Nonviolence or Pacifism?

[SalixIncendium]

Do you make a distinction between nonviolence and pacifism?

As I see it, nonviolence is a concept in which one doesn't initiate harmful action against another, but may act in self defense if another initiates harm against him/her, while pacifism is unconditional nonviolence where one does no harm, even when harm is perpetrated again her/him.

In dharmic faiths, at least Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism, there is tenet of nonviolence called ahimsa ('himsa' meaning 'to harm/injure' and 'a' meaning opposite), a virtue which, in my understanding, teaches nonviolence, but does not embrace absolute pacifism. While I do not act in a way to initiate harm to another and will not seek vengeance for harm done to me or mine, I will act to defend myself and those who cannot defend themselves.

What does your religion teach about violent acts? Do you agree with this teaching? Why or why not?

If you are irreligious, what are your thoughts on the subject?

 

[Polymath257]

Interesting. The words are almost exactly the opposite in how I use them: pacifism involves not initiating conflict and non-violence consists of never using violence.

For me, violence is very rarely justified: self-defense and helping others being attacked. I would, for example, use violence to prevent a rape.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Do you make a distinction between nonviolence and pacifism?

As I see it, nonviolence is a concept in which one doesn't initiate harmful action against another, but may act in self defense if another initiates harm against him/her, while pacifism is unconditional nonviolence where one does no harm, even when harm is perpetrated again her/him.

In dharmic faiths, at least Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism, there is tenet of nonviolence called ahimsa ('himsa' meaning 'to harm/injure' and 'a' meaning opposite), a virtue which, in my understanding, teaches nonviolence, but does not embrace absolute pacifism. While I do not act in a way to initiate harm to another and will not seek vengeance for harm done to me or mine, I will act to defend myself and those who cannot defend themselves.

What does your religion teach about violent acts? Do you agree with this teaching? Why or why not?

If you are irreligious, what are your thoughts on the subject?

Non-violence rather than pacifism as you have described is exactly the approach advocated in the Baha’i writings. Sometimes self- defence is necessary.

 

[Vinayaka]

Do you make a distinction between nonviolence and pacifism?

As I see it, nonviolence is a concept in which one doesn't initiate harmful action against another, but may act in self defense if another initiates harm against him/her, while pacifism is unconditional nonviolence where one does no harm, even when harm is perpetrated again her/him.

In dharmic faiths, at least Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism, there is tenet of nonviolence called ahimsa ('himsa' meaning 'to harm/injure' and 'a' meaning opposite), a virtue which, in my understanding, teaches nonviolence, but does not embrace absolute pacifism. While I do not act in a way to initiate harm to another and will not seek vengeance for harm done to me or mine, I will act to defend myself and those who cannot defend themselves.

What does your religion teach about violent acts? Do you agree with this teaching? Why or why not?

If you are irreligious, what are your thoughts on the subject?

I'm of the ahimsa view. Another distinction, though is to do with animals. I practice ahimsa in that regard as well. The view on animals wouldn't be universal. There are times when an animal has to be killed just to protect human, such as a tiger in the village. Absolute pacificism, with regard to animals is impossible, but that's due partly to modern discovery of microscopic organisms. Bottom line is I try hard, but yes I would defend my family from an intruder if their plan was to kill.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm of the ahimsa view. Another distinction, though is to do with animals. I practice ahimsa in that regard as well. The view on animals wouldn't be universal. There are times when an animal has to be killed just to protect human, such as a tiger in the village. Absolute pacificism, with regard to animals is impossible, but that's due partly to modern discovery of microscopic organisms. Bottom line is I try hard, but yes I would defend my family from an intruder if their plan was to kill.

I agree with your views on ahimsa. I don't restrict this dharma to just humans. Not only do I practice this on animals, but I extend it to plant life as well (though I don't recall ever really having been attacked by a plant ).

 

[Firemorphic]

Well, for my religion it's explicit nonviolence with exception to oneself or one's community being threatened for their own lives. Again, defending or sticking up for oneself is advised where necessary but is entirely against war and what it brings.
Besides, war is the cashcow of capitalism and globalism, which are very evil things.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Well, for my religion it's explicit nonviolence with exception to oneself or one's community being threatened for their own lives. Again, defending or sticking up for oneself is advised where necessary but is entirely against war and what it brings.
Besides, war is the cashcow of capitalism and globalism, which are very evil things.

I'm always delighted to hear this perspective coming from a Muslim and hope that many people are able to read this perspective as well.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do you make a distinction between nonviolence and pacifism?

As I see it, nonviolence is a concept in which one doesn't initiate harmful action against another, but may act in self defense if another initiates harm against him/her, while pacifism is unconditional nonviolence where one does no harm, even when harm is perpetrated again her/him.

In dharmic faiths, at least Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism, there is tenet of nonviolence called ahimsa ('himsa' meaning 'to harm/injure' and 'a' meaning opposite), a virtue which, in my understanding, teaches nonviolence, but does not embrace absolute pacifism. While I do not act in a way to initiate harm to another and will not seek vengeance for harm done to me or mine, I will act to defend myself and those who cannot defend themselves.

What does your religion teach about violent acts? Do you agree with this teaching? Why or why not?

If you are irreligious, what are your thoughts on the subject?

I'm not a proponent of pacifism because nature itself isn't like that. I really don't think there's any such thing anywhere, where pacifism could be applied.

It's a bit like using perpetual motion as an analogy. You can come close, but it can never be exactly that.

Non-violence is a much better approach which leaves the option for self-defense and avoidance if possible which would be my method of operation for the greater part. I do think however there are conditions when going on the offense would be better served for certain types of situations.

 

[Audie]

I am pretty tough, anyone disagrees, I beat them up.

 

[sayak83]

Do you make a distinction between nonviolence and pacifism?

As I see it, nonviolence is a concept in which one doesn't initiate harmful action against another, but may act in self defense if another initiates harm against him/her, while pacifism is unconditional nonviolence where one does no harm, even when harm is perpetrated again her/him.

In dharmic faiths, at least Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism, there is tenet of nonviolence called ahimsa ('himsa' meaning 'to harm/injure' and 'a' meaning opposite), a virtue which, in my understanding, teaches nonviolence, but does not embrace absolute pacifism. While I do not act in a way to initiate harm to another and will not seek vengeance for harm done to me or mine, I will act to defend myself and those who cannot defend themselves.

What does your religion teach about violent acts? Do you agree with this teaching? Why or why not?

If you are irreligious, what are your thoughts on the subject?

Nonviolence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Interesting. The words are almost exactly the opposite in how I use them: pacifism involves not initiating conflict and non-violence consists of never using violence.

For me, violence is very rarely justified: self-defense and helping others being attacked. I would, for example, use violence to prevent a rape.

Aye, the terms seemed reversed to me too.
Hence the following response....

Do you make a distinction between nonviolence and pacifism?

As I see it, nonviolence is a concept in which one doesn't initiate harmful action against another, but may act in self defense if another initiates harm against him/her, while pacifism is unconditional nonviolence where one does no harm, even when harm is perpetrated again her/him.

In dharmic faiths, at least Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism, there is tenet of nonviolence called ahimsa ('himsa' meaning 'to harm/injure' and 'a' meaning opposite), a virtue which, in my understanding, teaches nonviolence, but does not embrace absolute pacifism. While I do not act in a way to initiate harm to another and will not seek vengeance for harm done to me or mine, I will act to defend myself and those who cannot defend themselves.

What does your religion teach about violent acts? Do you agree with this teaching? Why or why not?

If you are irreligious, what are your thoughts on the subject?

I've started using the term, "non-aggressionist".
I'm perfectly willing to crush, kill, or maim in self defense.
This is how a draft dodger wound up designing military weapons.
I won't start trouble.
But I'll end it.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm perfectly willing to crush, kill, or maim in self defense.

Disable is also an option.

 

[Revoltingest]

Disable is also an option.

Yes, that's good too....."maim lite", as it were.
And come to think of it, I've done that IRL.
Render harmless without injury.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I am pretty tough, anyone disagrees, I beat them up.

Ahhh.....

Crane style vs. tiger style.

 

[MonkeyFire]

How I see it is to be passive and have equanimity and let that handle your justice. As for nonviolence hope that's its existence isn't contingent on hatred and suffering, but instead compassion.

 

[Spirit of Light]

No need to harm others. So i guess people see me as pasifist. But it is compassion for all beings

 

[siti]

I agree with your views on ahimsa. I don't restrict this dharma to just humans. Not only do I practice this on animals, but I extend it to plant life as well (though I don't recall ever really having been attacked by a plant )

Not sure I'm following...how would you eat a lettuce without harming it?

 

[ManSinha]

Not sure I'm following...how would you eat a lettuce without harming it?

@SalixIncendium is like Kai-El - he lives on sunlight

Do you make a distinction between nonviolence and pacifism?

As I see it, nonviolence is a concept in which one doesn't initiate harmful action against another, but may act in self defense if another initiates harm against him/her, while pacifism is unconditional nonviolence where one does no harm, even when harm is perpetrated again her/him.

In dharmic faiths, at least Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism, there is tenet of nonviolence called ahimsa ('himsa' meaning 'to harm/injure' and 'a' meaning opposite), a virtue which, in my understanding, teaches nonviolence, but does not embrace absolute pacifism. While I do not act in a way to initiate harm to another and will not seek vengeance for harm done to me or mine, I will act to defend myself and those who cannot defend themselves.

What does your religion teach about violent acts? Do you agree with this teaching? Why or why not?

If you are irreligious, what are your thoughts on the subject?

I am with @Polymath257 - I think of the terms in exact reverse to your stated definitions - and yes - you know my view on the matter - summarized here

 

[Unguru]

Generally violence I think is by definition a bad thing, with exception to the self defense several posters here have described.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Not sure I'm following...how would you eat a lettuce without harming it?

Obviously one has to eat, but there are methods to harvest lettuce that does not kill the plant. I've gone entire growing seasons harvesting from the same plants.

I've had the same two houseplants for 10 years or so, because I can't bear the thought of killing them even though they've seen better days.

I make a concerted effort to not harm plants as much as I can, probably more than most.