Is Pacifism Ethical?

Is Pacifism an ethical position?

  • Total voters
    14
S.A.M. said:
Yup.

"We kill people who kill people because killing people is wrong"
Click to expand...
No. These people should be arrested and brought to justice.
I am against the death penalty.
If these criminals, preclude arrest, then we can use violence.
 
"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty." - Robert A. Heinlein
 
Cowboy said:
"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty." - Robert A. Heinlein
Click to expand...

he also said woman should shed their modesty with their clothes and do their whorish best.

the actual quote from time enough for love being
Darling, a true lady takes off her dignity with her clothes and does her whorish best. At other times you can be as modest and dignified as your persona requires.
Click to expand...
 
pjdude1219 said:
he also said woman should shed their modesty with their clothes and do their whorish best.

the actual quote from time enough for love being
Click to expand...

Heinlein wasn't in favor of people being prudes when it came to sex.
 
So it is ethical to steal resorces from another society spider? That breaches just about EVERY principle ESPECIALLY beneficence and autonomy AND it violates the tenets of capitalism and democracy. BTW I didn't know you surported the paliatinians killing the Israelis who are opressing them but this thread shows you must. The most potent example is the nazi's v Gandhi post
 
What is your solution, for example for robbery?
If the robber opposes the arrest with deadly weapon.
How can you maintain a state of law, not to become anarchy?
 
Last edited:
Asguard said:
So it is ethical to steal resorces from another society spider? That breaches just about EVERY principle ESPECIALLY beneficence and autonomy AND it violates the tenets of capitalism and democracy. BTW I didn't know you surported the paliatinians killing the Israelis who are opressing them but this thread shows you must. The most potent example is the nazi's v Gandhi post
Click to expand...

yeah I kind of assumed spider feels colonialism and ethnic cleansing is ok so long you claim you can do more and better with it was so he wouldn't have to worry about the state occupying palestine.
 
Asguard said:
So it is ethical to steal resorces from another society spider? That breaches just about EVERY principle ESPECIALLY beneficence and autonomy AND it violates the tenets of capitalism and democracy. BTW I didn't know you surported the paliatinians killing the Israelis who are opressing them but this thread shows you must. The most potent example is the nazi's v Gandhi post
Click to expand...


I think resources can be a factor in one's decision to go to war. Obviously one cannot simply violate another nation's sovereignty unless by their actions they have relinquished the right to sovereignty.

I don't support Palestinians killing innocent civilians, but I do think they have a right to resist settlement and occupation (and by occupation I do not mean the entire state of Israel).
 
spidergoat said:
I think resources can be a factor in one's decision to go to war. Obviously one cannot simply violate another nation's sovereignty unless by their actions they have relinquished the right to sovereignty.

I don't support Palestinians killing innocent civilians, but I do think they have a right to resist settlement and occupation (and by occupation I do not mean the entire state of Israel).
Click to expand...

How do you define "innocent" in a situation like that? After all, if we look at a civilian example, someone who hires someone to organise the commission of a crime is guilty of conspiracy to commit the crime which carries the same (or greater) pennelty as committing the crime. You can't honestly suggest that anyone in this situation wouldn't have a fairly good understanding of what's happerning. They chose to elect a far right government which then orders these acts be carried out. This is not a government imposed on them. Therefore its reasonable to say that the public at large must share a considerable amount of responsiblity in this situation. I'm not suggesting every action of government is the public's fault but this is more than a black op that the public finds out about 10 years latter
 
The Geneva Conventions define civilian.

I don't want to debate this here, this thread is about pacifism.
 
pjdude1219 said:
No we don't. We kill them in hopes of encouraging people to not do it themselves.
Click to expand...
No, we kill murderers out of anger and hatred. It's simply revenge, the most evil of all human emotions. We already know that all but a small percentage of murders are crimes of:
  • Passion. The murderer is overwhelmed with emotion (often, ironically, revenge) and behaving irrationally, and is not thinking beyond the next few moments to the possibility of punishment.
  • Stupidity. The murderer has no understanding of how civilization works, and believes he will not be caught, and certainly not executed.
  • Careful planning. The murderer has planned the act, often in collaboration with others, and believes he has almost eliminated the possibility of being caught, and certainly of being executed.
In none of these cases is the perpetrator even slightly deterred by the possibility of execution.

People like you and me are frightened of execution, but heck we're even frightened of prison. But even without those threats people like you and me try our best to be good citizens so we don't go around killing people who somebody else will miss.

I have often theorized that when someone like us actually is pushed over the edge and commits a murder out of passion, he is the last person who needs to be locked up or executed to protect society. The memory of what it is actually like to have killed someone haunts him for the rest of his life and he is less likely to do it again than the rest of us!

Haven't you ever done something really stupid and regrettable, and you know full well that you'll never do it again? Imagine what is must be like to have killed someone in anger.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
No, we kill murderers out of anger and hatred. It's simply revenge, the most evil of all human emotions.
Click to expand...

Then you can say the same for life in prison, or any prison for that matter. Very simplistic and unrealistic. I always laugh 'cause the people who espouse that fib are the first to look to cut someone *alls of when they walk across the lawn or scratch their car...usually.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
No, we kill murderers out of anger and hatred. It's simply revenge, the most evil of all human emotions. We already know that all but a small percentage of murders are crimes of:
  • Passion. The murderer is overwhelmed with emotion (often, ironically, revenge) and behaving irrationally, and is not thinking beyond the next few moments to the possibility of punishment.
  • Stupidity. The murderer has no understanding of how civilization works, and believes he will not be caught, and certainly not executed.
  • Careful planning. The murderer has planned the act, often in collaboration with others, and believes he has almost eliminated the possibility of being caught, and certainly of being executed.
In none of these cases is the perpetrator even slightly deterred by the possibility of execution.

People like you and me are frightened of execution, but heck we're even frightened of prison. But even without those threats people like you and me try our best to be good citizens so we don't go around killing people who somebody else will miss.

I have often theorized that when someone like us actually is pushed over the edge and commits a murder out of passion, he is the last person who needs to be locked up or executed to protect society. The memory of what it is actually like to have killed someone haunts him for the rest of his life and he is less likely to do it again than the rest of us!

Haven't you ever done something really stupid and regrettable, and you know full well that you'll never do it again? Imagine what is must be like to have killed someone in anger.
Click to expand...

One aspect of the death penalty that most people don't think about is it's use to get killers to allocate and confess to a lessor charge of murder 2 which doesn't carry the death penalty. Usually they are also required to make a full confession and tell where all the bodies are, which is very important to the family members. Without the death penalty you take away a very valuable tool that not only saves the taxpayer a great deal of money, because confessions are a lot cheaper than trials and there is no chance a jury will let a murder go free.
 
a juror should not have the inclination\emotion of "revenge" or they should not be on a jury and will most likely be eliminated. Goes with being impartial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top