Is Pacifism Ethical?

by cofty 76 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  cofty

  So you would prefer to avoid simple statements that communicate your thoughts clearly. OK
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Each person has thier own universe or perception of the world which they project out them and inside them, much of this comes from culture, schooling, experience inner and outer, this forms their reality tunnel and define their world.

  Different reality tunnels determines the answer given to your question.
• 

  cofty

  I don't agree but in any case what has that got to do with the topic?

  If a foreign nation is attacking or threatening to attack your own nation or a third party how can pacifism be ethical?

  Talking about "Reality tunnels" sounds like an evasion of the question.
• 

  Satanus

  Crofty

  The question then, becomes, do you have the right to tell someone else if they should fight or not.

  S
• 

  cofty

  No not really. But I think its valid to ask somebody if they can morally justify their position.
• 

  mythreesons

  Peaceful resolutions are the way to go if possible...

  When they can't be reached then things have to be settled other ways, if that means fighting a war to protect innocent people then so be it.

  I like how LeavingWT put it. The wolves have to be stopped. Some people just can't be reasoned with and they have to learn lessons the hard way, and won't stop unless they are forced to stop

  Sad but true...hey that a good Song name! ;) Now time to dust off the Metallica CD. haha
• 

  botchtowersociety

  I think to fight to defend yourself is ethical in principle--so long as you are not the aggressor, and your response limits itself to stopping the aggression.

  I think the formulation arrived at after centuries of consideration within the Catholic Church sums up some of these principles well:

  • the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
  • all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
  • there must be serious prospects of success;
  • the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power as well as the precision of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

  The world in general, however, does not often present us with clear cut, black and white scenarios at the international level. Is it ethical to respond with force in a certain situation? Is it reasonable to regard all other means as truly being exhausted? How much force is the correct amount? What is the desired result of the application of force? Are the necessary means even present to put a stop to the aggression? Will the response lead to an even greater evil? I think the last point may be the most difficult one, since outcomes can be very unpredictable.
• 

  cofty

  Good points BTS. My intution is that pacifists live in an unrealistic black-and-white world that doesn't exist.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Cofty,

  May I suggest that perhaps your world view might be painting the white and black world of Pacifist.
• 

  cofty

  You can suggest it but you would be wrong. If you look at my OP I linked an article that explained a spectrum of pacifist positions.

  The WT position is that the use of deadly force is always wrong and some ex-JWs seem to feel that this is admirable. I am wondering how that can be morally justified.