Pacifists - what do you think?

I am a pacifist. I don't like wars, I don't like people being killed, I don't like hurting people and I do not agree that violence is the always the answer.

At times I have been abused for this of people calling me an apologist for terrorism, that I am against the brave service men and women who serve my countries military, that if everyone thought like me we would really be in trouble (which doesn't make sense because if everyone thought like me there would be no wars but some people are daft like that).

What I would never do is disrespect someone who is in or has been in a war. I would never desecrate a memorial for example. I would never go to a remembrance parade shouting "you murderous scum!" and when there is a minutes silence I stay silent because I have respect.

This may make me a hypocrite but I think there is a difference between disliking violence and being ignorant and disrespectful.

What is your take though? Am I a bad person? If I refused to serve in the military and chose to desert or shoot myself rather than harm another would you look down on me? Am I weak because I do not want to be in that situation?

What do you think?

 

I think most people would find, if they really searched themselves, that they do not like violence. However, survival is war, there's no questioning it. Conflict is as inevitable as death and taxes.

 

Aligator, I don't think you're a bad person.

Personally, I think you're wrong, because I think sometimes, war is the least bad option. And pacifism as an ideology might well be dangerous under certain circumstances, because it might keep you from defending the good and allow evil to win.

But there are not just pacifists erring on the side of peace... there are perhaps even more people who err on the side of war. People who are way too ready to accept or even support war, without sufficiently questioning it. Without asking if other options have really been exhausted first, or if those waging the war are really in control of the consequences.

So I guess on the bottom line, it's perhaps the lesser sin to err on the side of peace, than to err on the side of war.

 

My opinion of pacifists is that the luxury they have is paid for by the blood of others. I 100% support you right to be a pacifist. Some people, like Ghandi, make non-violence powerful. They are rare. Most pacifists are not like Ghandi. They are like Berkley kicking the Marine recruiters out of town. A right which the Marines have given them that they do not understand or appreciate.

 

The problem with pacifism is that it is only beneficial amidst other pacifists. Much like mutualism. The ideals work when they are isolated, but fail when combined with more aggressive or opportunistic mindsets. If someone wants to murder you or your loved ones because you, for example, are someone they consider an enemy of their deity, do you turn the other cheek as they decapitate your family while you watch? Do you try to negotiate with them as they lift their weapon in a futile attempt to use rationale on an irrational person? Or do you fight?


It is true that violence isn't always the answer, and frankly, no sane person likes war or killing. Wars are fought for many reasons. Among them is to protect the innocent from the brutal. In as much as a war serves this purpose, it can be considered justified. However, in fairness to the critics of war, it is more often fought under the guise of noble reasons in order to take resources from resource rich nations that lack the means to protect themselves. Much of what we consider terrorism is the natural backlash of these actions and the collateral damage thereof.

 

I have no problems with pacifists. My very Republican mother in law would not kill an ant.

I know this from watching her ferry them around her house when she finds them. She is a nurse who saves lives.

Killing is abhorrent to her. However, pacifism is a luxury of the protected.