Pacifism is Morally Indefensible (page 4)

cofty

The Third Reich may appear monstrous to you but it did not for the thousands of German soldiers who fought during the war. - Earnest

And history has proven beyond all sensible doubt that they were entirely wrong and those of us who judge the Third Reich to be odious beyond redemption entirely correct.

most people who use deadly force whether at war, or otherwise, believe they are justified in doing so. Including your group of terrorists on the rampage with guns.

They too are entirely wrong. Murder and oppression in the cause of utopian ideologies - Fascist, Islamic, Communist - is evil and must be opposed, by deadly force if necessary. My contempt for moral relativism is total. There are moral facts - to deny them is as obtuse as the ravings of creationism or advocates of a flat earth.

would I be correct to assume that you believe those who refused to fight for Nazi Germany or apartheid South Africa because they believed it was wrong to take a human life are moral cowards?

Any German who refused to murder others in the name of an evil ideology is a hero - but that does not make them a pacifist. If they would also refuse to use lethal force to defend their wife of children then yes they are moral cowards. Motive is everything.

snare&racket

I now wear my poppy with pride.

War is evil, but so is genocide and injustices. For those that give and gave their lives for us, how dare we denounce them and declare the upper moral ground.

Brokeback Watchtower

I don't consider myself a pacifist, it just that I don't like to put myself under strict government control and then order to kill some one. I hope this doesn't offend those that have done so during a time of crisis for one's country of origin. I'm from the US of A and quite frankly there are many wars they fought that for as much as I know I would not risk my life fighting in an army. I was up for draft in the 70's and glad I never got drafted I think that war was a total waste of human lives.

Brokeback Watchtower

I guess that if I had good reason then I would kill but it would have to be a good reason and not this blind herd mentality that governments want of its citizens. Another words I don't want Uncle Sam pointing the finger and saying who to kill and what to give up my life for.

Listener

" If they would also refuse to use lethal force to defend their wife of children then yes they are moral cowards. Motive is everything"

Why lethal force? There are other options so why would they be moral cowards if they chose a different option rather than lethal?

What if the husband was not in a position to defend the family but the wife had a gun and chose to injure the attacker rather thang kill him, but it wasn't enough, would she also be a moral coward?

What is acceptable or expected from a male in relation to wars is generally not the same for a female or in defence of their families. We should not be imposing our personal standards of moral cowardness on all males, either by law or judgement.

Motive is everything and we expect a different standard from males and females in general.

joe134cd

Pacifism wss not unique to Wt but developed out of the adventist movement. SDA, christadelphians are also to a degree are pacifist, due to developing from the same movement.

shadow

Cofty, just curious about which wars you have run off to join in your life?

WhatshallIcallmyself

"Cofty, just curious about which wars you have run off to join in your life?" - shadow

Because if you haven't gone to war or refused to fight (i.e. acted in extremity) then you should have no opinion on this subject!

How many people have been a politician in their lives? Perhaps those that haven't should refrain from voting...

cofty

Listener - If the same outcome can be achieved by the use of non-lethal force then that is preferable in most instances. That is not what the thread is about.

I am talking about the hypocrisy of the Watchtower who forbid the taking of a human life under any circumstances even when that is necessary to save the lives of others.

That may involve defending your own wife and children from criminals, fighting terrorist, being part of a war against aggressors or defending a population from genocide - as the international community failed to do in Bosnia.

That dogmatic position is moral cowardice. It is not a virtue to insist that taking a life is wrong, if doing so saves other innocent lives. Our national and international laws reflect that principle. JWs are moral cowards and yet many ex-JWs seem to go on supporting this dogma.

Shadow - What has that got to do with the discussion?

I was raised in the cult and had no opportunity to join the military. My son is in the military. I would not hesitate to use lethal force to defend myself or others if necessary - would you?

Earnest

cofty : And history has proven beyond all sensible doubt that they were entirely wrong

History is written by the victors. If Germany had won the war it would have been Britain and Russia that were proved to be entirely wrong. After all, it was Britain who was first responsible for concentration camps (in South Africa) in which 20,000 women and children died. How often do you hear about that?

cofty : Murder and oppression in the cause of utopian ideologies - Fascist, Islamic, Communist - is evil and must be opposed, by deadly force if necessary.

I note you do not include capitalism in your utopian ideologies which are evil and must be opposed. Would you think differently if you were born in Russia or China or Pakistan?

cofty : If they would also refuse to use lethal force to defend their wife of children then yes they are moral cowards.

I wouldn't think there are any pacifists who would not defend their wives and children if they were threatened. Why introduce lethal force into it. Does that mean that a man who would defend his family without lethal force is a moral coward whereas one who uses lethal force is not?

Pacifism is Morally Indefensible

Share this