Hypocrisy?

[SEVERUSMAX]

Is it hypocritical for those who abhor violence in all forms to rely on others to do violence for them, even as they look down sanctimoniously on their protectors? I think so.

 

[Pure]

Hi Sev,

Slight modification of the thesis:

Most Quakers believe: All violence is intrinsically evil. The three times where it is morally justified are 1) exercized by police, lawfully in prevention of imminent death; 2) exercized by armies in preventing imminent invasion, 3) exercized by onself in self defense of life, of one's family's life.

The most common variants that are common are deleting 3) and sometimes, deleting 2) also. [If 2) and 3) are deleted, one arguably has the position of St. Paul in the NT].

I maintain that the main position and its two variants are not hypocritical, nor logically inconsistent.

So if you deny this: Identify the position among the three*, and tell why it's hypocritical.

The three positions are: A) 1) 2) and 3) as only exceptions;
B) 1) and 2) as only exceptions;
C) 1) as only exception.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Well, I was mainly speaking of strict pacifists, who look down on police and soldiers for protecting them, and then rely on them for that protection. Quakers are different, anyway, in allowing for personal differences based on "The Inner Light", personal truth, as it were.

 

[Pure]

No Quaker looks down on policemen or army personnel.



PS: Nor did Gandhi, AFAIK.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

No Quaker looks down on policemen or army personnel.

I never said that they did. Quakers are kind of moderate pacifists. Although one rather strict and intolerant fellowship expelled Nathanael Greene for joining the Connecticut militia. He and others were among so-called "fighting Quakers".

I simply referred to the most radical ones, who condemn all violence but rely on it for protection.

Like I said, most Quakers allow for the "Inner Light" to permit one to dissent.

 

[Pure]

OK, sev,

Moving to an 'extreme' case. AFAIK, the Amish, as least some, believe:

All violence is intrinsically evil. Exception 1): the constabulary may restrain and or eject from the community someone who is violent at a moment--i.e., they may employ force at that moment, but not kill this person. 2) one may personally restrain a person in the moment of exercizing violence against one's family. again, using force at that moment, but not killing them.

Needless to say, once the act is stopped, the person is not punished (by the magistrate, so to say) with violence, though I suppose if there is a threat of further violence, and no chance of ejection, some enduring restraints or confinement, possibly might be in order.

None of the above would involve 'looking down on the police.'

Though I'm not OF this position, I believe it is non hypocritical and consistent. Possibly it is that of Gandhi, though I am not sure.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Again, the Amish do not interact that much, thus do not have to rely so much for protection. And probably maintain some level of consistency of the sort that you mention.

I am speaking of the sort that constantly attack and label as "murderers" the army, the police, people who defend themselves and their families, etc. But these same people are protected by the VERY PEOPLE THEY DESPISE. Is that NOT hypocrisy?

 

[Liar]

Is it hypocritical for those who abhor violence in all forms to rely on others to do violence for them, even as they look down sanctimoniously on their protectors? I think so.

Yes.

That being said, I don't think the hypocrits are all that many. I think that most pacifist believe like me, that all violence is bad, but that violence with the puprose to (as a last resort) prevent even more violence, is a nessecary evil.

The looking down on police and military only happens when we think that the force used is excessive.

 

[Liar]

I am speaking of the sort that constantly attack and label as "murderers" the army, the police, people who defend themselves and their families, etc. But these same people are protected by the VERY PEOPLE THEY DESPISE. Is that NOT hypocrisy?

No.

Because a) they don't believe they are being protected by them and b) they think it was unessecary violence.

They may be incorrect about (a) and (b). But ignorance is not hypocricy.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I think that they do know it and count on it, but they simply refuse to admit it.

 

[Recidiva]

Again, the Amish do not interact that much, thus do not have to rely so much for protection. And probably maintain some level of consistency of the sort that you mention.

I am speaking of the sort that constantly attack and label as "murderers" the army, the police, people who defend themselves and their families, etc. But these same people are protected by the VERY PEOPLE THEY DESPISE. Is that NOT hypocrisy?

I'm afraid Amish/Mennonite pacifism is combined with an unwillingness to take an oath in court.

This rather tragic combination results in their youth being assaulted nearly continuously by outsiders with no worry of reprisal. Rape is not uncommon by "The English" and it adds to a distrust and dislike of the outer world.

But they have no way to redress these ills, they won't take up arms, they won't press charges. They need physical protection, surely, but they won't accept it. This makes many youths flock from this mindset.

I think it's abhorrent to not protect your children. To take a spiritual vow of mortification is fine if you're an adult and you choose it. To inflict it upon your children isn't.

Unfortunately some of the most idealistic people, who haven't had to deal with violence themselves, wish to deny it happens to others.

This creates a blind spot.

I'm not a pacifist. I can support you if you're a pacifist if you take the consequences (up to and including death).

This is a violent place. To try to deny that is idealistic, but also tragic.

Pacifism is an extremely expensive value to hold. If you have the stake for it, fine. If you don't, it's nobody's problem but your own. By stating you're a pacifist you're practically slitting your wrists and throwing yourself in the Great Barrier Reef. Good luck.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I think that they do know it and count on it, but they simply refuse to admit it.

So essentially, you're telepathic?

Your argument seems to rely on the assumption that you can accurately discern the hidden motivations and beliefs of people you've never met. While I agree that it is an ugly thing to both demand that others stand in harm's way to protect you and to sneer at and look down upon them, I believe that Liar is correct in saying that those who are most angry and unhappy with the police and military typically at least state that they don't believe that those institutions are protecting them, and that that belief is in fact at the root of their dislike for those institutions.

This seems wholly likely to me - that is, that they don't believe that they are being protected. Like Liar, I leave the question of whether that's true or false to others. I haven't seen any proof that such people are lying, and in order for them to be lying, they would have to be doing a very odd little mental dance. Why would any actively choose to despise his or her own best source of protection while still counting on it? That would make very little sense, even on an emotional level. I could, of course, prefer to believe that it's true anyway, but that would be leading me down the tempting road of "people disagree with me primarily because they are irrational idiots." I prefer to first try "people might disagree with me for good or at least consistent reasons." Given that it's quite possible for people to take that stance for consistent reasons, that seems the more reasonable explanation to me.

Shanglan

 

[Pure]

HI Sev, note to recidiva

OK, so you're fine with Quakers (and variants) and Amish and Gandhi. Right?

SEV: I am speaking of the sort that constantly attack and label as "murderers" the army, the police, people who defend themselves and their families, etc. But these same people are protected by the VERY PEOPLE THEY DESPISE. Is that NOT hypocrisy?

I'm not sure whom you're speaking of. But taking one possible case, certain Black persons in South Africa, a while back, might have labelled the police as 'murderers' (though not every single policeman).

As Liar points out, however, that claim is that, as a group, the police exercize unnecessary, punitive, and lethal acts against Black persons (in that context).

I'd say there's an element of truth, there, wouldn't you?

Now, would that same person appeal to the South African police for protection? I doubt it. That would be, I agree, hypocrisy, but I don't know of any cases of it. Oppressed and brutalized groups generally do NOT call the police of the repressive state, but deal with situations themselves.

But, if if someone thinks the police are generally brutal, and calls the police, upon seeing his mom getting beaten by a robber, I don't know if I'd call him a hypocrite. He's desperate and hoping the police, in this case won't unnecessarily brutalize anyone.

---
To Recidiva,
I don't have the details of the Amish, but aversion to 'oath taking' is found in Quakers. AFAIK, the US courts have accomodated this, and gone with 'affirmation'--e.g., "I will tell the truth." (As opposed to, "Upon this Bible I take an oath to tell the truth.") Quakers generally have no problem with the court system as such, since it's mentioned favorably by St. Paul.

It is of course, a Pauline tradition for Xtians to try to avoid court actions, ie. suing each other or pressing charges against each other. In extreme cases, some Xtians (perhaps Amish) may have declined to be any part of proceedings, though I suspect many would testify as witnesses under 'affirmation' provided the court was not going to sentence someone to death.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I'm not a pacifist. I can support you if you're a pacifist if you take the consequences (up to and including death).

This is a violent place. To try to deny that is idealistic, but also tragic.

I don't feel that the Amish deny the presence of violence. If nothing else, people who live an agrarian non-industrial life style face the harsh realities of life on a very regular basis. They understand, I suspect all too intimately, what a violent place the world is, particularly given the fact that, as you note, they are often targets of violence from outside of their community. They simply refuse to contribute to that violence.

They recognize that this means that they will suffer more of it. To them, it's a cause worth suffering for - but then, their goals in suffering violence are not primarily material. To state that they will not succeed as well in the material world as those willing to be more ruthless is to ignore their central focus, which is not in this world. Similarly, their refusal to use violence even to defend their own children is derived from a focus on goals beyond the material world. To take up violence for any reason is to introduce a spiritual corruption that cannot be undone - and that will pervade the children one was attempting to protect. If one prizes the spiritual more than the material, that bargain cannot be the right one.

Shanglan

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

There are certainly people who do look down on them and then rely on them, and I don't mean because they are unusually corrupt or something. I have heard at least one person do this on the Internet, but I won't mention her username.

Furthermore, I think that there is a subconscious awareness of their inconsistency, not a conscious one. That is where it starts, in the subconscious. This is my own personal view, that instinctively people know that violence is necessary, but emotionally oppose it out of some herd-based morality that fears creating a "violent society". What they fail to realize is that no place is non-violent, as Recidiva noted. Earth is and will always be a violent world. Even the forces of the Natural Cosmos are violent. Violence is inevitable, so it has to be used for good, just like fire.

 

[Recidiva]

I don't feel that the Amish deny the presence of violence. If nothing else, people who live an agrarian non-industrial life style face the harsh realities of life on a very regular basis. They understand, I suspect all too intimately, what a violent place the world is, particularly given the fact that, as you note, they are often targets of violence from outside of their community. They simply refuse to contribute to that violence.

They recognize that this means that they will suffer more of it. To them, it's a cause worth suffering for - but then, their goals in suffering violence are not primarily material. To state that they will not succeed as well in the material world as those willing to be more ruthless is to ignore their central focus, which is not in this world. Similarly, their refusal to use violence even to defend their own children is derived from a focus on goals beyond the material world. To take up violence for any reason is to introduce a spiritual corruption that cannot be undone - and that will pervade the children one was attempting to protect. If one prizes the spiritual more than the material, that bargain cannot be the right one.

Shanglan

I understand it, I just disagree with it.

I think there's a fatal flaw in the concept of pacifism, spiritually and ethically, in this case.

It's absolutely fine if it's for yourself and only for yourself. However, teaching it to people who don't have that choice and need defense, is child abuse. There is absolutely no way a child can process the spiritual demands when their body is assaulted.

Making exceptions for children is a common tenet in many religious and societal traditions. I think it should be considered here.

Children have to choose to join the community in the Amish tradition in their adulthood. Before that point, they should have a choice.

 

[Pure]

Just a small note:

Sev and Recidiva,

Socrates held that it is better to suffer evil (including injustice) than to inflict it.

I think that's at the root of the 'extreme' Amish pacifist position, and the 'moderate' Quaker pacifist position. If you (or your spouse) is killed by a thug, your soul is unstained. To kill the threatening thug is to stain one's soul, or in modern terms, to undergo a bit of moral corruption.

 

[Recidiva]

Sev and Recidiva,

Socrates held that it is better to suffer evil (including injustice) than to inflict it.

I think that's at the root of the 'extreme' Amish pacifist position, and the 'moderate' Quaker pacifist position. If you (or your spouse) is killed by a thug, your soul is unstained. To kill the threatening thug is to stain one's soul, or in modern terms, to undergo a bit of moral corruption.

That is, however, a philosophy. One I don't ascribe to.

Freedom for each individual to make up their own mind and have the right to do so, has to be part of any societal model I would support.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

He also didn't hold violence to be evil.

Yes, I respect their right to believe that. I just find it disturbing. It's also hypocritical when someone overtly relies on the coercive powers of the State, while regarding those powers as inherently evil.

 

[Recidiva]

My question is this, whether or not you consider an illness or a sickness to be a physical assault. Human bodies are attacked at all times by disease and virus. It isn't the will of God, it's a sickness.

Their view that outsiders are inherently evil because they aren't them, and definition of all attacks and opposing them being evil, just means they've stripped themselves of a physical and an ethical immune system.

If you don't fight for shelter, food, air and water, you die. Life is inherently a struggle. To not recognize that is to deprive yourself of the tools available to stay strong and healthy as an organism subject to the rules of this world.

It's like stripping off your skin and proclaiming you're superior. No, now you're more likely to be sick and prideful about it.

Stripping your own defenses off is fine. Your body. Your choice.

Stripping those from others is abuse.

 

[Liar]

Unfortunately some of the most idealistic people, who haven't had to deal with violence themselves, wish to deny it happens to others.

This creates a blind spot.

I'm not a pacifist. I can support you if you're a pacifist if you take the consequences (up to and including death).

This is a violent place. To try to deny that is idealistic, but also tragic.

Pacifism is an extremely expensive value to hold. If you have the stake for it, fine. If you don't, it's nobody's problem but your own. By stating you're a pacifist you're practically slitting your wrists and throwing yourself in the Great Barrier Reef. Good luck.

Hmm. So, I sense that according to your definition , I would not be a pacifist.

I have dealt with violence. I know, from both ends of it, exactly how horrible, ugly and undignfied it is. And that is why I'm hell bent on making sure it happens to as few people as possibe. To minimize the total amount of violence in the world.

I used to be easy to provoke into rage and violence, but not anymore. Been "sober" for close to a decade. Like an alcoholic, a rageoholic can't take a little drink of it because it would be convenient for the moment, or he'll slide back into old habits fast. In a life-or-death stuation, I'd probably fight for it, but short of that, most probably not.

Am I being naive? Slitting my own wrists? I think not. Just being determined and very careful not to contribute to added rage and excessive violence in the world.

 

[Recidiva]

Hmm. So, I sense that according to your definition , I would not be a pacifist.

I have dealt with violence. I know, from both ends of it, exactly how horrible, ugly and undignfied it is. And that is why I'm hell bent on making sure it happens to as few people as possibe. To minimize the total amount of violence in the world.

I used to be easy to provoke into rage and violence, but not anymore. Been "sober" for close to a decade. Like an alcoholic, a rageoholic can't take a little drink of it because it would be convenient for the moment, or he'll slide back into old habits fast. In a life-or-death stuation, I'd probably fight for it, but short of that, most probably not.

Am I being naive? Slitting my own wrists? I think not. Just being determined and very careful not to contribute to added rage and excessive violence in the world.

No, that's a much more nuanced position.

I'm not a violent person by nature. I prefer negotiation if at all possible.

Before I had kids I had a very different philosophical position on all things.

Then I had kids. Everything changed. I had to fight more, I had to protect more, I had more to fight for and protect.

I still haven't resorted to violence in a lifetime of prefering negotiation.

However, if you come after my kids with a violent intent, I'll pound you into a paste on the ground if I can. I'd prefer it, rather than a court system. I'd happily spend the rest of my life behind bars if I think I've taken one sick fuck outta the world.

Whereas if it were for myself, alone, I might not resist. I ultimately have a death wish. I think it would be restful.

"Evil thrives when good men do nothing." - Sir Thomas More

 

[Liar]

However, if you come after my kids with a violent intent, I'll pound you into a paste on the ground if I can. I'd prefer it, rather than a court system. I'd happily spend the rest of my life behind bars if I think I've taken one sick fuck outta the world.

*nods* Except, if you give yourself moment to reflect on the situation, my guess is you would choose not to. Because being behind bars would mean you are unable to defend your kids against the next sicko. Right?

 

[Recidiva]

*nods* Except, if you give yourself moment to reflect on the situation, my guess is you would choose not to. Because being behind bars would mean you are unable to defend your kids against the next sicko. Right?

No, I mean it. Full on mama bear. I will not stop until I've heard something terminally crunch.

Other than that, I'm a total sweetie.

 

[Pure]

Reply to Recidiva

HI Recidiva,
I don't believe you are correct below, in stating--as I read you-- that the Amish refuse to go to court and hence it's open season by the "English" upon Amish women. Here is a news story which plainly contradicts that.

I think what you possibly have in mind is that, for instance, an Amish woman raped by an AMISH man would be reluctant to press charges. She and the community would prefer to deal with the offense, themselves--talk to the offender, counsel him, shun him, whatever.

With all due respect, both you and Sev are seemingly attacking inconsistences or failings of hypothetical groups or individuals (or extremely rare cases). It's pretty clear that the actual behaviors of Quakers or Amish in their versions of pacificism are neither hypocritical, nor inconsistent, nor blantantly self destructive as R suggests, like throwing oneself off the Great Barrier Reef.

R: By stating you're a pacifist you're practically slitting your wrists and throwing yourself in the Great Barrier Reef.


Recidiva said,
I'm afraid Amish/Mennonite pacifism is combined with an unwillingness to take an oath in court.

This rather tragic combination results in their youth being assaulted nearly continuously by outsiders with no worry of reprisal. Rape is not uncommon by "The English" and it adds to a distrust and dislike of the outer world.



http://archive.dailyitem.com/archive/2003/1127/local/stories/11local.htm
November 27, 2003

Superior Court upholds sentencing in Deeter rape case

SUNBURY — The Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld the sentencing of a former Hughesville man who was convicted in May of the September 2000 rape of a 23-year-old Delaware Township Amish woman.
Wayne Deeter Jr., 31, was sentenced in February by Northumberland County President Judge Robert B. Sacavage to serve 20 to 40 years in a state correctional facility. Deeter appealed the conviction on several issues.

First, he claimed there was insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions.

The court ruled that, based on the evidence presented at trial, there was sufficient evidence to sustain conviction.
The court found that the testimony of the victim, who identified Deeter prior to the trial, together with the testimony of witnesses was enough evidence to sustain the convictions.

Deeter claimed the court erred in refusing to suppress his attempt to flee from police prior to his arrest.

The court cited prior case law in allowing the testimony, adding that an attempt to flee police prior to an arrest is evidence of consciousness of guilt.

Deeter argued the court erred in classifying him as a sexually violent predator.
The court sustained this ruling based on the fact that a psychologist testified on behalf of the state. The court indicated that the psychologist examined police reports, prior offense reports and other information.
Finally, Deeter challenged his sentence in the aggravated range.

The court ruled that Sacavage set forth ample reasons for his decision, including the need to protect the community, Deeter’s lack of remorse and the brash nature of the crime. Deeter attacked the Amish woman in broad daylight in a field visible from the highway.