Do you consider yourself a pacifist?

[James the Persian]

Up until very recently, like the last couple of months, I insisted that I wasn't a pacifist. The reason being that I always had trouble with the scenario in which someone is being hurt and the only way to stop the attacker is to resort to violence. It seemed to me (and still does) that in that scenario, to do nothing to stop the attack would be immoral. But a friend of mine from church -80+ years old, former conscientious objector, and life-long pacifist - recently set me straight. He said that if someone broke into his house and was about to hurt his family he would have no trouble fighting or even killing the intruder if necessary in order to protect his family from harm. To him, pacifism allows for that kind of violence when absolutely necessary.

What do you think?

If that's pacifism then I'm a pacifist, but I voted No, because I don't believe it is. Of course it's preferable to use peaceful means over violence where possible but to be truly pacifist, in my opinion, you have to renounce all forms of violence always. I'm still unsure as to whether true pacifism is brave or cowardly, but I'm of no doubt that the stance you describe as pacifist is the bravest one one can take.

James

 

[jacquie4000]

I do not feel I am a Pacifist, however I would always look for a peacefull solution first and foremost.

 

[eudaimonia]

No, I believe in the morality of the defensive use of force, when it is necessary.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[doppelganger]

I answered "yes," but really my answer is "yes and no." Pacifism is an ideal, not a reality. To me, the Gospel is predicated on forgiveness and love in the face of violence. Can I achieve that at all times? Of course not. It is an ideal of morality. But identifying that all violence is also One, helps me recognize when my judgments and justifications are in the way of love, even if I am still rooted in identity and langugae. Keeping my eye on the ideal keeps me in balance.

Progressive reformer Ernest Howard Crosby, writing about the non-violence philosophy espoused by slavery Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison in Garrison, The Non-Resistant, wrote:

It is of the very nature of moral principles that they transcend present environments and point to the future. The fact that they are impracticable is the very source of their strength, for the attempt to apply them tends to transform the world. What dead things our principles would be if we could actually live up to them! They create and regenerate because they are impossible. It is impossible to be perfect in an imperfect environment, and yet it is our duty to be perfect and this inherent contradiction in the moral world is the reason for the paradoxical character of all great teaching and the guaranty of perpetual improvement in the human race. Hence we cannot express our obligations in too strong and absolute terms, and the task of whittling them down to suit emergencies emasculates them and renders them useless. . .

I would not advise a man to act counter to his best instincts in such a case, but rather to endeavor to cultivate those instincts. We may be pretty sure that in such a case Jesus would not have killed the aggressor, but until we have his spirit we can hardly justify ourselves in adopting his method. The spirit of violence is an evil spirit, and it can only be effectually cast out by the spirit of love. If we have not that spirit of love which would render acts of violence impossible to us, it is futile to attempt to act as if we had, upon any preconceived intellectual theory of what we should or should not do. The doctrine of non-resistance is not a cold principle to be applied like the rule of three to a mathematical problem, but a living power of the soul. Avoid violence. Indulge in it as little as possible. Do not worry yourself about any possible exceptions to the rule, but press on toward the goal. It seems to me that these are the best precepts.

I heartily agree.

 

[Mavrikmind]

For the most part I'll try to resolve situations peacfully. But in some circumstances I have no compunction about using force, but only if I'm defending myself or my family or I'm defending someone or something that are helpless and unable to defend themselves.

 

[Pardus]

I voted yes, in the same way Genecosta explained.

I know a few of you consider that weakness, i consider it a weakness not to be able to control yourself.

 

[michel]

"Being a pacifist to save your own life is normal, being a pacifist for the lives of others is true pacifism." - Ammon Hennacy

I am a pacifist. Of course, I can imagine times when I would have to put my morality, in this area, to one side..

My mother was a stauch pacifist, but she readilly said that, had she had the opportunity to kill Hitler, she wouldn't have hesitated.

 

[XAAX]

For the most part I'll try to resolve situations peacfully. But in some circumstances I have no compunction about using force, but only if I'm defending myself or my family or I'm defending someone or something that are helpless and unable to defend themselves.

I agree completely, when I say I choose against violence, I am still extremely quick in protecting those that can't defend themselves...In this society, true pacifism is more a preferred way of life.

 

[NoahideHiker]

I prefer peace but if it comes down to an attack between me and you and it's either you or me? You lose every time.

 

[dbakerman76]

Nope. Sometimes violence is necessary, as undesirable as it may be.

Sometimes when our own life...or the life of a loved one is in danger, it is the only option. I think to not act in these cases is its own type of immorality.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I do have a question. Would sparing, fire arms shooting, sword sparing, martial arts, and other forms of combat/weapon use, allthough intended as a hobby, excercise, practice, or compitition, disqualify you as being a pacifist if you partake in such events?

 

[Mathematician]

Well, pacifist is just as subjective of a term as anything else. The vast majority would probably tell you that if it's not done to end or begin a conflict, then there's nothing wrong.

In my opinion, no. I personally collect swords as a hobby.

 

[lilithu]

I do have a question. Would sparing, fire arms shooting, sword sparing, martial arts, and other forms of combat/weapon use, allthough intended as a hobby, excercise, practice, or compitition, disqualify you as being a pacifist if you partake in such events?

IMO, anyone who would say these things disqualify you from being a pacifist is only focusing on the outward appearances and doesn't understand the underlying principle of pacifism.

 

[lilithu]

If that's pacifism then I'm a pacifist, but I voted No, because I don't believe it is. Of course it's preferable to use peaceful means over violence where possible but to be truly pacifist, in my opinion, you have to renounce all forms of violence always. I'm still unsure as to whether true pacifism is brave or cowardly, but I'm of no doubt that the stance you describe as pacifist is the bravest one one can take.

Well I don't want to get stuck arguing semantics. I'll just be happy that you and I and my dear friend at church can agree that this stance is the best that one can take. Certainly the hardest.

 

[ayani]

Nope. Sometimes violence is necessary, as undesirable as it may be.

i agree with this. i have had to use some forms of violence against others to prevent them from doing injury to themselves or others. sometimes one must get physical to presrve life.

i have never killed anyone, and i do not know how i would react if asked to do so in a crisis. i would certainly be adverse to the idea, and might turn the gun on myself rather than kill. but then, i'm guessing here.