Are Pacifist moral cowards?

[cantdog]

I've seen some pretty hateful and angry stuff come from so-called pacifists right here on this forum.

Sure you have. When was that?

 

[3113]

BAD argument!

Certainly, based on the book and his comments he thinks highly of Dr. King. I do seem to remember reading that Dr. King was under tremendous pressure to condemn the Vietnam war and did not joing the "peace movement." I could be wrong about that though.

Once again, I present to you the premis that your professor is presenting a shitty argument.

You said that he said: "Pacifists are moral cowards."

He can't make that statement then suddenly turn around and say: "Oh, I only meant this one particular, theoretical pacifist in Rwanda who, let us IMAGINE, lets a child die."

If he says "Pacifists" are moral cowards than he's including MLKing, Jesus, Ghandi and, yes, that fellow who ran the Rwandan hotel. ANY pacifist that ever lived and ANY theory of pacifism ever presented.

If you say that MLKing did not condemn the Vietnam war and is therefore, not a pacifist, than YOU are defining yourself (and your professor) to victory. Because you are deciding what a Pacifist is and you are only going to allow that term for people who won't fight in a war. But I assure you that MLKing would have defined HIMSELF as a pacifist.

In other words, both you and your professor are cheating.

It's CHEATING on the part of your professor to make the statement that "Pacifists are moral cowards," then only use an imaginary pacifist of his design to win the argument. If he's right, then he should be able to show that ANY pacifist fits this definition. And that has to include REAL ones in REAL situations. If he's right, or has a leg to stand on, then he should be able to prove it against the hardest of those real ones. Not some easy, imaginary pacifist of his creation.

Those hard ones include Jesus (arguably theoretical), MLKing and Ghandi. If he can prove that they were moral cowards then he might have an valid point. Otherwise, he's just whistling out his ass.

Which brings us back to "Moral Coward" and what the fuck does that mean? Because I can say it for anyone:

Capitalists are moral cowards.
Enviromentalists are moral cowards.
Italians are moral cowards.
Hawks (those in favor of war) are moral cowards.

See. I can say it about anyone. And then, when you object and say, "Hey, Italians aren't moral cowards!" I can point to Mussolini and say, "See. He was Italian. And he was a moral coward."

And then I define moral cowardice to fit what Mussolini did. And so I'm right. He was, by MY definition, a moral coward. And since he was Italian, Italians are moral cowards.

Do you begin to see how RIDICULOUS this argument is? You've got a really bad ethics professor.

 

[Pure]

maybe he teaches by being, intentionally, like amicus and presenting really bad arguments, hoping to provoke reaction and analysis.

 

[Joesephus]

I'm back for a bit, but please have patience...

Today is my heavy class day, and I have a birthday party for my mother-in-law to attend later tonight. So I'll have to leave early and might not be able to get back for the weekend.

I hate folks who post and run without answering honest points, and I will get to them asap... but that is subject to real life... Monday is another heavy day and I'm flying out of town next Thursday morning and won't be back until Sunday (I'm competing in an open meet my first post college meet and... I'm not in as good a shape as I should be.)

So having made all my excuses, let me take up the gauntlet... Oh but first let me mention that I did talk to my prof about some of the things I was asked. I will say that this is not a position to endgender debate although he knows that will follow. It is a position that he takes personally and strongly. He does think that the person who will not use violence to prevent harm to an innocent is morally inferior to those who, when all other options fail will act using whatever force is needed.

I would love to have told him about this thread, but if I did he'd know what I've written and that would cost me scholarship money, trouble with my wife and her family. So, all I could do was ask some of the questions posed here. I'll address them as they come up in the posts.

 

[Joesephus]

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.

I did ask him about the word courage, and he said that it was an imperfect word but he used it try to make it clear that he was taking issue with morality of the pacifist while playing off the widely used, and inaccurate epithet that pacifist are cowards. He said it is difficult to get past all the societal preconceptions that students carry. He's found this is the easiest "shorthand" to deal with the issue and not impugn either the courage, conviction or the nobility of the pacifist. His position is that the pacifist is morally wrong. Oh and he said that the word immoral would carry the wrong connotation too.

1. So no, I don't think he is defining himself to victory. One can take the other side of the question, Quakers do, and argue. Indeed some here are doing so.

I hope that I made that point clear, I fear my English isn't good enough to understand all of the implications of words. However, I do believe that he wants to attack the morality without attacking the person.

2. I didn't discuss this, but to me anyone who states they will use violence isn't a pacifist. I think there is a huge difference in those who use non-violence to achieve a goal as a TACTIC and those like the Quakers who refuse violence in all forms. In America, and current day Europe, non-violence is not only viable but successful. The evidence in China is not good and in other parts of the world, it doesn't work at all. The choice there is different.

3. No, I don't agree that he stacked the deck. He chose real world examples that are faced by people all over the world. How would a Quaker respond in Rwanda? His position is that their response would not be the moral one. I know from what he's said about hating war that he would also agree that extraordinary steps should be taken to avoid violence, but if it can't be avoided, it must be stopped even if that requires violence.

Remember he's not teaching freshmen, but people working on their MBAs. At 24, I'm the youngest one in this class by several years. So, I don't think he's a bad prof. I think he's trying to make us see a basis for ethics and to understand how those should play in our professional careers... (See I did listen in class... just in case he ever did find this thread before I get my grade )

 

[Goldie Munro]

J
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.

I was including all in that statement not just bigging up the pacifists! (by the way what in the hell are booboise?)

 

[Goldie Munro]

Just got back from an accounting class... so few grey areas in accounting, somehow that seemed refreashing.

Again, I see problems in language. The position that I think my prof is making is that the type of pacifism that will not fight evil, is not counter to good morality... is good morality an oximoron? I knew I hated English.

Whatever the language the point was that such a pacifist was to be despised not admired in a moral sense anyway.

Of course good morality is not an oxymoron but an opinion - just like the idea of whether a pacifist (or anyone else for that matter) who 'will not fight evil' is to be despised - it depends on your own moral stance and perhaps your relationship to the pacifist, the evil or the victim.

 

[CharleyH]

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)

Chuckle. Question him more. I sure as fuck would!

 

[Joesephus]

First off the issue that "pacifism" is moral "cowardice". First off, the use of this word implies that those who choose or are pacifists do so out of a motivation of fear rather than genuine moral desires or beliefs. Taking that and utilizing the example of war support (though that is admittedly an overly singly way of viewing the issue) we come to those who are pacifists or otherwise anti-war in a variety of examples.

I do hope that I've clarified this point. Clearly those who have a better understanding of English can argue about the choice of words and what might or might not have made the point he was trying to get across.

I don't think anyone in the class thought he was saying that pacifist were acting on anything by their own version of morality

Despite the fact that Vietnam was quite universally believed to be a bad war.

I do know a fairly sizable group that would take issue with that statement, however that's not your point. However, I do think that I didn't make myself clear on the issue of the "cowardness" of pacifist. He didn't go into all the detail you are here but he made it clear he would agree with what you're saying. However, those that refuse to fight evil are in his opinion moral cowards... or morally wrong... Please, please don't ask me to argue English words. I know when I've brought a knife to a gun fight.

2) Heroism is not often a quality of "cowards."

I don’t know if you read the original post but that was the point of saying they were not physical cowards.

They often call on major world governments to engage in political pressure, economic sanctions, support for dissenting parties, and even threat of violence to try and stop the problem.

He would say that these last folks were and are wrong. He didn't say the word, but what about the phrase "For evil to win, all it takes is for good people to do nothing." I recognize that martyrs play an important role in Western civilization. Sometimes the most powerful thing you can do is to be a non-violent martyr. However there comes a point when the only thing that a martyr accomplishes is to cost the evil one the price of a little poison gas.

The may also believe that such a plan, even if successful would just be unrealistic in regards to the thousands of cases of abuses. How would we be able to intervene against every known dictator and invader? And how would we clean up the mess and new bad guys who take over the destroyed cities and countries and armies or the former allies who now turn against their weakened neighbors? How would we even arbitrate those conflicts where the good guy is not so obvious, where both armies or government suck and are harming their people with the conflict.

I'm sorry, what you're talking about is pacifism as a tactic not as a moral position. Can people opposed to violence do good things? Sure! The problem is when what they do doesn’t work what then. We have all too many example in the 20th and 21st centuries where they did not. Where it took someone with a gun forcing the evil man to stop by killing him or making him surrender.

This is not to say that these acts were not neccessary to save the lives of OUR countrymen, but rather that these real tragedies are part of any war and it seems easy for us as a people to simply say to ourselves that these people did not matter or that they were less than people, a statistic say. But each one of those many numbers in any war are people with families, with dreams, people just like us. We forget that too easily. Not to refrain from ever fighting, but merely to avoid doing so without thinking clearly of ramnifications.

Again my prof is a retired Col. and has made it clear that he hates war more than anyone who has not seen in personally. However, I think his position is that when the choice is letting evil harm innocents, and all other options are gone you use violence. To do otherwise is not moral.

Also those who argue that people should never be violent and tell people never use violence and then do nothing to try and stop violence.

These are indeed the ones that I think he refers to. I think the Quakers are a good example of his opposite.

In truth the dumbest action is the true idiot, who I believe the pro-war masses seem to mistakingly think of when they think of a pacifist, which is the person who would take away a weaker group's means to defend themselves from a very real aggressor. The irony is that I don't believe the true idiot does exist and if they do, rarely get further than the harmless "concept" phase of their vision. These people simply don't think it through and usually sane up once their off their drugs.

If I'm reading this correctly, I think you agree with my prof... interesting.

Thus everyone who supports a current war who is not currently serving or did not try and serve or otherwise enlist or buying up body armour and shipping it overseas like many pacifists of my knowledge is a moral coward.

Ouch, that is a different argument. I think I've addressed it but if not bring it up again.

 

[Pure]

those like the Quakers who refuse violence in all forms.

i don't know any quakers who have a problem with the police. nor who renounce self defense.

but i'm sure there are some 'absolute' pacifists that will not harm anyone no matter what.

--
the boob-oise are the boobs. pun on 'bourgeoisie' (small scale owners).

---
as far as 'taking up arms to prevent evil,' you might remind the instructor that that's how we got into Vietnam and Iraq (so says the Administration.)

 

[3113]

3. No, I don't agree that he stacked the deck. He chose real world examples that are faced by people all over the world. How would a Quaker respond in Rwanda? His position is that their response would not be the moral one. I know from what he's said about hating war that he would also agree that extraordinary steps should be taken to avoid violence, but if it can't be avoided, it must be stopped even if that requires violence.

I'm sorry, but as I pointed out in another post, he IS stacking the deck if he uses anything but a real life example--that is, a real pacifist who really did face such a situation.

He's stacking the deck because he's not using anything HARD to argue against. He's using an easy, ready-made, invented-by-his-own-imagination example.

He has no idea what a Quaker would actually do in this situation. For example, is taking the gun away from the guy trying to kill the child an act of violence? The Quaker might not think so, and might save the child. Is grabbing and tossing the child out of the way an act of violence? Again, the quaker might not think so and save the child. Some quakers might feel that overpowering the man with the gun is valid--just not beating or killing him.

Unless your professor can point to a REAL pacifist in a real situation similar to Rwanda and explain why that pacifist was a moral coward, then he IS stacking the deck. He's creating this argument using an IMAGINARY pacifist doing IMAGINARY things that he's decided they will do.

I can make up the same story about him: Let's see...there's an ethics teacher in a Rwanda who believes that anyone who tries to kill a child should be overpowered with violence, no questions asked. This is morally right, because anyone trying to kill a child must be evil.

So. He steps into a nursery. It's filled with toddlers. A man is about to shoot a 10-year-old kid who is also there. The professor, following his moral imperitive toward voilence, attacks, beats the man to death. Saves the 10-year-old.

Unfortunately for him, the 10-year-old is Hutu, taught all hisl ife to hate Tutsi, and he is working for the Hutu army. The little babies in the school room are Tutsi. After the professor leaves, the 10-year old does what he's been told to do and taught to do--he kills all the babies. This, the man with the gun was trying to prevent.

Too bad the professor didn't try non-violence with the shooter and so learn the truth about the 10-year-old.

(This is not far-fetched by the way: Kids will and have committed attrocities. Kids carry granades, shoot guns, murder other kids, especially in a war zone. Is it evil to kill a child who is about to murder you with a gun? Soldiers had to do such killings in Vietnam and other wars. Children are recruited by armies and gangs to kill, and they do kill)

But this is the point: I made up that story. It went exactly as I wanted it to go. I STACKED the deck. It isn't real. Didn't actually happen. It's all imaginary--but it sure makes the professor look bad and stupid, doesn't it?

Just because he puts something real (a quaker) in a historical situation (Rwanda) doesn't make it any less deck-stacking. How many quakers were in Rwanda and how many of them did this professor know? And how many of them let a child die instead of using violence? If he answers "none" then he really doesn't know what a quaker would do in that situation and whether or not it would be morally right.

He can hold whatever personal moral opinion he likes, but, IMHO, he needs to offer a more balanced p.o.v. in the classroom. He especially should not judge such non-violent beliefs as "morally inferior" unless he can honestly say that he has stood side-by-side with Quakers, during a war and in the line of fire, and found their pacifism to be morally inferior.

 

[Joesephus]

Lawful is not the same as moral. One can be given a lawful order to kill an innocent unarmed human being. Doesn't mean they should.

Even I know that is not a legal order! Both the person giving it and the person who obeyed are subject to charges. I suspect the charge would be murder, but I don't know that for sure.

It is one of the reasons that the Geneva convention makes a difference between men in uniform and those not. When an innocent is used as a shield by another and gets killed the person guilty is not the one who fired the shot but the person who used the shield. It's a war crime! I'm making the assumption that the person who shot the shield was returning fire.

 

[Joesephus]

Willingness to fight evil.

Okay, but one can combat evil without physical violence.

And one can do far worse evil with indiscriminate violence.

And as evidence has shown, many times one evil has been replaced with an equivalent evil at the great expenditure of lives.

Granted. But the evidence is beyond argument that there are times when only combat will stop evil. Rwanda is a good example.

And if evil is the infliction of suffering, then one who inflicts suffering to end one who inflicts suffering is neccessarily engaging in an evil act. Hence a pacifist would be far more moral as he would not be engaging in evil. In fact by seeking a non-evil manner of deposing or stopping said evil, he is in fact the only member of the four-way example doing an act of good.

This is a very interesting point. However... hmmm this is another that I'd like to think about. If I forget or overlook it, please bring it back up.

Right now I feel a little like Hercules working on that stable. Except I'm having a very good time. It just looks like I'm falling further behind.

 

[Joesephus]

as several posters have mentioned, a 'pacifist' is not necessarily "passive" against evil. (most aren't: pacifist is not 'passivist') there can be continuing struggle, as is the case of MLKing.

BTW, in case anyone's interested, the NT quotes Jesus as saying "resist not evil" and "turn the other cheek" etc. Some think that is a 'good morality'. MLKing did.

As I've said in other places, no one would call me a Christian... except a couple of annon posters in PCs on my stories. I do deal with Christian themes in most of my stories but that do not mean I understand Christianity. My story on grace has drawn heated debate, but I don't know enough to arbitrate it.

I think 'trades' of different things (A for B) can be fair; the prof is demanding that a fair situation must mean NO division of labor.
===

lucifer! great posting.!

I agree it's a good bargain. In real life it is more than enough and I think the laws should support it. However, in this case one person will take either side of the bargain and the other will not. Who is the moral person?

I think this is why my prof used courage. He did NOT want to imply that the pacifist was lacked either the courage of his convictions or the courage to face physical danger.

 

[Joesephus]

I think you're smudging the line between pacificism and just downright apathy.

Someone who opposes violence ALL the time, is a pacifist. If, though, that person doesn't bother to OPPOSE anything, but rather just has a live and let live attitude about things (or, "you're not bothering me right now, just go right on ahead and kill those folks over there"), then s/he's just apathetic.

Pacificism is doing something....I guess that's the difference.

It's like that old Rush song says: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

In a thread this long point get lost. However, one of the examples give was a pacifist who places his body between a murder and a child and is killed a few seconds before the child. It is assumed that the pacifist had the option of killing and chose not to do so even to save the innocent child. The position of the professor is that if you will not use violence to save innocence your morality is inferior to the person that would.

Some have said this is a straw man, but it is the longical end view of a philosophy that renounces all violence. The coverse would say that it is always moral to use violence to save an innocent from evil.

In both cases it has to be assumed that there is no other choice given. Does that make sense.

 

[Joesephus]

Ouch, and this is the last one until I get back....

But please keep don't let that stop you... Also if there's anyone out there who agrees with my prof, please don't hesitate to step it... The folks here are nice.

Iteresting that your professor is implying that Jesus Christ was a moral coward though. You might ask him about that.

I have been told that I have more than the normal amount of courage... well it was me saying but doesn't telling yourself count? Anyway, I don't have enough to ask that question.

To be serioius, I don't know very much about Christ, or his positions. Didn't he say that a Roman soldier was the best man in Israel? I don't know if that means anything... I would love to hear someone who has some background or training chime in on that.

For me, the whole question of pacifism and the appropriate use of violence is one of situational ethics and I don't see how it can be any other way. Is it appropriate to kill someone who cuts you off in traffic? Of course not. Is it okay to kill someone who's trying to kill you or your loved ones? Yes.

Would it have been moral cowardice to ignore the genocide in Bosnia? Clinton thought so, though most republicans seemed to prefer a pacifist approach and didn't want to get involved.

This is one of the things that I admire most about Clinton. NAFTA is another one. Both times he faced huge opposition. I just wished he'd looked at the polls and Monica less.

We seem to be pacifists on Darfur as well, where innocent people are being raped, tortured and killed by the thousands and we're not doing shit about it.

I have lived in that part of the world and it breaks my heart. I don't belong to very many organizations, and I don't have any money. However I give as much as I can to American Anti-Slavery Group. In my next story I'm going to at least touch on slavery. I can't believe it doesn't have more support. I guess you have to see it to really understand just how evil it is.

 

[Joesephus]

Have a great weekend

That's all for now, but I did want to thank everyone for sharing with me, and the time and thought you've put into this topic.

Philosophy isn't something that I've given much thought. I only began when I started dating my wife. She's a Christian, in a good way. She knows what she believes and tries to live by those beliefs. It's made me wonder what I believe and if I would do the same.

The ethics class is required, but it's also proving very useful to me, as are these sorts of discussions.

Thanks again, and I'll be back sometime Sunday.

 

[elsol]

UNAMIR's Force Commander Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire became aware of plans for the genocide in January of 1994. He sent a cable to the then head of UN peacekeeping, Kofi Annan, for authority to defend Rwandan civilians - many of whom had taken refuge in UN compounds under implicit and sometimes explicit promises of protection. Throughout January, February and March, he pleaded for reinforcements and logistical support. The UN Security Council repeatedly refused his pleas. Annan's faxed response had ordered Dallaire to defend only the UN's image of impartiality, forbidding him to protect desperate civilians waiting to die. Next, it detailed the withdrawal of UN troops, even while blood flowed and the assassins reigned, leaving 800,000 Rwandans to their fate.

I think the moral question Dallaire faced is the essentially the same as the professor asks the moral system of pacifism to face.

You've been a soldier all your life, you've followed orders... and here you are ordered NOT to protect the innocent even if it means they will die... the better example in the case of the soldier is an order to kill 'an innocent'.

Clearly, the 'moral' system is different but the question is still the same... is the system flawed if it leads you to allow something which the 'system' itself says is wrong/evil.

 

[Pure]

Joe said, //However, in this case one person will take either side of the bargain and the other will not. Who is the moral person? //

As between infantryman and ambulance corps, it's by no means clear that the infantryman would give up his rifle, his ability to defend himself, and become an ambulance driver.

In any case, division of labor is pretty common: Joe works in the mine; Jane raises the kids. You teach the children of the butcher; he kills the chickens for you. I don't see why someone has to be willing to switch, to make it fair; you hate chopping chickens' heads and he can't teach.

Another interesting analogy is 'chaplains.' they accompany an army, but do not bear arms. so again, if this is defensible, it's because of division of labor.

 

[CharleyH]

many are willing to 'die' for certain beliefs. it proves nothing about either the beliefs or the character of the person.

i like the saying of Patton (roughly): "the aim of the soldier is not to die for his country, but to make sure the *other fellow* dies for his."

Great quote, Pure.

I am not sure any of us know what is moral in this age, so how do we even take a side?

 

[Liar]

Besides, what's wrong with being a moral cowad? Sure beats being an immoral one.

 

[TriggerHippie]

Besides, what's wrong with being a moral cowad? Sure beats being an immoral one.

It's so wrong, I know, but I'm not so much worried about your morality as I am your words. Sue me! There is a perfect sort of wisdom there. In your words. You're like a Swedish fortune cookie ... only without lottery numbers.

 

[elsol]

Great quote, Pure.

I am not sure any of us know what is moral in this age, so how do we even take a side?

You mean there was an age where it was easy to know 'what was moral'?

Oh yeah... caveman time

Caveman 1: Grunt-Grunt! (Translation: Give me that shit!)

Caveman 2: Grrr (Translation: No!)

Caveman 1: Grunt-Grunt-Grunt (Translation: Look at the big stick I have... Give me..)

*thump*

Caveman 2: Grunt-grr (Translation: Bigger stick not as important as swinging first, dumbass!)

 

[Liar]

It's so wrong, I know, but I'm not so much worried about your morality as I am your words. Sue me! There is a perfect sort of wisdom there. In your words. You're like a Swedish fortune cookie ... only without lottery numbers.

Oh I can add numbers too, if it'll make people more comfirtable.