Is Pacifism Ethical? (page 6)

cofty

Well, being a pacifist doesnt' mean you walk on by. There are other ways - Tammy

So when Hitler's army was goose stepping through Europe or...

Turkey was commiting genocide against Armenia resulting in more than 1 million deaths or...

Saddam Hussein was drowning and napalming 20 000 Marsh Arabs or...

Ratko Mladic was laying seige to Srebrenica before murdering its men and raping its women...

what other way do you think there was to prevent those attrocities?

In the first of those 4 examples we ("the west") used lethal force to stop the aggressors. In the other 3 we did nothing. Which one was the ethical response?

tec

Cofty did you read this part of what i wrote?

Note that I am not saying it is unethical to step in and defend someone... loved one or not. Just that it is not necessarily unethical to have a different approach. Both can be ethical, depending upon what is within that person making them act as they do. Pacifism isn't 'not acting'; it is just not acting in the norm.

Apply that to a wider scale (such as a world war) and it holds the same meaning.

Peace,

tammy

I think in the Saddam example, did we not have a hand in putting him in power to begin with? Was that noble, or political? War is not black and white like this. There are tons of elements leading up to it, and very rarely is either side innocent of having done something to set the ball rolling.

Peace,

tammy

cofty

Tammy, you said - " There are other ways. "

I referred to 4 twentieth century conflicts and asked you - " what other way do you think there was to prevent those attrocities? "

You said " it is not necessarily unethical to have a different approach"

You have a knack of saying stuff without actually saying anything.

tec

Passive resistance, for one. Might get a lot or as many people killed as an outright war, but it is another way. A small scale example was the muslims who formed a living shield around praying Christians, saying that if the Christians died (from terrorist acts), then so to would they. So standing with; or shielding; and perhaps dying with those who are being abused... is another way. Might even be 'loud' enough to be heard and make people think. Maybe.

As for Sadam, and others similar, we had a hand in how those things played out by interfering to begin with.

I personally think that we should stay out of the internal conflicts of other countries... BUT... we should offer aid AND we should offer asylum to any who want to leave or escape. That would probably mean entering those countries to help people escape, and so many other details that I don't know about. And i'm sure it would not be perfect. but it would be another way.

How was that for saying something?

Peace,

tammy

cofty

So when Hitler's army was goose stepping through Europe or...

Turkey was commiting genocide against Armenia resulting in more than 1 million deaths or...

Saddam Hussein was drowning and napalming 20 000 Marsh Arabs or...

Ratko Mladic was laying seige to Srebrenica before murdering its men and raping its women...

what other way do you think there was to prevent those attrocities?

Passive resistance, for one. - Tammy

You live in a fantasy world Tammy.

perfect1

Jgnat,

I think at that time what mattered was what role or responsibility a brother had in the congregation. Those with Priveleges aka responsibilities, those who could be considered ministers in secular terms were more likely to be approved as Conscientious Objectors, I think the R&F were more likely to get shipped off. Or a arrested. The Vietnam war was serious S@#t in the US.

tec

You live in a fantasy world Tammy.

No more than you. Because the world is not as black and white as you make it out to be. So I'm cool with that description. Ghandi lived in a fantasy world. Buddha as well, and all the buddhists. Others who made a big impact on the peace and spirituality of this world... all living in a fantasy. But they helped people change their thinking, at least open them up to the possibiilty of other ways. If everyone thought in black and white... that would be a scary world to live in.

I can see both sides. I can see benefits to both, and often depending upon the situation. You can't see any other way but the way you started out with thinking.

Peace,

tammy

cofty

So when Hitler's army was goose stepping through Europe or...

Turkey was commiting genocide against Armenia resulting in more than 1 million deaths or...

Saddam Hussein was drowning and napalming 20 000 Marsh Arabs or...

Ratko Mladic was laying seige to Srebrenica before murdering its men and raping its women...

the ethical response of the rest of the world was to be found in the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama Buddha was it? Meanwhile back in the real world.....

DATA-DOG

I wanted to enlist in the Military when I was younger. It's in my blood I guess, going back for a few generations. It all seems pretty romanitc when you are young and inexperienced. I realized in time that I could not take orders from a nameless, faceless entity and take lives for them without knowing all the details, which of course is impossible. The Military is compartmentalized for that very reason. As far as my private life is concerned, I quote Ra's al Guhl, " There are those without decency who must be fought without hesitation, without pity ". So being a true pacifist is not possible or moral in my opinion. For the record, I do not judge any persons in the Military, that is not my place.

Is Pacifism Ethical?

Share this