Is Pacifism Ethical?

Is Pacifism an ethical position?

  • Total voters
    14
YoYoPapaya said:
Yes i know. But how do you define defense?
How about if your economy is threatened by another country... I mean it could for instance cost lives of especially poor people, who wouldn't be able to face this new economic reality . Would it be ok to attack them to prevent them from killing your citizens by making living conditions worse?
Click to expand...
The real threat against a nation's economy come in several forms. One is an encouragement, directly or indirectly, towards pleasure setting aside responsibility. This is when sex is considered on account of pleasure without giving a thought about procreation and instead suppressing it. This is a real threat to economy because how can we think about a healthy economy without human beings. Is it possible for economy to flourish without men and women steering its wheel?
Another form is called consumerism. This happens when people are encouraged to spend more on consumer goods than in investments.
Another form is when laborers are not paid enough for their service. This is also forcing laborers to consumerism because they are left with nothing to invest after having paid for the necessities of life.
There are many others that we can think about.
How do we defend ourselves against these and the similar threats? It is not in defining what defense is. It is in identifying what we are to defend ourselves against.
 
spidergoat said:
So there can be no study of ethics, it's everyone for themselves?
Click to expand...

I never stated that there shouldn't be anything, only that worrying more about people who are pacifists isn't a very important issue when in the total scope of what is going on with the world, war, starvation, murders, crime, diseases, poverty and on and on, that this subject means very much to anyone other than those who are pacifists themselves, like the Amish are. To bother considering if they are ethical isn't for us to decide because they are what they have chosen to be whether we think it right or wrong.
 
Mind Over Matter said:
The real threat against a nation's economy come in several forms. One is an encouragement, directly or indirectly, towards pleasure setting aside responsibility. This is when sex is considered on account of pleasure without giving a thought about procreation and instead suppressing it. This is a real threat to economy because how can we think about a healthy economy without human beings. Is it possible for economy to flourish without men and women steering its wheel?
Another form is called consumerism. This happens when people are encouraged to spend more on consumer goods than in investments.
Another form is when laborers are not paid enough for their service. This is also forcing laborers to consumerism because they are left with nothing to invest after having paid for the necessities of life.
There are many others that we can think about.
How do we defend ourselves against these and the similar threats? It is not in defining what defense is. It is in identifying what we are to defend ourselves against.
Click to expand...

Well yea. I agree with some of this. The free market is not alwas a good thing. The defense against this extreme capitalism and de-facto slavery (which are what you are describing) is regulation.

The thing you say about procreation is of course nonsense. Without protection we would have even more mouthes to feed. We are already too many people.

Also you didn't answer whether you wanted to attack a country that threatened your (hypothetical) country's economy.
 
chimpkin said:
Pacifism essentially works because the other party is willing to be guilted into being vaguely decent...if the other party is more willing to just kill everybody, then pacifism doesn't work, does it?

If Britain had been willing to mow down a couple million Indians, they might still hold India as a colony...but they had a preconceived notion of their own human decency...that and being broke after WW2 led them to free India.
.
Click to expand...
Harry Turtledove wrote an alternate history story in which the Nazi's occupied India and Ghandi tried the same techniques he used against the British.

'The Last Article'''" is a short story by [[Harry Turtledove]] (originally published in ''The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction'', January 1988; reprinted in ''[[Kaleidoscope]]''; [[The Best Military Science Fictions Stories of the 20th Century]]). It is an alternate history which depicts the occupation of [[India]] by the [[Nazi]]s during [[World War II]]. [[Mohandas Gandhi]] continues to employ techniques of ''[[Satyagraha]]'' against the occupation forces led by Field Marshal [[Walter Model]]. While the techniques may have worked well against the British, the [[German]]s respond with violence. Despite [[Jawaharlal Nehru]]'s urging that Gandhi to change tactics, Gandhi does not comprehend the horrific violence the Nazis were willing to employ, and refuses. He is finally arrested and summarily executed by Model. ​

The theme of this story is summed up at the end, as Gandhi realizes that his pacifism worked because the British were at least capable of being ethical, although they didn't always act ethically. The Nazis, on the hand, were by definition unethical, and so had to be met with force.​


http://turtledove.wikia.com/wiki/The_Last_Article
 
cosmictraveler said:
I never stated that there shouldn't be anything, only that worrying more about people who are pacifists isn't a very important issue when in the total scope of what is going on with the world, war, starvation, murders, crime, diseases, poverty and on and on, that this subject means very much to anyone other than those who are pacifists themselves, like the Amish are. To bother considering if they are ethical isn't for us to decide because they are what they have chosen to be whether we think it right or wrong.
Click to expand...

That's a big steaming pile of irrelevant.
 
Asguard said:
as i have already proven its not unethical because it doesnt vilolate any of the principles of beneficence, non malfesance, justice and autonomy lets (just for fun) see if you can justify violence. Not in the name of self defense like a police officer does but rather in the name of resorce management as the millatry does. Killing without warning, killing those who are NO DIRECT THREAT, killing those who arnt even in your own country, simply because your ORDERED too, with no ability to say "no this is morally wrong" without having criminal santions placed against you up to and including the death penelty
Click to expand...

It does violate beneficence, "which states that we should attempt generate the largest ratio of good over evil possible in the world..." [source] If they allow innocent people to be harmed or killed when they have the power to stop it, they are allowing evil to prevail over good.

It also violates autonomy, since that would be taken away in a totalitarian state.

--------------

I think I can justify violence, since it can generate the largest ratio of good over evil. Indirect threats are also threats. Resources are vital to life as well, so defense of resources are also a valid use of violence, especially since bad people will use resources for bad things.
 
spidergoat said:
Is Pacifism Ethical?
Click to expand...

I think this question is difficult.
In my opinion, pacifism is ethical. But we can understand different things by pacifism.

I consider myself a pacifist and make efforts to avoid conflicts, even if I have something to lose.
I am against the death penalty.
But if my life or my family is in danger I will do everything to protect him. If there is no other solution then I be forced to kill. (I hope I'll never be in this situation.)
If someone else will be in this situation, I will help.That not only because of altruism, but I consider that I could be myself in his place and the danger must be eliminated.
 
Maybe it's not the norm for the kind of people that want and are able to achieve political power.
 
madanthonywayne said:
Harry Turtledove wrote an alternate history story in which the Nazi's occupied India and Ghandi tried the same techniques he used against the British.

'The Last Article'''" is a short story by [[Harry Turtledove]] (originally published in ''The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction'', January 1988; reprinted in ''[[Kaleidoscope]]''; [[The Best Military Science Fictions Stories of the 20th Century]]). It is an alternate history which depicts the occupation of [[India]] by the [[Nazi]]s during [[World War II]]. [[Mohandas Gandhi]] continues to employ techniques of ''[[Satyagraha]]'' against the occupation forces led by Field Marshal [[Walter Model]]. While the techniques may have worked well against the British, the [[German]]s respond with violence. Despite [[Jawaharlal Nehru]]'s urging that Gandhi to change tactics, Gandhi does not comprehend the horrific violence the Nazis were willing to employ, and refuses. He is finally arrested and summarily executed by Model. ​

The theme of this story is summed up at the end, as Gandhi realizes that his pacifism worked because the British were at least capable of being ethical, although they didn't always act ethically. The Nazis, on the hand, were by definition unethical, and so had to be met with force.​


http://turtledove.wikia.com/wiki/The_Last_Article
Click to expand...

I find a certain irony in this as a supporter of certain oppressed peoples.
 
spidergoat said:
It does violate beneficence, "which states that we should attempt generate the largest ratio of good over evil possible in the world..." [source] If they allow innocent people to be harmed or killed when they have the power to stop it, they are allowing evil to prevail over good.

It also violates autonomy, since that would be taken away in a totalitarian state.

--------------

I think I can justify violence, since it can generate the largest ratio of good over evil. Indirect threats are also threats. Resources are vital to life as well, so defense of resources are also a valid use of violence, especially since bad people will use resources for bad things.
Click to expand...

you can justify violence because your a person who thinks violence and theft is an ok means to gain things. you have a vested interests in such an argument.
 
For self defense, or if you are starving it's OK to steal. The vested interest can be life itself.
 
Is it ethical to avoid violence and killing when your inaction would result in the deaths of family and innocent people?
Click to expand...

Yup.

"We kill people who kill people because killing people is wrong"
 
I think I can justify violence, since it can generate the largest ratio of good over evil. Indirect threats are also threats. Resources are vital to life as well, so defense of resources are also a valid use of violence, especially since bad people will use resources for bad things.
Click to expand...

Funny Spider... I didn't know you believed in good and evil. I guess I do now :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top