by cofty 76 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
In another thread about things the Watchtower got right two posters have expressd agreement with the fact that the WT refuses to take part in war.
I don't want to derail that thrread so what's your thoughts on pacifism?
Personally I think there are times that killing your enemies is regrettably the lesser of two evils.
Edited to add - This link may help in defining various shades of pacifism
No one likes war...but I don't believe you have the right to be passive when your families lives are at risk. It is selfish.
If my childrens lives were in danger from an invading army...I would do whatever it takes to keep them safe.
Pacifism is a nice ideal...but unreal, it is not the world we live in...there is a time and place.
Innocent people will die if the sheepdogs don't kill the wolves. History teaches us this unpleasant reality: there is unfortunately a seemingly infinite number of wolves that must be slaughtered, to protect the innocent.
The sheep will never understand or appreciate this.
Pacifism is perhaps ethically defensible, but thoroughly impractical in a world with non-pacifist aggressors. The use of force is only ethical in defense. It is like the Force: Only for defense, never for attack. That is the Dark Side.
Only for defense
Who defines defense? And defense of what? What if it is defending your god or your religious beliefs? is attack ethical then? Some people seem to think it is.
And what about attack under the claim that it is in defense of freedom?
If you see your mortal enemy building a weapon of mass destruction is it ethical to wait for them to use it on your children before taking action?
Well it always better when people/nations can get together and settle differences like reasonable human beings instead of like cavemen. Someday maybe war will be a thing of the past, if we tame our fighting instincts and use more intelligence and less reactionism.
Ethical is such a subjective term and carries different meanings there is no universal meaning or purely objective meaning so it really comes down to opinions.
Pacifism has its place, but as an absolute way to handle each and every different set of circumstances that come up I would say many would judge that as imprudent and perhaps even unethical.
It all boils down to what kind of reality tunnel your in.
Thanks for your comments.
I suppose I'm a moral realist. I believe it is possible to judge a nation as wrong for attacking another in the name of their god. As a last resort it is sometimes neccessary to attack another who is hell bent on hurting your own citizens or others who need defended. As Glander suggets that might mean preemptive action.
It all boils down to what kind of reality tunnel your in. - Frankiespeakin
Could you say more about that, I'm not sure I understand?
What a cheeky question.
Is killing women and children half way around the world in the name of queen and country ethical? That's the real question and the tangible issue before us that should be addressed. Whether in some theoretical sense pacifism can be defended in all circumstances is far removed from the real world we live in. The reality is that UK state involves itself in an endless string of unethical conflicts on dubious grounds and the ethical response is to oppose it and to have nothing to do with it.
Oh, slim. You know you are stacking the deck. Aren't there many additional questions that need to be answered first, before we can say whether killing those women and children is wrong? Are they targeted for death specifically, or are their deaths an accidental effect of an otherwise just war? That makes a bit of a difference, I'd think.
The situation is even more complex, of course. If a state uses an army to do things that are not just, does that mean a citizen may oppose the defense forces? Isn't this defense force -- being used, we suppose, wrongly -- also a force that would be used in a just way if the nation is attacked? Doesn't the moral response become significantly more nuanced in this case?
