My opinion is mine and it doesn't affect other humans

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have a problem with that one.
Example: Take 3 humans.

One is about to harm another human and the 3rd one can stop that.
There are 2 variants at play here for the 3rd person.

#1: I don't stop it, because I don't judge other humans as to whether they harm or not yet other humans.
#2: I stop it, because it fits my opinion about harm.

The problem is that for the first one, IFF the harm is there, then by not stopping it, I am a part of harming another human as the 3rd person.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Example: Take 3 humans.
One is about to harm another human and the 3rd one can stop that.
There are 2 variants at play here for the 3rd person.

#1: I don't stop it, because I don't judge other humans as to whether they harm or not yet other humans.
#2: I stop it, because it fits my opinion about harm.

Judging comes in to play later to decide who was at fault. But the first thing is to stop the fight. Then let the police or the court decide the case. Who are we to judge at the spur of the moment? I do not see any problem here.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I have a problem with that one.
Example: Take 3 humans.

One is about to harm another human and the 3rd one can stop that.
There are 2 variants at play here for the 3rd person.

#1: I don't stop it, because I don't judge other humans as to whether they harm or not yet other humans.
#2: I stop it, because it fits my opinion about harm.

The problem is that for the first one, IFF the harm is there, then by not stopping it, I am a part of harming another human as the 3rd person.

You don't have to judge any of them, just go between them. The one who was about to be hurt can run away, the one trying to harm will get a chance to be forgiven by you if they hurt you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Judging comes in to play later to decide who was at fault. But the first thing is to stop the fight. Then let the police or the court decide the case. Who are we to judge at the spur of the moment? I do not see any problem here.

That is not the only version of harm in my culture. So you have another version of harm than me. And who judges in the end as for what harm is?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You don't have to judge any of them, just go between them. The one who was about to be hurt can run away, the one trying to harm will get a chance to be forgiven by you if they hurt you.

Depending on the context, your answer is in effect the non-pacifistic one.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Depending on the context, your answer is in effect the non-pacifistic one.

As a pasifict i can go between, but not harm others

 

[Aštra’el]

My default position is indifference, and I refuse to let myself feel accountable for other people’s choices and actions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As a pasifict i can go between, but not harm others

So you have access to a weapon and you can stop the attacker, and thereby stop the harm to the person about to be harmed. In this case you die and the person about to be harm also ends up death. So you saved one life and got 2 killed. Okay, that is your belief and it affected another human.
I would do it differently and yes, that would also get another human killed.
That is the dilemma. Both opinions end up harming another human.

And yes, we are in debate and no, I am not judging you. I am just pointed out the dilemma involved and pointing out that both the pacifitst and the militant ends up hurting another human.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My default position is indifference, and I refuse to let myself feel accountable for other people’s choices and actions.

But you are accountable for your choice, but not doing something is doing something else.

 

[Spirit of Light]

So you have access to a weapon and you can stop the attacker, and thereby stop the harm to the person about to be harmed. In this case you die and the person about to be harm also ends up death. So you saved one life and got 2 killed. Okay, that is your belief and it affected another human.
I would do it differently and yes, that would also get another human killed.
That is the dilemma. Both opinions end up harming another human.

And yes, we are in debate and no, I am not judging you. I am just pointed out the dilemma involved and pointing out that both the pacifitst and the militant ends up hurting another human.

I have to love this...at no point in the OP or in other replies was weapon mentioned, until the word pacifist arised in my reply. Oh then suddenly weapon was there.

If I saw weapon i would never go between, I would call the police as any human should do.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have to love this...at no point in the OP or in other replies was weapon mentioned, until the word pacifist arised in my reply. Oh then suddenly weapon was there.

If I saw weapon i would never go between, I would call the police as any human should do.

No, I am somewhat certain that Norwegian law allows for the active defense(violence in your opinion) of a citizen as long it is proportional to the threat. But I could be wrong. But in the law is also just an opinion.

 

[Spirit of Light]

No, I am somewhat certain that Norwegian law allows for the active defense(violence in your opinion) of a citizen as long it is proportional to the threat. But I could be wrong. But in the law is also just an opinion.

I defended my self by taking a knife away from a guy trying to rob me in Oslo even the police was 10 meters away when it happend, guess who was arrested? I did.....
And i did not harm anyone nor wanted to harm anyone, he did want to harm, but was not arrested.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I defended my self by taking a knife away from a guy trying to rob me in Oslo even the police was 10 meters away when it happend, guess who was arrested? I did.....
And i did not harm anyone nor wanted to harm anyone, he did want to harm, but was not arrested.

Yeah, that was wrong what happened to you.

 

[Aštra’el]

But you are accountable for your choice, but not doing something is doing something else.

If I choose indifference, then you are free from my love and free from my compassion… but you are also free from my hatred, and free from my wrath. You expect more… why?

In your hypothetical scenario, there are some I might help. There are many I might not. Whatever happens, happens… but regardless of what I choose in that moment, it is not because I feel any obligation to fight other peoples’ battles for them. I do not, and I do not expect them to fight mine for me, either. This is the world we live in.

Life can be beautiful. Life can be cruel. I accept this… and I do not let myself feel shame, guilt or regret over anything I have ever chosen to do, or anything I have ever chosen not to do.

 

[We Never Know]

So you have access to a weapon and you can stop the attacker, and thereby stop the harm to the person about to be harmed. In this case you die and the person about to be harm also ends up death. So you saved one life and got 2 killed. Okay, that is your belief and it affected another human.
I would do it differently and yes, that would also get another human killed.
That is the dilemma. Both opinions end up harming another human.

And yes, we are in debate and no, I am not judging you. I am just pointed out the dilemma involved and pointing out that both the pacifitst and the militant ends up hurting another human.

The way I see it is you have two choices..

1. Help the one who needs help
OR
2. Do nothing, watch them get hurt and suffer.

In my opinion you have to do something even if someone might get hurt because the one who needs help will surely get hurt if you don't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If I choose indifference, then you are free from my love and free from my compassion… but you are also free from my hatred, and free from my wrath. You expect more… why?

In your hypothetical scenario, there are some I might help. There are many I might not. Whatever happens, happens… but regardless of what I choose in that moment, it is not because I feel any obligation to fight other peoples’ battles for them. I do not, and I do not expect them to fight mine for me, either. This is the world we live in.

Life can be beautiful. Life can be cruel. I accept this… and I do not let myself feel shame, guilt or regret over anything I have chosen to do, or anything I have chosen not to do.

I get you. But I am not going to nitpick it, because it is close enough to my way of doing it and that is good enough.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The way I see it is you have two choices..

1. Help the one who needs help
OR
2. Do nothing, watch them get hurt and suffer.

In my opinion you have to do something even if someone might get hurt because the one who needs help will surely get hurt if you don't.

Yeah, but how I do it must in my opinion be proportional.

 

[We Never Know]

Yeah, but how I do it must in my opinion be proportional.

A six year old child is being abducted. You can stop if you choose to act.
What do you do and why?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A six year old child is being abducted. You can stop if you choose to act.
What do you do and why?

Depends on more context. But in general if the context is that I can use force and thus stop it, I would try. But that is not so of all contexts.

 

[Twilight Hue]

My default position is indifference, and I refuse to let myself feel accountable for other people’s choices and actions.

Bingo.