Defense of pacifism--some varieties, at least.

[Pure]

According to the right wing, all those in the center or left are supine (non-resistant) or cowardly in the face of evil. And so the term 'pacifist' is invoked as an insult. This caricature amounts to what we might call "Passive Surrenderism," which is meant to imply that only the rightwing government with strong military, ever ready to intervene anywhere in the world for 'fatherland' and 'right' is the rational or moral choice.

Of course supineness/non resistance in the face of evil does not describle any of the well known pacifists, from Gandhi to MLKing.
They, in fact, preached *resistance* to evil, but NOT by shooting guns at the evil doers.

So we arrive at the first ingredient of a defensible form of pacifism,
which I will call well defined pacifism :
1) There will be, as appropriate and effective, UNarmed resistance to evil.

Next topic: one place in a clear and major war against armed evil.
Clearly one does well to take a place. One thinks of the quaker ambulance drivers in WWII. In "The Longest Day," the story of the Normandy invasion, one saw medics, un armed, also nuns, working to give service to those on the front.

Hence the second ingredient:
2) In the larger, unavoidable fights/wars with clear evil, there will be close support of the just side, w/o arms, including, on the battle field. One form of such support being medical related....

Last issue: Defense of one's children and family members unable to defend. This seems generally like a good idea, where police are not available. So most pacifists have NOT advocated utter non resistance, or invariable non-violence, at the personal level. The first preference, of course, would be that the defense be non violent or at least non-lethal. However in the extreme, one would kill to defend and protect a family member, esp. the weaker ones.

The line of thought, applies, for many, to self defense. (Though some absolute pacifists will choose, where only they are involved personally, to be killed rather than kill.)


So the third ingredient is
3) There will be resistance of any evil to one's family members, esp. weaker ones, nonviolently as first effort, but with such force, including lethal, as may be absolutely necessary. The same for self.

[[ADDED: Of course, in normal circumstances, the armed defense of family is not usually appropriate, where a proper, responsive police force exists. So let me be clear about a fourth ingredient:

4) There should be support for the local police--e.g. calling them as necessary--, where they are legitimate and careful (not trigger happy)--i.e., those as in London or Stockholm, not as in former South Africa or current China or Russia... or Iraq. ]]

===
In conclusion, the above, "well defined pacifism" is quite compatible with most of people's moral and patriotic allegiances. In other words, they have no good reason to condemn it, though it may not be the personal choice of the majority.

The smears against pacifism, where it's caricatured as 'passive surrenderism' are ignorant-- though effective with the booboisie; but none of the standard right-wing arguments apply to the above form as depicted, which is in fact, one of the most common.

 

[R. Richard]

In wartime, there is a position, called Combat Medic. A Combat Medic is basically a stretcher bearer who operates in combat zones. It is a high casualty job with few takers. Real pacifists will volunteer for the job long term, no one else will. You can question the sanity of a Combat Medic, but don't question their courage in front of me.

The problem with a pacifist trying to defend his/her/its family with force in an emergency is the age old amateur problem. You have a, usually untrained, person who is morally opposed to what they are trying to do. They normally do a very poor job of it.

JMHO.

 

[Pure]

Good points, rr. Your second one, about amateurs, is supportive of a fourth point, which I should state directly.

Wherever possible, armed threats against 'civilians' are to be dealt with by police, courts, etc. Amateur and 'vigilante' approaches are not productive.

Fourth point of well defined pacifism.
4) Support your local police, where they are legitimate and careful (not trigger happy)--i.e., those as in London or Stockholm, not as in former South Africa or current China or Russia... or Iraq.

Thanks, rr, I've added this to the "ingredients" in the original posting.

 

[3113]

Wherever possible, armed threats against 'civilians' are to be dealt with by police, courts, etc. Amateur and 'vigilatante' approaches are not productive.

Unless the vigilante is Spiderman

 

[S-Des]

Good points, rr. Your second one, about amateurs, is supportive of a fourth point, which I should state directly.

Wherever possible, armed threats against 'civilians' are to be dealt with by police, courts, etc. Amateur and 'vigilatante' approaches are not productive.

Thanks, rr, I've added this to the "ingredients" in the original posting.

But "Wherever possible" is an important ingredient. The two jerk-offs at Columbine were murdering people randomly (apparently) and non-violent resistance would have just resulted in death (at least most of them did). The same with the nut job on the train a few years back. On 9/11, the people on the planes didn't act violently out of fear for their own safety, or for the people being held (some stewardesses were supposedly used as leverage). When the passengers on the last plane decided to act violently, they saved the lives of who knows how many people on the ground (although it came at the price of their own). I agree with RR that amateurs can make a bad situation worse, but letting someone continue to kill isn't a great solution either. Occasionally, you hear about someone reaching a violent person with reasoned pleas, but most of the time it doesn't work.

I respect pacifists, but their way isn't always right. Similarly, the, "Lets go in there with guns a blazing" approach doesn't work often. The world is seldom black & white.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

In wartime, there is a position, called Combat Medic. A Combat Medic is basically a stretcher bearer who operates in combat zones. It is a high casualty job with few takers. Real pacifists will volunteer for the job long term, no one else will. You can question the sanity of a Combat Medic, but don't question their courage in front of me.

The problem with a pacifist trying to defend his/her/its family with force in an emergency is the age old amateur problem. You have a, usually untrained, person who is morally opposed to what they are trying to do. They normally do a very poor job of it.

JMHO.

I think there are some combat medics that would take offense to be labled "Stretcher Bearer".

 

[R. Richard]

I think there are some combat medics that would take offense to be labled "Stretcher Bearer".

No offense was meant. The basic job was to get the wounded onto a stretcher and back to a field first aid station. Medical service was sometines provided in the field, but only as a desperate emergency effort.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The so-called "smears against pacifism" are almost always smears against something else altogether, which is empty sentimentalism masquerading as high-mindedness, with nothing meaningful to offer in the way of solutions or recommendations for government leaders or individuals who have to make moral choices in the face of real-world threats and aggression.

 

[yevkassem72]

As a pacifist, I thank you, Pure. I really do. I'd kiss you, but I am straight and I seem to recall you being a man. Mind you, kissing men is nothing new in France or Lebanon. But this is America. And I frankly like the American custom better. I do not like a man's saliva on my mouth or cheek at all.

 

[elsol]

No variety of pacifism requires defense.

I won't ask you to 'defend' your choice if someone sticks a gun in your face and due to training, quick reflexes, and luck you break the person's arm... not even if it's a cop's arm that you broke.

Actions & choices have concequences... as long as you're willing to live with the concequences of your choices & actions, then 'all's well, even if it ends fucked up.'

 

[Pure]

RAThe so-called "smears against pacifism"

P: 'pacifism' being the term roxanne used.

RA are almost always smears against something else altogether, which is empty sentimentalism masquerading as high-mindedness, with nothing meaningful to offer in the way of solutions or recommendations for government leaders or individuals who have to make moral choices in the face of real-world threats and aggression.

P: slightly different, more diplomatic lyrics, but same tune: for those on the right, any centrist or "liberal" or "left" approaches to foreign policy are motivated by "empty sentimentalism" or worse. anything resembling 'high mindedness' is, likewise, "masquerade," unless it comes from the mouths of militarists like Cheney and Rumsfeld. (except for Rummy, of course, all these persons of the current administration with SPINE and PRINCIPLES and REALISM avoided all military service.)

sentimentalists, fuzzy headed pacifists, sob sisters, milquetoasts, weeping willies, terrorist sympathizers, traitors, treasonous persons,
"those who would see America weaken its defenses," etc are all standard epithets dished by the right, towards those of differing ideology, and even towards 'moderates,' who are simply "confused" or "duped" ("moderation in pursuit of virtue, is a vice," as a conservative once said).

 

[rgraham666]

Pacifism and violence are simply tools. Tools should be used appropriately.

I regard myself as a pacifist. But I am capable of using violence if it is necessary. But violence is far, far down my list of tools at hand. It's very rarely necessary.

For the people that denigrate pacifism, violence is a preferred tool. They think violence is something that always works for getting what you want. And they often believe that they themselves will never be touched by violence. They give it out, they believe, they don't suffer it. Both beliefs are wrong.

People who prefer violence are rather bereft of empathy as well. They have no feeling for the victims of their violence. Their victims are just targets, beneath consideration as human beings. There is also the ego aspect of preferring violence. Those who use violence, despite their protestations, are reinforcing their egos by hurting others. Using violence makes them feel better about themselves, proves that they aren't 'weak'.

But as the Taoists point out, 'ruthless' people, who we call 'cold', 'strong', 'emotionless', are actually extremely emotional. The truly ruthless person is first of all ruthless with themselves. Such a person examines themselves and puts aside all beliefs and actions that would harm themselves. And since harming others harms you, truly ruthless people don't harm others.

 

[Liar]

Pacifism is not: Never use force. Not even to defend that which needs force.

Pacifism is: Never use agression. And make damn sure you know the difference between agression and force.


My personal definition. (If y'all agree with it or not, is your problem.)
But as such, the need to defend it becomes a moot point. It's Obi-Wan fuckin' Kenobi simple.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

RAThe so-called "smears against pacifism"

P: 'pacifism' being the term roxanne used.

RA are almost always smears against something else altogether, which is empty sentimentalism masquerading as high-mindedness, with nothing meaningful to offer in the way of solutions or recommendations for government leaders or individuals who have to make moral choices in the face of real-world threats and aggression.

P: slightly different, more diplomatic lyrics, but same tune: for those on the right, any centrist or "liberal" or "left" approaches to foreign policy are motivated by "empty sentimentalism" or worse. anything resembling 'high mindedness' is, likewise, "masquerade," unless it comes from the mouths of militarists like Cheney and Rumsfeld. (except for Rummy, of course, all these persons of the current administration with SPINE and PRINCIPLES and REALISM avoided all military service.)

sentimentalists, fuzzy headed pacifists, sob sisters, milquetoasts, weeping willies, terrorist sympathizers, traitors, treasonous persons,
"those who would see America weaken its defenses," etc are all standard epithets dished by the right, towards those of differing ideology, and even towards 'moderates,' who are simply "confused" or "duped" ("moderation in pursuit of virtue, is a vice," as a conservative once said).

Really Pure? Are you a mind reader, that you know what I am thinking, and can see so clearly that (of course) it's something shallow and ugly? This is one of the most insulting posts ever from you, Pure, and that's saying a mouthful. In fact, I was going to explain the distinction between shallow sentimentalism and genuine philoshical pacifism, and how the former demeans the latter, and is much more common, but I don't think I have anything more to say to you on this issue. Good bye.

 

[S-Des]

P: slightly different, more diplomatic lyrics, but same tune: for those on the right, any centrist or "liberal" or "left" approaches to foreign policy are motivated by "empty sentimentalism" or worse. anything resembling 'high mindedness' is, likewise, "masquerade," unless it comes from the mouths of militarists like Cheney and Rumsfeld. (except for Rummy, of course, all these persons of the current administration with SPINE and PRINCIPLES and REALISM avoided all military service.)

Maybe Roxy was referring to gestures like Sean Penn buying a boat and going to New Orleans to rescue people, only to spring a leak and needing the Coast Guard to save him. Sometimes people do make empty gestures to prove how wonderful and sincere they are. That goes for both sides (clearly). As has been said, Pacifism does work in certain circumstances, no matter how wide or narrow your definition. Sometimes violence works. Usually what works best is someone who at least considers both and then thinks before they act.

 

[R. Richard]

For the people that denigrate pacifism, violence is a preferred tool. They think violence is something that always works for getting what you want. And they often believe that they themselves will never be touched by violence. They give it out, they believe, they don't suffer it. Both beliefs are wrong.

"If you are using a brute force solution and it isn't working, you are not using enough brute force."

 

[Liar]

"If you are using a brute force solution and it isn't working, you are not using enough brute force."

You're quite obviously not a knitter.

 

[S-Des]

You're quite obviously not a knitter.

I don't know about that...sometimes those patterns can be a bitch. Plus the yarn requires manhandling. It really should be listed as a contact sport.

 

[rgraham666]

You're quite obviously not a knitter.

I'm not allowed to play with anything sharper than a rubber ball.

 

[Pure]

S-DESMaybe Roxy was referring to gestures like Sean Penn buying a boat and going to New Orleans to rescue people, only to spring a leak and needing the Coast Guard to save him. Sometimes people do make empty gestures to prove how wonderful and sincere they are. That goes for both sides (clearly).

well, we won't know, will we. having dished insult, she suddenly finds herself quite sensitive to it.


RAIn fact, I was going to explain the distinction between shallow sentimentalism and genuine philoshical pacifism, and how the former demeans the latter,

ditto. guess we won't know unless she recovers from her wounds...
oh, and familiarizes herself with pacifist philosophical writings as opposed to critiques of alleged pacifist positions.


if you want empty gesture, i'll take my Penn's, against GWB flying the fighter plane onto the carrier and speaking in front of a 'mission accomplished' sign, in his fight pilot gear!

I'm not sure who Roxy's intended targets were, aside from ms struthers and the Xtian Children's fund--- for which, by the way, she gave no evidence that it's not carrying out its charitable objective. {=masquerading as high idealism).

---
"fuzzy headed pacifist"

aka

"empty sentimentalist"

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Further thoughts on incivility

Here is the problem with the manner in which you engage in what should be civil intellectual discourse, Pure. You take a general position statement that you disagree with but which does not refer to yourself or any other individual here, such as "What is often smeared as 'pacifism' is really empty sentimentalism masquerading as high-mindedness," you unilaterally judge that the author is guilty of "insensitivity" or some other such unforgiveable crime, and then you appoint yourself as an "enforcer" authorized to respond with a personal insult, in the form of describing in the most obnoxious terms what you have omnisciently determined to be the motives of the "violator."

Can you see the problem here? Can you see how this makes civil discourse with you essentially impossible?

Directly related to this is your insulting bi-polar division of the political spectrum in which anyone who does not agree with you is by definition a "right winger," "Republican," "militarist," "Bushie," "Falwellite," etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. In this universe, there is no difference between Jerry Falwell, Robert Nozick, the Pope, Milton Friedman, Charles Murray, David Friedman, Ralph Reed, David Boaz, Robert Bork, Leonard Piekoff, etc. Not to mention Cheney, Rumsfeld, and no doubt old wage-and-price control Tricky Dick himself if he were still around.

In other words, anyone like me whose worldview is in any way similar to any one person on that list, automatically is identified with everyone on that list. Can you not see what a profound insult that is, or do you just not care? Or - perhaps you really believe that, that there is no essential difference between the people on that list. If that is the case, then you are acting in bad faith to even engage someone like me in this forum. You should put me on ignore and not respond to a word I say.

 

[Pure]

Pure said previously: Wherever possible, armed threats against 'civilians' are to be dealt with by police, courts, etc. Amateur and 'vigilatante' approaches are not productive.

Thanks, rr, I've added this to the "ingredients" in the original posting.


S des:
But "Wherever possible" is an important ingredient. The two jerk-offs at Columbine were murdering people randomly (apparently) and non-violent resistance would have just resulted in death (at least most of them did).

Not sure what kind of solution you picture:

NRA--arm all the students with concealed pistols so that the nutjobs beware of doing anything weird.

Teachers' Union--arm the teachers

Awe Inspiring Principal-- keeps a pistol and an assault rifle in his desk for the small and larger emergencies, respectively.

---
As to non-gun violence, I've already said, and this applies to Columbine students, self defense by force/violence is morally acceptable as a last resort*--- if one wants to break a chair over a gunman's head and floor him, that's just fine with me.

*though one may choose not to exercize it on one's own behalf where no others are involved [=absolute pacifism].

---
I think school shootings (by bullied or nutso kids at the school) and workplace revenge shooting (by disgruntled employees, recently fired) are generally best handled by the police. it is just, if, having no alternative (like a tazer), they take a life to protect the other kids.

 

[Pure]

Roxanne:In this universe[allegedly pure's], there is no difference between Jerry Falwell, Robert Nozick, the Pope, Milton Friedman, Charles Murray, David Friedman, Ralph Reed, David Boaz, Robert Bork, Leonard Piekoff, etc. Not to mention Cheney, Rumsfeld, and no doubt old wage-and-price control Tricky Dick himself if he were still around.

P: generally, if you want a thread on civility, start one.

i'm quite capable of dealing with the varieties of right-wing, libertarian, 'objectivist,' and Xtian fundamentalist thought. i deal with independently minded 'right' persons -- which you are, sometimes-- quite well, when they calmly state a nuanced position.

alternatively, when they're merely phrasemongering-- 'fuzzy headed pacifist' and 'empty sentimentalist'--, they may be dealt with according the the 'lowest common denominator' of rhetoric, which they offer.

please note that in a thread on pacifism, you've not made a single, reasoned and nuanced posting, but contented yourself vague characterizations, displays of pique and hurt feelings; hence you fall under the second alternative.
===

Can you not see what a profound insult that is,

if you're identified--allegedly-- with Friedman, Nozick, Murray and Bork, i'd think you'd be flattered indeed.

 

[S-Des]

S des:
But "Wherever possible" is an important ingredient. The two jerk-offs at Columbine were murdering people randomly (apparently) and non-violent resistance would have just resulted in death (at least most of them did).

Not sure what kind of solution you picture:

Pretty much what you described. Breaking a chair over their heads (or another similar action) is about all you can do (other than try talking to them and hoping you don't get shot, which to me is unacceptable). I'm not a big advocate of everyone carrying a gun. To my way of thinking, it turns most people into possible felons, given the right provocation. Stun guns, mace, etc... work effectively without endangering the innocents in the area (any missed shots go somewhere...and even if you hit your target, the bullet has in the past gone through and killed someone else). Training for self-defense works as well. You don't have to be a black belt to protect yourself. I taught Kiten a very effective way of escaping a dangerous situation in about 5 minutes. If more people knew them, there would (hopefully) be less violence...especially against women.

There was a famous assault that just happened here. An off duty cop (a big one) was drunk and pissed off that he was refused service in a bar, so he brutally attacked the bartender (a small woman). The attack was caught on tape and shown nationally, as well as on YouTube. A patron was seen backing away while the woman was being smacked around, then he dialed the police. She survived, the drunk was arrested, and everything turned out as well as could be hoped for. The question is, should the bystander have defended her? If he had intervened, could the situation have become worse? If he tried to help, but the woman died in the melee, would he have been responsible? There are truly serious questions about these philosophies and every situation has the potential to become deadly. You can cling to a single philosophy and say, "______ is superior," but there will always be a situation where it's the wrong choice. I don't believe in philosophies. They work great in the classroom, shitty in real life.

 

[Pure]

S des-- You can cling to a single philosophy and say, "______ is superior,"

actually, i did not start this thread saying 'pacifism is superior,' i said that one form of it was defensible and in accord with many commonsense moral positions.

but there will always be a situation where it's the wrong choice. I don't believe in philosophies. They work great in the classroom, shitty in real life.

a philosophy is an overview; it does not give micro-directions for living, but rather, guidelines. the four 'ingredients' of 'well defined pacifism' which i stated, are guidelines, phrased as such, if you look closely. i think you are talking about someone who espouses "one true and absolute principle," like "never initiate the use of force": this, as you say, leads to 'shitty' choices.