Ask a Pacifist

[HawkeyeGS]

Yes I have jumped on the "Ask a..." bandwagon. I mainly do this because in RL and at times here I encounter a lot of stigma and inaccurate conotations with the term pacifist. So here is your chance to ask away any question, view or critisism you may have on the matter. Be civil and I will be civil to you.

A few points to begin with:

I am not a hippy/drug user.

Don't confuse pacifism with passivism. They are completely different.

I am not a religious person and do not seek to receive some reward in the afterlife for my stance. I believe the results of non-violence as opposed to results of violence in real life speak for themselves.

Edit: Destroying more myths...

I am not a communist but am less right wing than the most people.

I do not try to subvert the government and am in fact very patriotic (don't start HUAC on me).

I do not support terrorists simply because I oppose the war in Afgan/Iraq. I hate terrorists.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

explain the difference between pacifism and passivism

 

[HawkeyeGS]

explain the difference between pacifism and passivism

A passive person will not oppose things they see as unjust and will go to no lengths to make a point or try and alter anything.

A pacifist will oppose anything they see unjust but will not resort to violence as a method of opposition. I believe that it is important to stand up for ones beliefs and justice but I do not agree with the opinion that violence is required to stand up for things.

There is a lot of grey area between the two but most pacifists are in fact very active in justice and political movements (especially anti-war movements)

 

[Mr. Dictator]

sounds like passives just dont care

ohwell i guess that makes me a pacifist......vaugely

 

[Perfection]

Do you believe that violence is ever justified?

 

[HawkeyeGS]

Do you believe that violence is ever justified?

Good question thanks. Personally I believe that in very extreme sircumstance the use of violence that results in non-serious and short-term harm is allowed on a small group (less than 10 people say) if the alternative is long-term harm (ie death). In an example if I were mugged and the mugger panicked and expressed a desire to kill me/someone else I was with I would naturally try and find a non-violent method to survive. If one did not present itself in a few seconds and I felt that I could subdue the mugger sucessfully and without inflicting long-term harm then I would do something. I would then call the cops and ambulance.

This may not be a view supported by many pacifists but is about the extent of my moderation. I think as the amount of people involved grows there is less justification as you may end up involving people who have no business/desire to be involved (this is essentially a war).

In the end however justification is up to the law (which would more than support me in the senario I mentioned) and the individual responsible. If you can live with killing someone for X reason then I guess that is up to you. I have no resentment for anyone who has different justification standards. I am a large supporter of war vets and admire them greatly even if I would not do the same thing.

thanks again.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Given that not all other societies share your view, how would you suggest a pacifist society deal with an aggressive, militaristic neighbour ? Civil disobedience didn't work out too well for the Poles in 1939-45, and waiting for another military aggressive country to bail you out would seem like a cop-out. So - how do you propose your country defends itself ?

 

[GenMarshall]

Do you believe that violence is ever justified?

Violence is never justified unless its in self-defense. I have placed in the basics of what I believe in justification of war from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Paragraph 2308
"All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war."

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."

Paragraph 2309
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy.

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

I think the idea of people embarking on world domination is loosing support and I find it hard to imagine a nation simply waking up one morning and saying "I think ill invade [pacifist country] today". With regard to the poles Hitler does not represent the average human even in very bad times and secondly the poles were in a bit of a bad spot considering it used to be owned by Germany before WW1 and it had been lost in the treaty. Many Germans believed they had been "stabed in the back" by pen pushers and the military was close to a victory. The felt the land was rightfully theirs and that belief was exploited by Hitler.

Going back to your question I think it takes a bit to cause someone to invade your country. I believe that war is a failure of diplomacy. I would use diplomatic means to prevent conflict between my nation those in the region. Going back to WW2 the Swiss were able to remain out of the war yet were not considered frieds with the Nazis. Hitler did not even want a war with France and Britain (just the Russians) and they declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland. You can't rely upon another nation to defend you because that is just stupid; you have to defend yourself from the evil of war and violence will not serve you in that cause.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

Violence is never justified unless its in self-defense. I have placed in the basics of what I believe in justification of war from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

While valid that is not a completely pacifist view. It is a Just War view which I do agree with. I believe that views such as this are not practical as they are open to manipulation (like Iraw War). Countries say they have tried all diplomatic means when in fact they haven't, threats are invented and exagerated and the probability of military sucess are greatly exagerated. To top it off once the war has started the slope is in motion for any number of atrocities.

As I stated I am not a religious person and would not readily consult a religion for political advaice. They don't mix all that well.

 

[GenMarshall]

While valid that is not a completely pacifist view.

What makes a compleate pacifist view?
What sort of views do I have since I am against wars that are unjust?

 

[HawkeyeGS]

What makes a compleate pacifist view?
What sort of views do I have since I am against wars that are unjust?

I don't mean to tell anyone what they are all I am saying is that a complete pacifist is against violence completely. I would not be able to say I am a complete pacifist because of what I mentioned in my previous post. As with anything there are different interpretations and a whole lot of grey area. Personally I believe that anyone who would support a 'just' war as outlined by the justwar theory is not essentially a pacifist. That is my own view and I must admit I am no expert on the views held by certain religious peace groups.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Hawkeye, I think I can agree that the idea of Germany deciding to invade Belgium is quite ridiculous now. But what about Iraq invading Kuwait ? Or North Korea invading South Korea ? Or China invading Mongolia ? If you compare these, I'd suggest the only reason that North Korea hasn't invaded South Korea in the last twenty years is because of the violent opposition (including that from the US) which it would encounter.

War indeed is a failure of diplomacy, but that doesn't mean that you can achieve a diplomatic solution to every possible issue which divides two nations - you can if both sides are willing, but, of course, the issue is how you deal with non-pacifist countries, who may not always be prepared to settle for a diplomatic solution.

As regards Switzerland in WW2, well, its ability to remain out of the war was for a variety of reasons, and Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Greece didn't manage to preserve their neutrality. I really don't see the Swiss approach in WW2 as offering a working model for how to deal with aggressive dictators on your doorstep.

P.S. The bit about countries getting out of bed and deciding to invade is just a straw man. Indeed, that doesn't happen, and probably never has. Wars come about largely because of fear, irreconcilable differences, mutual misunderstandings and economic pressures, and I don't see how you can manage always to avoid them by being a pacifist nation.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

Hawkeye, I think I can agree that the idea of Germany deciding to invade Belgium is quite ridiculous now. But what about Iraq invading Kuwait ? Or North Korea invading South Korea ? Or China invading Mongolia ? If you compare these, I'd suggest the only reason that North Korea hasn't invaded South Korea in the last twenty years is because of the violent opposition (including that from the US) which it would encounter.

War indeed is a failure of diplomacy, but that doesn't mean that you can achieve a diplomatic solution to every possible issue which divides two nations - you can if both sides are willing, but, of course, the issue is how you deal with non-pacifist countries, who may not always be prepared to settle for a diplomatic solution.

As regards Switzerland in WW2, well, its ability to remain out of the war was for a variety of reasons, and Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Greece didn't manage to preserve their neutrality. I really don't see the Swiss approach in WW2 as offering a working model for how to deal with aggressive dictators on your doorstep.

P.S. The bit about countries getting out of bed and deciding to invade is just a straw man. Indeed, that doesn't happen, and probably never has. Wars come about largely because of fear, irreconcilable differences, mutual misunderstandings and economic pressures, and I don't see how you can manage always to avoid them by being a pacifist nation.

Just focusing in on the last paragraph: I was trying to get the point across that there are deep rooted reasons for conflict as opposed to a spur of the moment thing.

Fear - easy don't instill fear in your population or anyone else
irreconcilable differences - Care for an example? I am sure there is in truth no such thing.
Mutual misunderstanding - very large cause of wars and the most avoidable. Don't jump to conclusions and don't rely on false info.
Economic pressure - Have you known a war to relieve such pressures? perhaps if we realise that we stand a better hope of avoiding war.

Even non-pacifist countries would rather avoid war except in very rare and extreme cases of insanity. I am not saying we should adopt the Swiss WW2 model for anything. All I am saying is that even agaist histories most insane leader it is possible to avoid war. If we focused more upon resolving differences rather than dissolving nations we might be a little more secure than we are as countries and indeed as the world.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Just focusing in on the last paragraph: I was trying to get the point across that there are deep rooted reasons for conflict as opposed to a spur of the moment thing.

Fear - easy don't instill fear in your population or anyone else
irreconcilable differences - Care for an example? I am sure there is in truth no such thing.
Mutual misunderstanding - very large cause of wars and the most avoidable. Don't jump to conclusions and don't rely on false info.
Economic pressure - Have you known a war to relieve such pressures? perhaps if we realise that we stand a better hope of avoiding war.

Even non-pacifist countries would rather avoid war except in very rare and extreme cases of insanity. I am not saying we should adopt the Swiss WW2 model for anything. All I am saying is that even agaist histories most insane leader it is possible to avoid war. If we focused more upon resolving differences rather than dissolving nations we might be a little more secure than we are as countries and indeed as the world.

I forget who said this but: "Nations think twice before making aggression when there is mutual fear."

Irreconcileable differences don't exist said the hunter to the deer.

Mutual Misunderstanding: this is to be expected. Let me use ethnic groups in this case. No matter how much time one person from one ethnic group (A) spends with another (B), there will still be things that they (A) will never understand, and vice versa.

Don't jump to conclusions & use false info: Info sources are not always correct, and info is always subject to perception and interpretation.

Econ pressure: I've noticed that many times after wars are over, economic prosperity ensues. War brings about a need to become more technologically advanced than your enemy, and eventually this technology filters down to the civilian sector. Nearly all fields get technological advancements during times of war. And the economy responds to the massive government spending like the heart to epinephrine.

For your last statement, you must realize that some people are dead set in their ways. You may offer them the world and they could still tell you to well, do you know what to yourself. I grant you if people weren't so damned determined to keep their ways as they are, there would be less war.

I'm not trying to put a halo over my head, as I will never be a pacifist. Sure peace is great, but I like to mix it up.

 

[classical_hero]

Even non-pacifist countries would rather avoid war except in very rare and extreme cases of insanity. I am not saying we should adopt the Swiss WW2 model for anything. All I am saying is that even agaist histories most insane leader it is possible to avoid war. If we focused more upon resolving differences rather than dissolving nations we might be a little more secure than we are as countries and indeed as the world.

I must say this, but that is very a naive thing to say. Imagine had we got rid of Hitler earlier, WW2 would not have been as bad as it was. Pacifism was rife during that period before the war started. There are times where it is better to intervene before a catastophe occurs. There has to be time when a nation has to see that Diplomacy isn't working and that getting rid of the trouble is a better alternative before things get out of hand.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Tank Guy's response pretty much covers what I'd want to say, so in the interest of broadening the discussion, I'll limit my reply.

All I am saying is that even agaist histories most insane leader it is possible to avoid war.

Swiss, yes. Dutch, Danish, Belgians, Poles, Greeks, Norwegians, Jews - they didn't manage it. I don't like those odds.

Or, if you would rather have Stalin as the most insane leader, then substitute in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the Baltic states at least.

If we focused more upon resolving differences rather than dissolving nations we might be a little more secure than we are as countries and indeed as the world.

I quite agree. I just don't see how pacifism can be anything other than a rather self-indulgent ideal for a minority (not trying to be rude, it's just how I see it).

Follow up question - how do you feel about the protection you inherit from your own armed forces and the clear support you would have from the US in the event of any military conflict ?

And a further one - how much do you think living on an island (or single country continent) has made it easier for you to believe in pacifism ?

 

[Mise]

Don't you ever just want to beat the crap out of someone?

 

[amadeus]

Do you really believe that non-violence would bring down the regimes in North Korea, Zimbabwe, China, Burma, Vietnam, Laos, Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela?

 

[Pyrite]

What exactly makes pacifism an idealogy that's attractive to you? And if you were faced with using violence or being brutally oppressed would you still hold true to your values? I believe that the ideal of pacifism is very attractive, but it seems mostly valid only when one is not dealing with oppressive outside forces (thus making it popular with the middle-upper class liberal crowd). Do you believe that the pacifist movements of MLK and Ghandi could have succeeded without economic reasons for the society to fit their needs (the british no longer having the economic and military fiat required to control a vast empire, the U.S. seeing a larger black consumer market integrated into the economy more fully as a positive thing)? Also, could these movements have been successful if they did not have violent counterparts, ie the black power movement and radical nationalists in india?

While these movements have been repeatedly pointed out as successes for pacifism they seem more so to point out as a success for a group unable to mantain face and power without compromising, and would therefore like to concede victory to a more controllable audience. I do not believe that pacifist groups ever achieve anything they desire unless radicals are putting up bombs somewhere for the same cause. What do you think?