Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Rubber Room - Not Safe for Work
| | |-+  Why the opposition to pacifism?
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15]   Go Down

Author Topic: Why the opposition to pacifism?  (Read 26443 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

alaric89

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1842
    • View Profile
Re: Why the opposition to pacifism?
« Reply #210 on: November 14, 2010, 07:17:33 AM »

But in the real world, there is such a thing as pure evil.

I don't believe in evil.  But obviously you do, so if that's what you believe then perhaps your other beliefs that derive from that make sense.  I know that violence is not the only deterrent for anti-social behavior so I reject the notion that "evil" will overwhelm the world and wipe out all the peaceful people if it's not destroyed.


Evil is someone showing the lack of empathy. It certainly exists. *
* Def: from the movie, Nuremberg.

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6622
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: Why the opposition to pacifism?
« Reply #211 on: November 15, 2010, 09:23:52 AM »

I feel like the discussion has digressed somehow.

How about you pick whatever word you want to describe an attempt to be as peaceful as possible, to stop thinking in terms of justifications for using violence and instead to be thinking in terms of how to avoid violence, possibly in very creative and innovative ways, regardless of whether it's justified by the NAP.  If "pacifism" doesn't work for you, that's fine.  I'm not married to words.

The thing about justification systems is they have nothing to do with what's smart to do in the big scheme of things.  What disturbs me about the NAP, when it is held up as this perfect shining example of morality, is that it's almost applied like a formula.  If we start following this formula, people have faith that it will start purifying the world of "evil".  If we start picking off the aggressive people, there will only be sane, reasonable, NAP people left and the world will achieve peace.  It fails to recognize what is readily apparent if you pay attention-- that violence begets violence.  We don't live in a mathematical world of super-logical androids.  We live in a world of emotional, reactive people, libertarians included.  When someone acts with violence, they usually feel it's justified.  Then someone else feels justified to respond with violence.  There can, and will, be disagreements about what particular act is defensive or aggressive.

When someone is obsessive about the NAP, I see someone who's angry and is looking for an excuse to be violent.  I'll be looking for every possibility to avoid violence.  Again, call that what you want.  My thought is, NAP, sure, at a minimum, but we can do better.

MacFall

  • Agorist
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2295
  • No king but Christ; no law but liberty!
    • View Profile
Re: Why the opposition to pacifism?
« Reply #212 on: November 15, 2010, 12:02:07 PM »

In regards to your last paragraph, that's horribly unfair. I support the NAP because it is a universally-applicable, non-contradictory ethic. That is, BECAUSE IT IS TRUE. Any attempt to establish a universal ethic that contradicts the NAP is an attempt to establish a falsehood (i.e., a contradiction) as a moral proposition. I refuse to embrace a falsehood as a moral tenet. That does not by any means make me nor anyone else a seeker of violence.
Logged
I am an anarchist! HOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6622
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: Why the opposition to pacifism?
« Reply #213 on: November 15, 2010, 03:12:13 PM »

I don't see what that has to do with anything I've said.  I've not contradicted the NAP.

I agree that it's consistent and doesn't contradict itself, but as for the insistence that the NAP is "TRUE", what do you mean by that?  A statement can be consistent with reality and therefore a true statement, like "2 + 2 = 4" but how can a principle be true or false?

MacFall

  • Agorist
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2295
  • No king but Christ; no law but liberty!
    • View Profile
Re: Why the opposition to pacifism?
« Reply #214 on: November 15, 2010, 03:23:46 PM »

If it contradicts itself, it is false (it does not apply equally to all people at all times). If it doesn't, it is true (it can be acted out consistently by all people at all times).

I say that pacifism (defined as an absolute refusal to use force under any circumstances) is contradictory because it either requires everybody to submit to violence by those who lack the moral capacity to choose nonviolence (which would result in a world dominated by violence), or it requires some people to choose defensive force in order to stop those amoral persons. By itself, the NAP acknowledges the possibility of those who will not follow it, and allows for ways of dealing with them. It is realistic. Pacifism is Utopian in that it relies upon the non-reality of a world without violently amoral people to work.

Unless the pacifists hope that all the violently amoral people of the world will simply get too tired or die of old age before they get around to killing everyone else.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2010, 03:26:01 PM by MacFall »
Logged
I am an anarchist! HOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!

Pizzly

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 348
    • View Profile
Re: Why the opposition to pacifism?
« Reply #215 on: November 19, 2010, 07:37:35 PM »

If it contradicts itself, it is false (it does not apply equally to all people at all times). If it doesn't, it is true (it can be acted out consistently by all people at all times).

I say that pacifism (defined as an absolute refusal to use force under any circumstances) is contradictory because it either requires everybody to submit to violence by those who lack the moral capacity to choose nonviolence (which would result in a world dominated by violence), or it requires some people to choose defensive force in order to stop those amoral persons. By itself, the NAP acknowledges the possibility of those who will not follow it, and allows for ways of dealing with them. It is realistic. Pacifism is Utopian in that it relies upon the non-reality of a world without violently amoral people to work.

Unless the pacifists hope that all the violently amoral people of the world will simply get too tired or die of old age before they get around to killing everyone else.

You assume nonviolence is submition. Do you even try to consider the pacifist position before making judgement?
Logged
Peace isn't loving your neighbor, peace is simply not killing them.

MacFall

  • Agorist
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2295
  • No king but Christ; no law but liberty!
    • View Profile
Re: Why the opposition to pacifism?
« Reply #216 on: November 19, 2010, 07:55:06 PM »

I assumed nothing. I defined the term specifically in my post. If you define it differently, then I wasn't talking about your position.
Logged
I am an anarchist! HOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!

Pizzly

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 348
    • View Profile
Re: Why the opposition to pacifism?
« Reply #217 on: November 19, 2010, 08:03:50 PM »

"absolute refusal to use force under any circumstances"
has nothing to do with
"it either requires everybody to submit to violence by those who lack the moral capacity to choose nonviolence "

I am open to the possibilty that we are talking about different things though.
Logged
Peace isn't loving your neighbor, peace is simply not killing them.

MacFall

  • Agorist
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2295
  • No king but Christ; no law but liberty!
    • View Profile
Re: Why the opposition to pacifism?
« Reply #218 on: November 19, 2010, 08:42:54 PM »

What else could it mean? You can't run away all the time; sometimes you have to sleep. Living in a castle or a labyrinth, or a property that is 100% protected by passive security measures (which would still have to keep your attacker from harm in order to be consistent) is prohibitively expensive. There's nothing left but either submission, or resistance.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2010, 08:44:47 PM by MacFall »
Logged
I am an anarchist! HOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15]   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Rubber Room - Not Safe for Work
| | |-+  Why the opposition to pacifism?

// ]]>

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 32 queries.