board77

I consider myself to be a pacifist, but not a very good one. Perhaps a pragmatic pacifist. I haven't studied the philosophy much, so I'm still trying to sort out what it means. Please tell me your thoughts on the subject, and what you have found in your studies and RL. Here are a few overly broad statements to get started.

1. Pacifism cannot exist in real life. (Even "peaceful" societies have members who physically "discipline" their children.)
2. Pacifists are merely wimpy people who have proxies fighting for them (like the Rangers protecting the peaceful Shire, or the U.S. protecting Japan, or the Valar who violently expelled Morgoth).
3. To acquire power and property by violence and threats of violence is EVIL (Sauron, various RL dictators, Serbs), to fight that EVIL is GOOD (Aragorn, George Bush, insurgents/rebels/terrorists/freedom fighters).
4. Violence is the only way to acquire and hold power and property. What is so evil about it? Even hereditary monarchies are only as strong as their generals. We're violent by nature. Get over it.
5. Pacifism should be seamless, and speak against the death penalty, abortion, eating/exploiting animals, and self defense.
6. Religion X calls for pacifism and love. Religion X calls for holy violence.

***dons asbestos suit and a large pen, but remains otherwise unarmed***

I have read your post, but I guess I am too dense at this point to understand it, please refer to my firearms thread also just started.

I AM a pacifist, but I think that the term has been corrupted. Pacifism does not EVER preclude a serious reaction, it just says that this (pacifist response techniques) is the preferred method of dealing with things initially. Violence begets violence, but some times, there does have to be a halt to things. The problem there is where one crosses the line on halting it, and when one then becomes the agressor in return. That IS a critical judgement point, at least in my book.

The bigger problem that I see, no matter what techniques are used to combat the wrong to be righted is that it often does not just stop there. Power and righteousness are far more dangerous tools in the hands of any cause than the means used to achieve them. Power is a heady stimulant for many people, and "righteousness" can literally become whatever the sponsors wish to make it.

SIGH

Sometimes I think that I have a very jaded view of human collective efforts. Not that I think that they are wrong, just that they always seemingly start off with a clear agenda, but then at some point they start taking it further than it was ever meant to go.

Maybe the word I'm looking for is not pacifist, then. I'm trying to figure out just how non-violent a group of people can be and still survive. I don't mean having a first reaction of non-violence, and if that doesn't work, use violence. I'm asking if there is a way to survive as a society or as a person in a society without condoning any violence, for any reason.

It is often said that we have a fight-or-flight reaction to all agression or dangerous looking situations. Why can't we have something else - like negotiating or outwitting or shielding?

laureanna wrote:

Maybe the word I'm looking for is not pacifist, then. I'm trying to figure out just how non-violent a group of people can be and still survive. I don't mean having a first reaction of non-violence, and if that doesn't work, use violence. I'm asking if there is a way to survive as a society or as a person in a society without condoning any violence, for any reason.

It is often said that we have a fight-or-flight reaction to all agression or dangerous looking situations. Why can't we have something else - like negotiating or outwitting or shielding?

Well, I suppose the closest thing you could have then would only be effectively wielded at the "local" level, with such processes as shunning or banning from the community for those who would try to incite deliberate violence, much the way that certain tribal peoples or even certain religious communities now do when they declare a certain member "dead."

Some of the American Indian tribes and the Amish come to mind here. The problem here is that there needs to be some sort of "outside world" where the shunned individual then is deported to. Or, the concept of invisibility could be employed, where the member is not forced out per se, but noone is allowed to recognize their presence any longer.

I do think that first one needs to have a very clear cut definition of what violence entails and consists of. Physical actions are not the only type of violence, words can be far more destructive and incidious at times. Also, how would said society then deal with things that might be beyond a particular individual's control, such as those with certain psychiatric conditions, or autism, diminished mental capacity, or other "non-deliberate" types of possible predispositions to a violent act?

I can see how this is easy to achieve on a small scale, but the larger the groups become, and the more diverse in the views that are existant, the more impossible the task becomes. If it were as simple as saying that there were definite genetic blueprints for predispositions to violence that could somehow be undeveloped or suppressed throughout one's formative years and/or entire life, it would be different. But, it is so much more complex than this.

Another problem that starts to creep into the equation is where does the individual themselves have the right to act as they see fit and when does society step in and start to control the individual. There is a balancing act there, too much in either direction leads to anarchy or to totalitarianism.

And, I will be brutally honest myself here. If someone came barging into my home and threatened one of my children, for example, can I honestly say that I would attempt a non-violent form of action to try and thwart the perceived threat? I cannot answer this question.

Very interesting topic.

Violence by states is not the same as violence by individuals. Different rules apply in my mind, but rules nontheless. For example, I do not believe there is such a thing as a just or good war. I believe some wars are necessary--a handful, like WWII--but to call them just is to excuse what goes on in them, which is in point of fact inexcusable. The problem is that it is deucedly hard to tell if a war was really necessary until you're done with it.

Moreover, there have been even fewer wars that could not have been prevented had things gone a little differently...the Treaty of Versailles pretty much made Germany's rise and revenge inevitable, for example. If France and the UK had not attempted to crush utterly the German state and people, Hitler and his cronies would have had far less fertile ground to work in.

Or would WWII had then been between Western Europe and the USSR? One could play what-ifs all day.

On the individual level, offensive violence is never acceptable. Defensive violence is pretty much ingrained. Someone comes into my home with ill intent towards my family, I cannot promise that I will not kill them or try to. I may be remorseful afterwards to some extent, but at the moment it happens, moral niceties will not be in my mind.