Pacifism

[Era Might]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1856152' date='May 3 2009, 12:08 AM']I'd rather kill them than see innocents killed.[/quote]
Innocents are killed in every war. As I said, war implicitly requires a willingness to sacrifice other innocent people's lives, rather than our own.

I would rather sacrifice my own life, than the life of another innocent person.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1856152' date='May 2 2009, 11:08 PM']Tolerance for not fighting runs out when the bad guys decide to kill family. Enough people get killed, the movement fails. Yes, if enough people commited, the bad guys would lose if the pacifists' tolerance for atrocities didn't run out before the bad guys' stomach for committing them did. Coercion works, and I'd run a train on time if someone threatened the life of my daughter if I didn't. Then I'd get her out of Dodge ASAP. Then I'd come back and kill until there were no more bad guys.

I'd rather kill them than see innocents killed.

Pacifism won't work on a personal level, either. For instance, against criminals.[/quote]


I think the problem is that non violent movements can work, and even be the best option, in a very narrow range of circumstances. The problem comes in trying to apply a tactic well designed for the American sourth in the 60's and acting like it can be a general plan for victory.

Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't an idiot, and he knew just what he was doing when he went into Bill Connor's terratory. The civil rights movements as led by kind because while the police could be thuggish, threy couldn't open up a 50 on the protestors and a there is a free press.

My Latin teacher was a Embasy Guard in Romania and that's just what the Romanian Army did when their student's protested, they wasted them. Yes it was dangerous to be an activist in the south, but how many were lynched in the south from 1865? About 3000 I think. That's horrid but a very small percentage ove more than a century.

King could count on Connor doing all sorts of aweful things to him and his protestors, and the people who marched there were much braver than I, but they wern't going to be slaughtered in mass numbers and the nightly news was going to put up all sorts of heartbreaking coverage of a pretty woung black woman having her hair ripped off by a high power water hose.

The political climate was ready to go against that sort of brutality, the press was there to get them the marriage, and the violence, while shocking, was not enough to kill on mass numbers.

How would that have gone for the Jews who protested peacefully in Germany?

The Germans would have slaughtered them like dogs in the street and there would be no tragic coverage on the evening German news.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1856152' date='May 3 2009, 12:08 AM']Tolerance for not fighting runs out when the bad guys decide to kill family. Enough people get killed, the movement fails.[/quote]
How did the early Christians deal with their families being killed? They all understood that they were dying for a reason.

I think wars are fought, ultimately, because we are afraid to die. We decide to sacrifice other innocent people's lives instead of sacrificing our own. Why are we afraid to die? Why do we not have the moral courage to risk our lives for what is right?

[Winchester]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1856155' date='May 3 2009, 12:10 AM']Innocents are killed in every war. As I said, war implicitly requires a willingness to sacrifice other innocent people's lives, rather than our own.

I would rather sacrifice my own life, than the life of another innocent person.[/quote]
No, war doesn't. Good soldiers engage the enemy--sometimes innocents die accidentally. (modern means aside) and engaging in combat takes a certain willingness to die. Sacrificing someone else's life would entail using them as cover--you're mixing result with intent. You're leaving out the lives soldiers are actively trying to preserve. Which they do.

I get the idea behind citizens not cooperating. The bad guys will intentionally kill innocents. They will use many means to ensure citizens cooperate. They will do this until citizens cooperate and the ordinary will eventually do as the government says. Nazis would simply have killed people until the people capitulated. And they would have because the kind of backbone it takes to let your children or spouses be executed or tortured to death to pay for your noncooperation isn't in everyone. It ain't in me. Killing's easier, I reckon.

Would you refuse to cooperate to the point of watching your own children executed? This is one of the tactics used by tyrants. Would you be willing to watch that? After you're gone, would your neighbor? And so on.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1856167' date='May 3 2009, 12:20 AM']How did the early Christians deal with their families being killed? They all understood that they were dying for a reason.

I think wars are fought, ultimately, because we are afraid to die. We decide to sacrifice other innocent people's lives instead of sacrificing our own. Why are we afraid to die? Why do we not have the moral courage to risk our lives for what is right?[/quote]
You think soldiers don't risk their lives? Really? You're in a rapid descent into insanity--the face masks have dropped from the ceiling.

We have armies because we are afraid to die. They fight wars for us for their own motivations, but fear of death isn't why soldiers fight (unwillingness to be slaughtered, perhaps, but there are better ways to avoid death than joining the military).

Yes, early Christians were perfectly right being martyrs. No argument. Killing evil people is also morally acceptable. Protecting the innocent is also morally acceptable. I ain't the type to let them kill. Thought this was about the workability of it. I argue it won't really work the way you think it will. Not now.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Winchester

[KnightofChrist]

I don't think without Christ it would last long. It would only be temporary peace. War has its physical casualties. But what of the spiritual casualties of Pacifism? Without war man would not have a huge reminder that he is mortal. Thus likely have less fear of dieing, thus less fear of seeing God and being judge by Him. Evil would be all the more subtle, because war is a very clear undeniable sign that evil exist.

I do not think it would be 50 years into a world of pacifism, that man would turn to wicked immorality. Which would at some point lead to war.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1856175' date='May 3 2009, 12:27 AM']No, war doesn't. Good soldiers engage the enemy--sometimes innocents die accidentally. (modern means aside) and engaging in combat takes a certain willingness to die.
Sacrificing someone else's life would entail using them as cover--you're mixing result with intent. You're leaving out the lives soldiers are actively trying to preserve. Which they do.[/quote]
Innocent people die in war, even if we don't intend it. In pacifism, the intent is not to see your family killed. That is just as much an unintended consequence as are civilian deaths in a war. The difference is that in pacifism, we would be putting our own lives on the line, rather than putting other innocent people's lives on the line.

[quote]Would you refuse to cooperate to the point of watching your own children executed? This is one of the tactics used by tyrants. Would you be willing to watch that? After you're gone, would your neighbor? And so on.[/quote]
I did not create the world. God created it. He put me here, and he permits people to kill the innocent. Why does God permit that to happen? I don't know, but I don't believe we die in vain when we die standing up for what is right.

When we go to war, we have to watch other people's children die. Why are we willing to sacrifice other people's children, but not our own children's lives? We do not "intend" that other people's children die, but we know it will happen. If it is not wrong to unintentionally cause other people's family's deaths in war, then why is it wrong to unintentionally cause our own family's death?

[Era Might]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1856181' date='May 3 2009, 12:30 AM']You think soldiers don't risk their lives? Really? You're in a rapid descent into insanity--the face masks have dropped from the ceiling.[/quote]
Of course soldiers risk their lives. And war also risks the lives of the innocent, even if unintentionally. We accept war precisely because we're not the ones risking our lives. We are willing to let other people do that.

[quote]We have armies because we are afraid to die. They fight wars for us for their own motivations, but fear of death isn't why soldiers fight (unwillingness to be slaughtered, perhaps, but there are better ways to avoid death than joining the military).[/quote]
See above.

[quote]Yes, early Christians were perfectly right being martyrs. No argument. Killing evil people is also morally acceptable. Protecting the innocent is also morally acceptable. I ain't the type to let them kill. Thought this was about the workability of it. I argue it won't really work the way you think it will. Not now.[/quote]
Before we get off track, I'm not trying to address the "morality" of war and killing. I'm trying to address whether moral power is more effective than violent power.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1856189' date='May 3 2009, 12:35 AM']Innocent people die in war, regardless of intent. In pacifism, the intent is not to see your family killed. That is just as much an unintended consequence as are civilian deaths in a war. The difference is that in pacifism, we would be putting our own lives on the line, rather than putting other people's lives on the line.[/quote]

Really? Non violent resistance to Nazi German isin't putting other peoples lives on the line?

I wouldn't want to fight in the Iraq war. I still wouldn't want to fight in WWII but I would hope to be brave enough too. I think the only morally responsible thing to do when facing Nazi Germany is to fight them. Sitting around signing "give peace a chance" isin't going to get those Jewish kids out of the oven.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1856189' date='May 3 2009, 12:35 AM']Innocent people die in war, regardless of intent. In pacifism, the intent is not to see your family killed. That is just as much an unintended consequence as are civilian deaths in a war. The difference is that in pacifism, we would be putting our own lives on the line, rather than putting other people's lives on the line.[/quote]
Again. Soldiers don't put their lives on the line?

[quote]I did not create the world. God created it. He put me here, and he permits people to kill the innocent. Why does God permit that to happen? I don't know, but I don't believe we die in vain when we die standing up for what is right.[/quote]
Nor do I. I thought we weren't discussing that, but the feasibility. I pointed out the weakness in practicality. It requires a strength that most people don't have. The tactics the evil will use will secure cooperation. Killing them is easier, I admit.

[quote]When we go to war, we have to watch other people's children die. Why are we willing to sacrifice other people's children, but not our own? We do not "intend" that other people's children die, but we know it will happen. If it is not wrong to unintentionally cause other people's family's deaths in war, then why is it wrong to unintentionally cause our own family's death?[/quote]
I didn't say it was wrong. I asked if you could deal with it. Then if your neighbors could deal with it. You were talking about functionality. I have not condemned pacifism as immoral or wrong--just unworkable on a large scale.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1856193' date='May 2 2009, 11:39 PM']Before we get off track, I'm not addressing the "morality" of war and killing. I'm addressing whether moral power is more effective than violent power.[/quote]

War can not be a moral power? If war in your opinion can not be a moral power, is that not addressing or questioning the morality of war?

[Winchester]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1856193' date='May 3 2009, 12:39 AM']I'm trying to address whether moral power is more effective than violent power.[/quote]
The two aren't necessarily separate.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1856195' date='May 3 2009, 12:41 AM']I didn't say it was wrong. I asked if you could deal with it. Then if your neighbors could deal with it. You were talking about functionality. I have not condemned pacifism as immoral or wrong--just unworkable on a large scale.[/quote]
I hope I could deal with it, with God's grace.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1856199' date='May 3 2009, 12:44 AM']I hope I could deal with it, with God's grace.[/quote]


Well how would you deal with Nazism?

Ghandi said Jews should have allowed thmselves to be killed, are you willing to bite that bullet?

You could work to get Jews out of Europe, but you're only going to be able to save a small percentage that way.

[Era Might]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1856196' date='May 3 2009, 12:41 AM']War can not be a moral power? If war in your opinion can not be a moral power, is that not addressing or questioning the morality of war?[/quote]
By moral power, I am referring to standing up for what is right. Military power is its own kind of power. Whether one can can or should mix military and moral power, is not a question I am addressing in this thread.