism isn't what is causing the anti-war protests and the responses from certain European governments. It's a combination of both European realpolitik and anti-americanism. Far too many Europeans have gotten into their heads that they have to be anti-american.

In order to promote neutrality and socialism you have to compare it to something - often, this results in lies and unreasonable criticism against America. While in reality, the living conditions for people in America are the same if not a lot better than for people in Europe, including poor and unemployed.

Pacifism's only dangerous is you cling to it so tightly that you would rather ignore murder to keep a false peace.

Its a legitimate political belief for those that have it.

What annoys me is when people grab on to it, or take it to the absolute & forever. Like "War is bad", pretending all war has ever lead to is bad results. The reverse naivity, that all problems can be solved with violence, obviously never surfaces. As with most things the most pragmatic and preferable policy is somewhere in between.

I think war is too complex of an issue to pidgeonhole... its all circumstantial to me.

Imperialism is a worse Western disease.

Originally posted by cromagnon
Imperialism is a worse Western disease.

Click to expand...

Reporter: What do you think of western civilization?

Mahatma Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

(substitute "western pacifism".)

Calgacus, you're making me nervous. The topics of your last three threads that I've read, in a nutshell are...

-Dictators are ok.
-The world will be united.
-Pacificm is bad, and makes the west weak.

What are you, plotting a world takeover? Did Darkshade get ahold of your account?


In response to this thread, I'd say pacifism is more of a cure than a disease.
Seriously though, I'm not a total pacifist at all. War is justified in certain circumstances, which vary depending on the individual (for me, pretty much just self-defense). I think where people are in disagreement is whether preventive war counts as defending yourself. A lot of folks don't believe it does, including me. Try shooting someone on the street, and then tell the cops you were just sure he had a gun and was going to shoot you. You'd better hope they find the gun alot faster than we're finding WMD in Iraq. Even if they do. you'd better hope there are some witnesses to corroborate that he was about to shoot you with it. Why is it different between countries when so many more lives are at stake?
You mention World War II, as an example of when a preventive war might have changed history for the better. But I ask you, would World War II even be seen in the same light by history if the allies had attacked Hitler before he ever invaded any other countries. It would just be seen as imperialist powers flexing their muscles to cow an already defeated foe. The bitterness of the German people would have increased even further. Who know but that maybe the next leader of Germany could have started a war to put WWII as we know it to shame, with atomic exchanges all over Europe. Likely? Probably not. Possible? I'd say so.
The point is, we can never really know the outcome of our actions, so the best thing to do is to act responsibly, and not start killing unless our lives are directly threatened. That way, even if things go sour, we hold the moral high ground. Better to have a harder fight against the bad guy than to be the bad guy. Just one humble opinion.

Pacifism is appropriate more often than not. War is only good for politicians and weapons contractors. For everyone else, it's MAYBE a necessary evil. Maybe.

Originally posted by DamnCommie

In response to this thread, I'd say pacifism is more of a cure than a disease. .

Click to expand...

I'd say it's more of a poisonous antidote to an uncurable disease (like taking dangerous drugs to delay the signs of old age).

You mention World War II, as an example of when a preventive war might have changed history for the better. But I ask you, would World War II even be seen in the same light by history if the allies had attacked Hitler before he ever invaded any other countries. It would just be seen as imperialist powers flexing their muscles to cow an already defeated foe. The bitterness of the German people would have increased even further. Who know but that maybe the next leader of Germany could have started a war to put WWII as we know it to shame, with atomic exchanges all over Europe. Likely? Probably not. Possible? I'd say so. The point is, we can never really know the outcome of our actions, so the best thing to do is to act responsibly, and not start killing unless our lives are directly threatened. That way, even if things go sour, we hold the moral high ground. Better to have a harder fight against the bad guy than to be the bad guy. Just one humble opinion.

Click to expand...

We never know the outcome of our actions, and we never know how much room we have for moral luxuries like pacifism and the "moral high ground". What if we are unable to win, we will lose and be discredited anyway as all losers invariably are.

Surely the moral high ground consists of protecting a just civilization against an unjust one, and preventing the destruction of high civilization and high moral values, and not in risking them for short-term utilitarian delusions.

Calgacus, you're making me nervous. The topics of your last three threads that I've read, in a nutshell are...

-Dictators are ok.
-The world will be united.
-Pacificm is bad, and makes the west weak.

What are you, plotting a world takeover? Did Darkshade get ahold of your account?

Click to expand...

I am a European, and these issues are not given proper treatment or emphasis by Europe's dogmatic press and cowardly, short-sighted politicians. No world take-over.

Originally posted by CornMaster
If everyone was pacifist, there would be no war.

Click to expand...

Those who beat swords into plowshears will be conquered by those who dont. It only works if EVERYONE subscribes to Pacifism.

Pacifism isn't weakness, it's evolution.

Click to expand...

Evolution is 'adapting to the environment'. Pacifism is a goal. It's not inevitable, and in extreme forms, like any extreme modification, will lead to extinction.

Originally posted by D.Shaffer

Evolution is 'adapting to the environment'. Pacifism is a goal. It's not inevitable, and in extreme forms, like any extreme modification, will lead to extinction.

Click to expand...

But so will the extreme opposite of pacifism....
And a lot sooner too....

Originally posted by D.Shaffer
Those who beat swords into plowshears will be conquered by those who dont. It only works if EVERYONE subscribes to Pacifism.

Click to expand...

And if they don't, we'll force them to by non-violent means because we believe in pacifism... like dirty looks.

Originally posted by Zachriel


Reporter: What do you think of western civilization?

Mahatma Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

(substitute "western pacifism".)

Click to expand...

The irony abounds. An Anglo-American alliance is currently invading a country in the Middle East. What pacifism of the West is this thread in reference to?