Are Pacifist moral cowards?

[Joesephus]

I had a professor in my ethics class yesterday say that pacifists are moral cowards. He said that people who refuse to protect themselves might have moral courage, but that those who refuse to protect the innocent from evil are in fact moral cowards. When asked how one can know if someone is being attacked by "evil" he said that to not recognize evil is is yet another sign of a moral and intellectual coward. He didn't use Hitler, but the slave trade in africa (current not the historical)

 

[cantdog]

Gandhi, dude. Nice try, though. The enablers of most evil are people who turn a blind eye. Torture is a case in point for that.

 

[Liar]

I had a professor in my ethics class yesterday say that pacifists are moral cowards. He said that people who refuse to protect themselves might have moral courage, but that those who refuse to protect the innocent from evil are in fact moral cowards.

Your professor needs to get his semantics straight. This is not pacifism.

Pacifism is to never use or accept excessive force, and never accepting a shrug-and-"eh, whatever" attitude towards it from others.

/L, pacifist

 

[Joesephus]

Gandhi, dude. Nice try, though. The enablers of most evil are people who turn a blind eye. Torture is a case in point for that.

No one questioned his physical cowardness, but if Gandhi did not oppose oppose Hitler, I do think that was moral cowardness. I don't know that much about philosophy, and I've been thinking about this but I don't have an answer.

Clearly the Nazis wouldn't have had any problem with murdering Gandhi and failing to use force against that sort of evil would result in more evil. Gandhi's pacifism worked because he used it against the British, but it woudl not have worked against Pol Pot or Hitler... it just would have made their job easier.

The only way pacifism works against that sort of evil is if it motivates other to use force... and that does seem like moral cowardness.

Again, I'm not sure about this and I'm not casting stones. I'm just asking for other views.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Short answer to thread title:

Sometimes but not necessarily. I think - I'm not sure.

The semantics issue is important.

 

[Joesephus]

Your professor needs to get his semantics straight. This is not pacifism.

Pacifism is to never use or accept excessive force, and never accepting a shrug-and-"eh, whatever" attitude towards it from others.

/L, pacifist

So does that mean that a pacifist would fight against someone like Saddam to protect the Kurds? I thought a pacifist was one who renounced violence.

pac·i·fism (p²s“…-f¹z”…m) n. 1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully. 2.a. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes. b. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.

American Heritage Dictionary

That does sound like what the prof was talking about. I'm really not trying to flame anyone, but to understand.

 

[R. Richard]

Back in the days of the US military draft, a guy could not get out of military service by being a pacifist/conscientious objector. If a guy would not fight, he was designated a stretcher bearer. The job of a stretcher bearer was to go into the middle of a combat situation with a stretcher instead of a gun. The stretcher bearers were to pick up wounded soldiers and remove them from the battlefield.

The stretcher bearers were protected only by the red cross armband they wore. The enemy did not play red cross armband and the life expectance of a stretcher bearer was quite low. The normal pacifist/conscientious objector lasted only a very short time as a stretcher bearer before deciding to become a combat rifleman. You can question the sanity of the pacifists/conscientious objectors who stayed on as stretcher bearers, but don't try to question their courage.

[By the way, many of the "pacifists/conscientious objectors" were merely guys trying to get out of military service.]

 

[ABSTRUSE]

A Pacifist is someone smart enough to not get involved with the immoral crap of those who are hateful and angry.

 

[rgraham666]

(deep breath for calm)

Let see. I've studied a number of martial arts. It's been years but I was a good shot. Trained with swords, nunchucka, sais, kama and rolled up magazines. Don't laugh. You can do a lot of damage with a rolled up magazine. One of my favourite books is Sun Tzu's Art of War. About 40% of my library is devoted to warfare, history and theory.

It's why I'm a pacifist. Violence is a last resort and very, very rarely solves anything. The damage it does to individuals and societies, moral and physical is incalculable.

Not that I'm unwilling to fight. It's simply my absolute last choice, when I have no other option.

As to your professor's example, what horseshit. A classic example of an a priori argument. I don't notice any of the 'warriors' making any great effort to end slavery either.

Sigh. I do dislike people making judgments and then deciding why those judgments are the correct one. It only show that rational and rationalizing are very similar things.

 

[Liar]

pac·i·fism (p²s“…-f¹z”…m) n. 1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully. 2.a. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes. b. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.

Sounds like me. If I believe that a non-volent option is possible and plausible, I will not only choose not to participate but do what I can to intervene and solve a situation with peaceful means.

Granted, in the stage of world politics, MY ability to prevent violence is pretty slim. But the the case of the neighborhood bully or the bar brawl, I can and will make an attemt to make a difference.

A last resort well mesured physical response (in order to prevent more violence from occuring) is nothing that any sensible pacifist is against.

What I abhor is berserkism and hooliganism, (and all the bad excuses I hear to mask it up as moderate or justified when it's all but). I know first hand what violence does to both giver and reciever, and there is nothing as undignifying to the human spirit.

 

[Guest]

 

[cantdog]

So does that mean that a pacifist would fight against someone like Saddam to protect the Kurds? I thought a pacifist was one who renounced violence.

pac·i·fism (p²s“…-f¹z”…m) n. 1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully. 2.a. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes. b. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.

American Heritage Dictionary

That does sound like what the prof was talking about. I'm really not trying to flame anyone, but to understand.

Someone who prefers war as a universal method of solving disputes between nations, then-- she would be someone who doesn't answer the definition you have quoted. And also not being averse to war or to violence whenever there's a difference of opinion.

Well, then, American Heritage, I would hope that most people would be pacifist.

Certainly if someone at the head of a modern state felt war was the best answer and so forth, she'd be considered rather a dangerous character to have on the planet altogether. I rather think American Heritage might not have thought this through very deeply. It sounds like Genghis and Tamerlane weren't but the rest of us are. I would look beyond that source. There has to be more to it than that.

If Liar tells you he's a pacifist and explains a little of what it means, perhaps a better approach might be to give him a hearing. He doesn't believe war is the best solution to a water dispute between nations nor violence the preferred option if there are two people wanting the same parking space, so he actually fits your American Heritage version. You can't use that to cast doubt on his self-description.

 

[cantdog]

There seems to be a confusion between physical and moral cowards. Does Joesephus or his professor have a definition of this somewhat abstruse term? Does it include people who quake when they see Code Orange?

 

[amicus]

Joesephus]I had a professor in my ethics class yesterday say that pacifists are moral cowards. He said that people who refuse to protect themselves might have moral courage, but that those who refuse to protect the innocent from evil are in fact moral cowards. When asked how one can know if someone is being attacked by "evil" he said that to not recognize evil is is yet another sign of a moral and intellectual coward. He didn't use Hitler, but the slave trade in africa (current not the historical)

[/I]
~~~~~~~

Joesephus....I thought first to say that you might consider your Professor is simply baiting you to get interested in the subject because saying that 'pacificists' are cowards, is a sure way to get the liberals infuriated.

But upon second reading...the portion I put in bold, hints to me of an underlying altruistic motive by your professor, to wit, 'it is wrong to defend yourself, but you become a moral coward if you do not defend others...'

It is also a religious mantra, 'turn the other cheek'...

http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/pacifism.htm

"...Pacifism is the theory that peaceful rather than violent or belligerent relations should govern human intercourse and that arbitration, surrender, or migration should be used to resolve disputes. Pacifism is as much an element of Western thinking as is the notion of Just War Theory, the argument that the state may legitimately or morally bear arms. While most people accept the necessity of war, conscientious objectors (or martyrs in much of European history) have often been accorded a special recognition for their moral bravery in refusing to take up arms.

The philosophical study of pacifism requires examining a variety of aspects of the broad proposal, as well as an investigation as to its consequences. Pacifism relates to war as well as to domestic injustices and repressive policies. It can be studied in terms of its coherence as a deontological, or intrinsic, value as well as in terms of the beneficial effects it seeks. Examination of the broad theory draws our attention to a vast range of possible ethical meanings and issues that the committed pacifist or critic must consider. The doctrine of absolute pacifism is first dealt with, before turning to an examination of the more flexible doctrines of conditional pacifism and "pacificism"...." (There are more links at the conclusion of this article that might be helpful)

~~~~

Note also the portion I put in bold...

If you are seeking a personal understanding of the concept of 'pacifisism', or if you wish to explore a logical, rational defense of the use violence to defend yourself and your property, then perhaps you will appreciate my personal musings...

Pacifism applies only to humans, as a goat in the vicinity of lions either runs like hell or becomes lunch and the lion is just hungry and without any moral compuction or distaste for goat meat.

Liberal eco freaks who eat nuts and seeds and not red meat, extend that concept of non violent actions even into the animal world, a supreme silliness.

The human individual has an innate, natural and absolute right to use any means to defend his life. This usually sets off the liberals in a tizzy as they claim there are no innate, natural rights for anyone or anything.

But if you begin your quest to comprehend why an individual has that inalienable right to his own life and consequently the defense of it, a good place to begin is the concept of values and human life.

Good luck!

amicus...

 

[oggbashan]

There are pacificists and pacificists...

Some are pacificists as part of their religious belief. Some are pacificist as a objection to what they consider to be an unjust war. Some are pacificist to the extent that they cannot support any act that helps a war effort.

In the First and Second World Wars pacificists in the UK had a hard time but could maintain their belief. Some volunteered to became first aiders and stretcher bearers and took their chance of dying with the front line troops. Some were directed to that role. Some were directed to indirect war work such as mining. A few, who refused to aid the war effort even indirectly, were imprisoned.

If anything, it was harder to maintain a pacifist stance than to compromise and join the armed forces. Moral cowardice was rare. It took a very brave person to stand up against the authority of the state and the condemnation of friends and neighbours. The moral coward would be more likely to comply with direction than to oppose everyone else.

Og

 

[Svenskaflicka]

When asked how one can know if someone is being attacked by "evil" he said that to not recognize evil is is yet another sign of a moral and intellectual coward.

And a majority of the American people voted for Bush...

 

[AppleBiter]

And a majority of the American people voted for Bush...

Not the first go-'round. The majority of the American people voted for Gore . . . we got Bush, instead.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I had a professor in my ethics class yesterday say that pacifists are moral cowards. He said that people who refuse to protect themselves might have moral courage, but that those who refuse to protect the innocent from evil are in fact moral cowards. When asked how one can know if someone is being attacked by "evil" he said that to not recognize evil is is yet another sign of a moral and intellectual coward. He didn't use Hitler, but the slave trade in africa (current not the historical)

Depends on the evil.

If he's talking metaphysical evil, then not protecting others hasn't any real meaning. If natural evil, then it'd have to be for the sake of something useful or highly ideological (which isn't going to be well defended). If moral evil, then I could see where we'd get into a semi-requisite--but cowardice is a highly emotive word. Inaction or the allowance of moral evils isn't dependant on one particular intention or another. Putting it at the foot of a cowardice, even a cowardice categorized to morality, is a bit of a stretch.

 

[Joesephus]

Let me try to clarify...

if I can do this in English. One example he used was Rwanda. He said one could admire the physical courage of a pacifist in Rwanda who stood in front of a child about to be murdered, at the cost of his own life. However, in the case of evil that is only stopped by force it is a moral coward not to actually protect the child. The evil in Rwanda was only stopped by men using violence. If a pacifist acknowledges that violence is needed to stop violence but will not "sully his hands" then he is a moral coward. I didn't use quotes because those aren't the exact words.

That isn't my opinion but I'm not sure I understand why it shouldn't be. I'm not a pacifist. I do know that the pacifist I know feel morally superior in their stand, I've never heard that morality challenged before and I'm curious about the answer.

 

[Joesephus]

You can question the sanity of the pacifists/conscientious objectors who stayed on as stretcher bearers, but don't try to question their courage.

[By the way, many of the "pacifists/conscientious objectors" were merely guys trying to get out of military service.]

I know some like Quakers were given exemptions. But I'm not questioning the physical courage. I know there are pacifist who will give their life to shield others. That takes great physical courage and commitment to their ideals. However is it moral courage if it only delays the murder by a few seconds?

 

[Joesephus]

A Pacifist is someone smart enough to not get involved with the immoral crap of those who are hateful and angry.

Is any man an island when murder is being done? Is that a moral position?

 

[amicus]

Joesephus...I can understand why you have never heard of the pacifist's morality being challenged, it is not politically correct to do so and no one dares...

Pacifism is basically anti life. Since life is the primary value, then defense of life and protection of life is the next value in logical order.

For all those brave and courageous young men who patrolled the perimeter around the campfire to protect the village in the hostile darkness, to those same brave men today who walk the streets with weapons, man the firehouses to risk their own lives to defend, to those who volunteer to protect a nation from threats abroad, those are the ones to whom we owe a debt of allegiance and support.

Get off the pot, kid...figure it out...


amicus...

 

[Joesephus]

(deep breath for calm)

Not that I'm unwilling to fight. It's simply my absolute last choice, when I have no other option.

As to your professor's example, what horseshit. A classic example of an a priori argument. I don't notice any of the 'warriors' making any great effort to end slavery either.

Sigh. I do dislike people making judgments and then deciding why those judgments are the correct one. It only show that rational and rationalizing are very similar things.

Then as I understand what he is saying you would not meet his criteria for being a pacifist. I think what he was saying was to see a problem that does require violience and only be willing to let someone else provide it is ihypocracy and mmoral.

Frankly, this ethics class makes my head hurt.

 

[oggbashan]

As I said above, there are pacificists and pacificists.

I would not agree that all of them feel morally superior, just as believers in most religions do not feel morally superior to believers in other religions.

A pacificist may not like the world as it is but by declining to use force is making a small stand against institutionalised violence and putting the question to others - Is violence necessary and justified?

With old age, most of us will have to become pacificists, because we will be unable to oppose violence effectively (with notable exceptions such as an 80 year old former Marine who tossed two teenage burglars out of his house).

Og

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I think your ethics class teacher sounds like one of those trolls in the GB... "if you don't agree with me, you're an inmoral coward!!!"

Just out of curiosity, how many times has he himself risked getting himself killed in order to stop "an act of evil" against an innocent person?