Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

AzureWolf · 10-26-2001, 03:14 AM

I thought this article was a good descriptions of what I and other pacifists stand for and thought I would get your opinions on it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 2, 2001

UD FACULTY OFFER REBUTTAL TO COLUMNIST'S CLAIM
THAT PACIFISM IMPLIES EVIL, PRO-TERRORISM STANCE

Michael Kelly, in his opinion piece in the Dayton Daily News on Sept. 26, 2001, charges that: Pacifists are pro-terrorist. Pacifism is immoral. Pacifism is evil -- at least when one's nation has been attacked.
To level a charge so grave against one's fellow citizens requires, at the least, that it be made responsibly and backed with strong evidence. Does Mr. Kelly do so? He does not. Instead he presents essentially a personal attack. To him pacifists are "not serious people," they are "hopelessly naive," and dishonest, in addition to being pro-terrorist, evil and immoral. Adjectives substitute for argument. Instead of engaging their reasoning, he writes pacifists off, patronizingly and viciously at once.

His position shows its own lack of seriousness by oversimplifying a situation that is in reality stupefyingly complex. He belittles those familiar with the complexities of global politics who responsibly question whether war is prudent at this time. He reduces pacifism, a complex movement rooted deeply in religious traditions that reject the principle of "an eye for an eye," to a single claim. In doing so, he sets up a straw figure. It remains to be seen how much the current "war" on terrorism will resemble the moral clarity of the Second World War. In the meantime, Kelly's analogies to the Nazis and to the bombing of Britain overlook significant differences between then and now, and so obscure more than they reveal.

Kelly's "implacable logic" dissolves upon even superficial analysis. "Organized terrorist groups," he writes, "have attacked America." This is a fact, but "These groups wish the Americans not to fight" is a false premise. As many have argued, it is equally if not more likely the attackers wished to provoke a disproportionate military response that would unite Muslims in a holy war against the great Infidel. He continues, "If the Americans do not fight, the terrorists will attack again." This is an arguable premise. If the U.S. does attack, as Secretary Rumsfeld has recently suggested, the terrorist attacks may be more likely to attack, for their network is so dispersed that no conceivable military action is likely to dismantle it, and they will feel that their actions are further justified.

His conclusion that pacifists are "objectively pro-terrorist," therefore, does not follow. Were a rejoinder to follow Mr. Kelly's own rules, it might argue that, in fact, he himself has staked out an objectively pro-terrorist position by fomenting the sort of hatred of others that fuels their practices of destruction, and by advocating the sort of U.S. military response that the terrorists more likely desired.

As to the morality of pacifism: Morality has classically been understood in at least three ways. First, moral practices are those that seek to achieve goals considered good in themselves, such as life, friendship and truth. Second, moral practices are those that abide by certain principles. Medicine, for example, requires physicians not to breach confidentiality. Third, moral practices seek the development of character, encouraging individuals and communities to become people who practice virtues such as hope, honesty and fidelity. An ideal moral practice would combine all three: It would aim to create particular sorts of people who seek a goal good in itself by following principles of proper conduct in a virtuous fashion.

By any of these measures, pacifists must be considered moral. In the current situation, pacifists seek the ends of justice, peace and truth rather than revenge or retribution. Pacifists take seriously principles that proclaim the sanctity of human life -- be it American or Afghani or enemy -- and moral rules such as "thou shalt not kill."

Pacifists do not reject resisting terrorism. They do not reject protecting U.S. citizens against future attacks. They seek to bring the perpetrators to justice, to have them brought before the bar of international law, rather than simply seeking their annihilation. They practice the virtues of patience, moderation and prudent discernment, asking whether war is the proper response in this situation, seeking to create alternatives that will achieve the goals of justice and peace.

Is pacifism evil? In this situation, a great evil has been committed against thousands of innocent people. The question is whether we will allow that evil to change who we are. Will we allow it to turn us into the sorts of people who likewise kill the innocent in the name of some higher good? Or will we instead seek to resist evil's attempts to undermine who we are and what we do, remaining instead people of virtue who seek concrete ways to bring evil to an end? This, not Mr. Kelly's spite-filled caricature, is the pacifist's position, and it is our only real hope.

This op-ed piece was submitted to the Dayton Daily News by University of Dayton faculty members: Una M. Cadegan, associate professor of history; Ellen L. Fleischmann, assistant professor of history; Brad J. Kallenberg, assistant professor of religious studies; M. Therese Lysaught, associate professor of religious studies; R. Kurt Mosser, associate professor of philosophy; William Vance Trollinger Jr., associate professor of history; and Sandra Yocum Mize, associate professor of religious studies.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any thoughts to share on this? Like to know your opinions.

------------------

"I was born of darkness. My fathers eyes closed before mine opened. I am not of this world or the other, and I have the right to be what I am..."

Overlord of all that I behold and anything that i happen to not notice either.

Founding Hamlet of the HADB.

10-26-2001, 03:14 AM	#1
AzureWolf 20th Level Warrior Join Date: May 3, 2001 Location: . Age: 42 Posts: 2,762	I thought this article was a good descriptions of what I and other pacifists stand for and thought I would get your opinions on it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oct. 2, 2001 UD FACULTY OFFER REBUTTAL TO COLUMNIST'S CLAIM THAT PACIFISM IMPLIES EVIL, PRO-TERRORISM STANCE Michael Kelly, in his opinion piece in the Dayton Daily News on Sept. 26, 2001, charges that: Pacifists are pro-terrorist. Pacifism is immoral. Pacifism is evil -- at least when one's nation has been attacked. To level a charge so grave against one's fellow citizens requires, at the least, that it be made responsibly and backed with strong evidence. Does Mr. Kelly do so? He does not. Instead he presents essentially a personal attack. To him pacifists are "not serious people," they are "hopelessly naive," and dishonest, in addition to being pro-terrorist, evil and immoral. Adjectives substitute for argument. Instead of engaging their reasoning, he writes pacifists off, patronizingly and viciously at once. His position shows its own lack of seriousness by oversimplifying a situation that is in reality stupefyingly complex. He belittles those familiar with the complexities of global politics who responsibly question whether war is prudent at this time. He reduces pacifism, a complex movement rooted deeply in religious traditions that reject the principle of "an eye for an eye," to a single claim. In doing so, he sets up a straw figure. It remains to be seen how much the current "war" on terrorism will resemble the moral clarity of the Second World War. In the meantime, Kelly's analogies to the Nazis and to the bombing of Britain overlook significant differences between then and now, and so obscure more than they reveal. Kelly's "implacable logic" dissolves upon even superficial analysis. "Organized terrorist groups," he writes, "have attacked America." This is a fact, but "These groups wish the Americans not to fight" is a false premise. As many have argued, it is equally if not more likely the attackers wished to provoke a disproportionate military response that would unite Muslims in a holy war against the great Infidel. He continues, "If the Americans do not fight, the terrorists will attack again." This is an arguable premise. If the U.S. does attack, as Secretary Rumsfeld has recently suggested, the terrorist attacks may be more likely to attack, for their network is so dispersed that no conceivable military action is likely to dismantle it, and they will feel that their actions are further justified. His conclusion that pacifists are "objectively pro-terrorist," therefore, does not follow. Were a rejoinder to follow Mr. Kelly's own rules, it might argue that, in fact, he himself has staked out an objectively pro-terrorist position by fomenting the sort of hatred of others that fuels their practices of destruction, and by advocating the sort of U.S. military response that the terrorists more likely desired. As to the morality of pacifism: Morality has classically been understood in at least three ways. First, moral practices are those that seek to achieve goals considered good in themselves, such as life, friendship and truth. Second, moral practices are those that abide by certain principles. Medicine, for example, requires physicians not to breach confidentiality. Third, moral practices seek the development of character, encouraging individuals and communities to become people who practice virtues such as hope, honesty and fidelity. An ideal moral practice would combine all three: It would aim to create particular sorts of people who seek a goal good in itself by following principles of proper conduct in a virtuous fashion. By any of these measures, pacifists must be considered moral. In the current situation, pacifists seek the ends of justice, peace and truth rather than revenge or retribution. Pacifists take seriously principles that proclaim the sanctity of human life -- be it American or Afghani or enemy -- and moral rules such as "thou shalt not kill." Pacifists do not reject resisting terrorism. They do not reject protecting U.S. citizens against future attacks. They seek to bring the perpetrators to justice, to have them brought before the bar of international law, rather than simply seeking their annihilation. They practice the virtues of patience, moderation and prudent discernment, asking whether war is the proper response in this situation, seeking to create alternatives that will achieve the goals of justice and peace. Is pacifism evil? In this situation, a great evil has been committed against thousands of innocent people. The question is whether we will allow that evil to change who we are. Will we allow it to turn us into the sorts of people who likewise kill the innocent in the name of some higher good? Or will we instead seek to resist evil's attempts to undermine who we are and what we do, remaining instead people of virtue who seek concrete ways to bring evil to an end? This, not Mr. Kelly's spite-filled caricature, is the pacifist's position, and it is our only real hope. This op-ed piece was submitted to the Dayton Daily News by University of Dayton faculty members: Una M. Cadegan, associate professor of history; Ellen L. Fleischmann, assistant professor of history; Brad J. Kallenberg, assistant professor of religious studies; M. Therese Lysaught, associate professor of religious studies; R. Kurt Mosser, associate professor of philosophy; William Vance Trollinger Jr., associate professor of history; and Sandra Yocum Mize, associate professor of religious studies. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Any thoughts to share on this? Like to know your opinions. ------------------ "I was born of darkness. My fathers eyes closed before mine opened. I am not of this world or the other, and I have the right to be what I am..." Overlord of all that I behold and anything that i happen to not notice either. Founding Hamlet of the HADB.