Is Extreme Pacifism Unrealistic?

[ParkCungHee]

If we're going to use these instincts as justification are we going to apply it evenly?

"Is refusing to commit genocide in the face of social pressure unrealistic?"

"Is extreme refusal to rape unrealistic?"

Perhaps the problem is the "thinking" that pacifism is the tool to create world peace.

There you go. So far, nothing else on earth has induced world peace, so maybe we should build our efforts from the assumption that it won't happen.

 

[Hygro]

Pacifism is of course the tool to build world peace. Violence begets violence. We literally learn to hurt each other by example first. Pacifism is the only system that doesn't spawn violence, so if we want world peace, aka nonviolence, then almost by definition we need pacifism to do that.

 

[Gary Childress]

I've noticed that when people pose arguments like this, they always use "unrealistic" to mean "inconvenient". It's a plain misuse of the word.

Arguments like what? Who or what specifically are you responding to?

 

[timtofly]

Pacifism is of course the tool to build world peace. Violence begets violence. We literally learn to hurt each other by example first. Pacifism is the only system that doesn't spawn violence, so if we want world peace, aka nonviolence, then almost by definition we need pacifism to do that.

It is as long as you don't beat people with it. It is not as long as people feel the need to control other people.

 

[Hygro]

How can you beat people with pacifism? Do you mean be victorious over them, or do you mean bludgeon them with your pacifism?

 

[Traitorfish]

Arguments like what? Who or what specifically are you responding to?

Well, as you say in the OP, people often deride pacifism as "unrealistic". My contention is that when they say "unrealistic", they don't actually mean "unrealistic", aren't actually commenting on the plausibility of living as a pacifist, but merely telling us that they don't want to do it.

 

[Tahuti]

How can you beat people with pacifism?

By not being a pacifist yourself?

 

[Gary Childress]

Well, as you say in the OP, people often deride pacifism as "unrealistic". My contention is that when they say "unrealistic", they don't actually mean "unrealistic", aren't actually commenting on the plausibility of living as a pacifist, but merely telling us that they don't want to do it.

Interesting. I think that does make a lot of sense. I would think that pacifism requires a certain amount of mental discipline, fortitude and restraint. It's not an easy position to take. Everything won't be rosy and wonderful all the time. Every now and again one must swallow some pride or sacrifice a little, give a little ground in order to deal with the inevitable "trespasses" against each other. It requires tolerance, compassion and understanding.

 

[timtofly]

How can you beat people with pacifism? Do you mean be victorious over them, or do you mean bludgeon them with your pacifism?

A tool is an means to an end. Pacifism is a choice to be something, not a tool. It will not change the mind of those who wish to control people. Those who are in control cannot use pacifism to control those who are already pacifist. The end was there before the means.

 

[Borachio]

Seems to me, a lot of people confuse pacifism with not doing anything.

 

[Hygro]

By not being a pacifist yourself?

Ar har har you word ninja you.

A tool is an means to an end. Pacifism is a choice to be something, not a tool. It will not change the mind of those who wish to control people. Those who are in control cannot use pacifism to control those who are already pacifist. The end was there before the means.

Pacifism is a lot of different things. But given your premise, you raise an interesting thought experiment. Perhaps this is why most pacifists don't believe in "controlling" people at all.

Edit: but it's also important to note: Quakers and their more intense kin, Shakers and the Amish, are all pacifist and can form very conservative cultures. They use other methods of social regulation. There is shunning, which is super powerful and very toxic to the recipient, there is shaming (not sure these cultures use direct shaming), there's reasoning, there's indoctrinating, there's all kinds of ways we can apply emotional pressure and threat of pain and physical suffering is not our strongest tool for most situations.

 

[Perfection]

Yes because I define the point where pacifism becomes extreme at the point where it's unrealistic.

 

[timtofly]

Ar har har you word ninja you.



Pacifism is a lot of different things. But given your premise, you raise an interesting thought experiment. Perhaps this is why most pacifists don't believe in "controlling" people at all.

Edit: but it's also important to note: Quakers and their more intense kin, Shakers and the Amish, are all pacifist and can form very conservative cultures. They use other methods of social regulation. There is shunning, which is super powerful and very toxic to the recipient, there is shaming (not sure these cultures use direct shaming), there's reasoning, there's indoctrinating, there's all kinds of ways we can apply emotional pressure and threat of pain and physical suffering is not our strongest tool for most situations.

Are we now entering anarchist territory? That is why pacifism is not a good "control" tool. Pacifism basically deals with not being aggressive or fighting for an ideology. One can still be a pacifist and controlling in other passive forms. Although, there are very few passive forms that are not aggtessive in the long run. Perhaps pacifism is the refusal to fight for another ideology that is not your own? That would seem to be a specific way to use it as a tool.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Yes because I define the point where pacifism becomes extreme at the point where it's unrealistic.

What's your definition for unrealistic?

 

[Perfection]

The point where it stops being realistic and starts being extreme.

 

[timtofly]

Is that a perfect circle?

 

[Borachio]

What if pacifism is extremely realistic?

After millenia of trying to settle conflict with violent means, isn't violence bankrupt as a policy?

 

[timtofly]

The point is conflict itself, which will never be bankrupt.

 

[Hygro]

Are we now entering anarchist territory? That is why pacifism is not a good "control" tool. Pacifism basically deals with not being aggressive or fighting for an ideology. One can still be a pacifist and controlling in other passive forms. Although, there are very few passive forms that are not aggtessive in the long run. Perhaps pacifism is the refusal to fight for another ideology that is not your own? That would seem to be a specific way to use it as a tool.

Pacifism is surprisingly self regulating. That's why I either earlier in the thread wrote or meant to write that pacifism is internally very stable and realistic, it just runs into problems when it has to deal with external differences.

See, violent systems need to use control to maintain their violence. But I don't get what your interest is in with control in a system. Are you merely stating pacifism has fewer control mechanisms, or are you saying that control mechanisms are needed to maintain a system? Because the latter I find unconvincing. The former is true. I think "control" per se is a particularly unstable method of social regulation.

 

[timtofly]

I have been arguing that pacifism is not a tool neither a way to control anything. I have no interest in even trying to figure out the control or lack thereof within pacifism. (that would be a totally different topic) Pacifism cannot fail on it's own merit. It only fails if some one decides not to be a pacifist. If humans want world peace they will stop fighting. If an individual wants world peace, they will be a pacifist.

Killing pacifist will not kill world peace, and pacifism will never be extreme. Blaming pacifist for not morally standing up and fighting for their pacifistic ideology is looking at pacifist the wrong way. Any one who decides to stay out of conflict is one more person who ends conflict.

One who decides to stand up against moral injustice and causes a conflict is not wrong in doing so, but neither are they a pacifist. A pacifist is one who speaks out but without inflicting conflict. There is a difference. And if they are martyred in the process, that is not the end of peace, but a stepping stone for a more determined group of pacifist.