Are Pacifist moral cowards?

[Svenskaflicka]

Soldiers shoot people, which either injures them greatly or plain kills them. Whatever their motivation is; money, glory, patriotism; you will never find me calling that Nobility.

Killing is never noble. Killing is stealing. Stealing another's life. That's the worst crime you can ever do, in my book. So to me, soldiers are paid criminals, not noblemen.

 

[Joesephus]

I agree, Violence never solves anything.

I forgot were I read it, (a sci-fi writer?) but I'll never forget the gest of the statement that violence has solved more things than anything else in history. Just go ask the Carthaginians, the Greeks, the Romans, and the list goes on forever.

It is equally wrong to say that violence can solve everything.

 

[Joesephus]

So if you tell that Military leader, "Pacify this country [e.g. Iraq]," what method and means do you think he is going to choose?

Let me turn that back, what method do you think they ARE using? I know that I've talked to returning soldier who talk about all the things they were doing in Iraq, but that's off topic isn't it?

The question really isn't about Iraq, or what a military man does, it's about those who refuse on moral grounds to take action.

If I'm guilyt of turning the subject, I'm sorry. I am a bit sensitive about military folks right now.

 

[Pure]

SF So to me, soldiers are paid criminals

as an antiwar pacifist (pretty much) i have to respectfully disagree, svenskaflicka.

even someone like Gandhi might well disagree.

one MUST respect the average soldier defending his or her country, just as we respect the cop who answers a burglary call to your house at 3am.

many a soldier, employed in defense, just like many a cop protecting the innocent, is a decent human, and in no way 'criminal' though s/he does kill if necessary.

of course you are entitled to your views, but i don't know of any who call themselves pacifists who state such views.

one reason, with regard to police, is that by showing respect, you may convert one to pacifism. in Quaker history, it is said that some jailers were impressed with the conduct and came to investigate that faith. you can't *reach* someon by calling them a criminal (esp if they aren't).

 

[Joesephus]

but some of the reasoning is not quite right

I'm sorry, but if you say a war is necessary, that the people fighting it are moral, but I'm not going to fight... because it's wrong... that does seem like cowardness [cowardice] to me. It is a failure to bear you own share of the consequences of something you support.

The antiwar pacifist [AWP], as sketched, who has no problem with defensive soldiering or policing or self defense, does, as you suggest, 'support' the effort; for example, this AWP, let us suppose, approves of engaging the Japanese in WWII (up to a point, perhaps short of Hiroshima).

We know that lots of AWPs in WWII chose to serve in the ambulance corps, or as medics, sometimes near the front lines. So if you mean willingness to risk death, lots of AWPs were willing.

Secondly, Joe, why aren't you a policeman? (I assume you're not--let's assume ftsoa).

Probablyy you aren't a fireman either (assume). So what IS your job.

MOST importantly, HOW do you justify sitting at home typing postings at AH--or going to work in a pretty safe environment-- when police in your city are out putting their lives on the line.?

That's the same thing we talked about earlier, you can't justify someone else's immorality by pointing out my own. That my behavior is not moral might make me a hypocrite, it does not make the other person's choices moral. Again the courage of the non-combatant is not in question, nor is the service. I understand that Merchant seamen had trouble getting recognition for their service even though it was vital and very dangerous.

The point is that by saying you go kill so I won't have to you have taken a ----- give me an English word that means a less noble stand.

 

[Joesephus]

Soldiers shoot people, which either injures them greatly or plain kills them. Whatever their motivation is; money, glory, patriotism; you will never find me calling that Nobility.

Killing is never noble. Killing is stealing. Stealing another's life. That's the worst crime you can ever do, in my book. So to me, soldiers are paid criminals, not noblemen.

We profoundly disagree.

 

[Pure]

to joe

Pure said, //Secondly, Joe, why aren't you a policeman? (I assume you're not--let's assume ftsoa).

Probablyy you aren't a fireman either (assume). So what IS your job.

MOST importantly, HOW do you justify sitting at home typing postings at AH--or going to work in a pretty safe environment-- when police in your city are out putting their lives on the line.? //

JoeThat's the same thing we talked about earlier, you can't justify someone else's immorality by pointing out my own. That my behavior is not moral might make me a hypocrite, it does not make the other person's choices moral.

You missed the point, there, Joe. I wasn't indicting you. I think it's quite moral, if, for instance you clerk in a grocery store and RRichard is a cop. It's called division of labor. AND incidentally, there's a reason that cops usually make more than grocery clerks.

Again the courage of the non-combatant is not in question, nor is the service.

You started the thread asking, if only for argument's sake, about 'cowardice.' That is lack of courage. If neither the courage or honor of the ambulance-corps-[AWP]pacifist is at issue, what is your problem with him?

PS. As to 'contribution to the collective effort'-- i see no reason to say that the ambulanceman is making LESS contribution than the infantryman. He may save the life of an infantryman, just as the infantryman may save his.

 

[Liar]

To me, that is nobility, and that is what I see soldiers doing. Which is I think the opposite of pacifism.

So before we start to see where, if at all, we disagree on morals, there seems to be a disagreement of sematics in the way. You seem to see pacifism as the ultimate act of passiveness. To not act no matter what the end result. I see it as looking ONLY at the end result.

Besides... A good soldier should not use more force than the situation requires. However, a good soldier is also expected to loyally execute acts of violence that he might disagree with.

 

[Goldie Munro]

Moral cowardice is metaphysical - it implies thought - 'I really dont want to fight' - how many who have been in a violent situation, be it war or domestic, have thought that but had no choice but to act to defend themselves, or others, or run away?

Like all philosophical questions it is a discussion tool only - put anyone in a violent situation and things will change. There are many brave pacifists and cowardly soldiers but can their actions be called moral? Morality is a sociological construct and is dependent on the social climate of the times as well as being completely abstract.

Can the people who lived under the Nazi regime of Germany or the many peoples who live under oppressive regimes the world over be called moral cowards because they do not fight against that regime? Reality often throws out philosophical and so called moral ideals.

 

[TheOlderGuy]

2004. As often as I disagree with Svenskaflicka, she is right on that point. The first time, of course, NO ONE got a majority and Gore actually had a plurality of votes, but the electoral college is what counts, so Bush won (due to having the majority of the electoral vote).

unless, of course, we were to count the votes of all the people who wanted to vote, but couldn't, because of inexplicable problems with the count. it chould be even easier to steal the elections with the new paperless voting machines.

 

[Joesephus]

You missed the point, there, Joe. I wasn't indicting you. I think it's quite moral, if, for instance you clerk in a grocery store and RRichard is a cop. It's called division of labor. AND incidentally, there's a reason that cops usually make more than grocery clerks.

It wouldn't be the first time I've missed it, and I promise, cross my heart and hope to die it won't be the last time. Oh, and I didn't take the comment personnally. I took it as an inclusive you. However, there is a difference between my not being a policeman and chosing not to be a policeman because I consider it immoral (in you case at least immoral for me.)

One is division of labor the other is a moral decision. I've taken it for granted that the pacifist basis his choice on moral grounds.

However, to put it in strake terms is it more moral to chose not to kill in a just war, or is it more moral to kill in a just war. Again physical courage is not in question. But if I agree that the war is just and I will not kill, then I am forcing someone else to kill in my place.

That I chose to be a medic does not lessen the moral implication of my choice, because I'm taking the place of someone else who might not have to kill if I were willing. Practically we know that only 1 soldier in 10 actually pulls a trigger of drops the bomb, but the point is that if I refuse to be that one, someone must take my place. Practically it makes no difference but morally it does.

I can say I refused to kill and he didn't. I think my professor would say that was a moral cowardness (or pick your word, I'm not trying to hit emotional hot buttons. It's just that the position of not killing is morally inferior to that of the person who accepts the moral responsibilty of his action.

PS. As to 'contribution to the collective effort'-- i see no reason to say that the ambulanceman is making LESS contribution than the infantryman. He may save the life of an infantryman, just as the infantryman may save his.

I don't think he is making less of a contribution, and the bravery of a medic is beyond question. It still comes down to the reason, not the action.

 

[Joesephus]

Moral cowardice is metaphysical - it implies thought - 'I really dont want to fight' - how many who have been in a violent situation, be it war or domestic, have thought that but had no choice but to act to defend themselves, or others, or run away?

Like all philosophical questions it is a discussion tool only - put anyone in a violent situation and things will change. There are many brave pacifists and cowardly soldiers but can their actions be called moral? Morality is a sociological construct and is dependent on the social climate of the times as well as being completely abstract.

Can the people who lived under the Nazi regime of Germany or the many peoples who live under oppressive regimes the world over be called moral cowards because they do not fight against that regime? Reality often throws out philosophical and so called moral ideals.

I've never understood the English meaning of metaphysical. I get nervous around people who use terms like that and seem to know what they mean.

This is probably off topic, but don't the reasons one does something also count? As I've said earlier, all the pacifist I've known have assumed a morally superior mantle. My prof is questioning that... I think.

I've lived under oppressive regimes, I do understand why someone would not take action against them. Still, isn't that different from saying that given the reasonable opportunity I still won't if it requires violence, but I recognize that someone else must? Is that a run on?

 

[Oblimo]

Josephus, did your professor define "moral courage" and "moral cowardice" in such a way that pacifism was moral cowardice by definition? And, although he gave examples of moral cowardice/courage, did he actually state a definition of those terms?

On a related note, my preferred definition of "evil" is: the intentional infliction of suffering. Putting that definition through its paces leads to some very interesting results, IMO.

 

[Joesephus]

So before we start to see where, if at all, we disagree on morals, there seems to be a disagreement of sematics in the way. You seem to see pacifism as the ultimate act of passiveness. To not act no matter what the end result. I see it as looking ONLY at the end result.

Besides... A good soldier should not use more force than the situation requires. However, a good soldier is also expected to loyally execute acts of violence that he might disagree with.

Me disagree on English sematics???? Never, English is always as clear as sluge. I know that pacifism is not always tied to religion, but I guess I've always seen it as "I shalt not kill, period!"

He's expected to execute "legal" actions of violence. WHOA, I don't want to even start talking about the morality of any sort of action taken by a soldier. I think that you've expressed better than I the way I see pacifism.

 

[elsol]

However, to put it in strake terms is it more moral to chose not to kill in a just war, or is it more moral to kill in a just war. Again physical courage is not in question. But if I agree that the war is just and I will not kill, then I am forcing someone else to kill in my place.

That I chose to be a medic does not lessen the moral implication of my choice, because I'm taking the place of someone else who might not have to kill if I were willing. Practically we know that only 1 soldier in 10 actually pulls a trigger of drops the bomb, but the point is that if I refuse to be that one, someone must take my place. Practically it makes no difference but morally it does.

I can say I refused to kill and he didn't. I think my professor would say that was a moral cowardness (or pick your word, I'm not trying to hit emotional hot buttons. It's just that the position of not killing is morally inferior to that of the person who accepts the moral responsibilty of his action.

You're not 'forcing' anyone to kill in your place... I have the same choice you do; to fight or not fight in the just war.

Thus it is an issue of resources, I am there and you are there, they only need one of us, and you are against killing but are willing to serve in the capacity you can. I'm not against killing, and I'm certainly not going to go someplace where other people are trying to kill me, and say "Don't give me a gun... I won't shoot back."

In fact, have no doubts... I'll ALWAYS shoot first.

We both have choices... yours is not to pick up the gun
, it has nothing to do with my choice.

 

[Joesephus]

Josephus, did your professor define "moral courage" and "moral cowardice" in such a way that pacifism was moral cowardice by definition? And, although he gave examples of moral cowardice/courage, did he actually state a definition of those terms?

On a related note, my preferred definition of "evil" is: the intentional infliction of suffering. Putting that definition through its paces leads to some very interesting results, IMO.

He gave examples. Which just goes to show what a slippery language English is. Ought to be banned I say! Too many words, too many meanings of the same word... Evil I say your definition of 'evil' fits English perfectly.

 

[Oblimo]

I've never understood the English meaning of metaphysical.

Metaphysics, "after the physics," is the title of the book Aristotle wrote after The Physics. And that's pretty much it.

 

[Goldie Munro]

I've lived under oppressive regimes, I do understand why someone would not take action against them. Still, isn't that different from saying that given the reasonable opportunity I still won't if it requires violence, but I recognize that someone else must? Is that a run on?

The answer is in the question - if the opportunity arrived - moral cowardice is abstract - what someone does or doesnt do in reality is something else - I think anyway. I suppose what I am saying is that there is no such thing as moral cowardice.

 

[rgraham666]

I quite dislike the term 'just war'. It makes an utter horror sound palatable.

A war might be necessary. That is not the same thing as just.

 

[Goldie Munro]

This is probably off topic, but don't the reasons one does something also count? As I've said earlier, all the pacifist I've known have assumed a morally superior mantle. My prof is questioning that... I think.

Many with firmly held beliefs assume the moral high ground!

 

[Oblimo]

He gave examples. Which just goes to show what a slippery language English is.

In your next class with that professor, ask him to define "moral cowardice" by telling you what all of his examples have in common.

I find his presumtive distinction between physical courage and moral courage, however, to be suspect (and a variation of the old "ends vs. means" ethical debate). It sounds like a set up to beg the question, "Pacifism = moral cowardice," by presuming what he is setting out to prove.

 

[Liar]

Me disagree on English sematics???? Never, English is always as clear as sluge. I know that pacifism is not always tied to religion, but I guess I've always seen it as "I shalt not kill, period!"

That's where we differ. I see it as "Thou shall never be an agressor."

 

[Pure]

joe and goldie

Joe //This is probably off topic, but don't the reasons one does something also count? As I've said earlier, all the pacifist I've known have assumed a morally superior mantle. My prof is questioning that... I think. //

Goldie Many with firmly held beliefs assume the moral high ground!

Especially if they think their beliefs are 'objectively true, ' or God's decree.

However, Goldie, the argument cuts both ways. The American booboisie has very firmly held beliefs--those who won't serve in Iraq are cowards.

So I think the percentage of those claiming 'moral high ground' is probably about the same in nonpacifists and pacifists.

 

[3113]

I'm curious as to how your professor would define Dr. Martain Luther King, jr. Violence could have been used by him in the civil rights movement to fight back against oppressive white folks--who WERE using violence against those protesting EVIL laws. Including violence against civilians by police.

Violence by blacks, even in self defence, would have justified the use of violence by the white folk. By sitting and taking the violence--even when that violence included buring down churches that killed children (and by that I mean that they didn't go out and burn down white churches in retaliation)--Dr. King exposed the EVIL of these men and their laws and got those laws changed. Which, in turn, made things safe and GOOD for generations to come.

There is moral COURAGE in pacifism when it makes evil apparent and wins out over that evil. There is moral COWARDICE in militancy when all it does is escalate the violence and absolve the evil doer.

The REAL problem, however, is that your Professor is using more than one logical fallacy in his argument. And an Ethics professor should NEVER do that.

His logical fallacies inclued:
1) He is DEFINING himself to victory. He's decided that pacifism is moral cowardice. That's his definition. That's defining yourself to victory as pacifism is no such thing.

2) He is lumping all pacifism together under one umbrella. This is absurd. As argued, there are different kinds of pacifism, and some very different situations. A person fighting for civil rights by peaceful protest, refusing to hit back when the police hit him, is in a very different situation than a person with a gun in their hand watching a soldier take aim at a child.

Which KIND of pacifist is he talking about? And which situation is he putting THAT pacifist in? And, once again, what is moral cowardice and why should we accept his definition of it?

3) STACKING THE DECK with his Rwanda example--that means, he's using examples that put pacificsm in the worst light, rather than offering a balance view. THIS by the way, is just as bad as using a Straw Man, so, SORRY, you don't get to say, "Hey, he didn't use a straw man."

He did almost as bad. He STACKED THE DECK. Why use Rwanda rather than, oh, say, Jesus Christ forgiving his killers and not having his followers kill in return? Like, oh, say, Gandhi? Dr. King, jr.?

And if he's going to use Rwanda, why not mention "Hotel Rwanada," baed on the true story of a hotel owner who saved many lives without ever resorting to violence?

For these three reasons, I would deem your ethics professor a bad professor. He's allowing his bias to interfere with rational arguments.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

What I wonder about is the duty of the soldier in an immoral war.

What should you have done as a cavalry soldir when ordered to slaughter unarmed Native American women and children the plains in the 1880's? Disobey orders?

What should you have done as a good German soldier when ordered to machine gun Greek villagers in 1939? Jews in Poland in WWII?

You're only a grunt following orders. How do you know if your cause is just, or if you're just involved in some bloody, immoral slaughter ordered by some stupid politician?

Or isn't it that your problem?