A view on Pacifists.

[AzureWolf]

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.

[Ryanamur]

Very good article that those indeed point many good attributes of pacifism. I, personnally, am not a pacifist. I am a real-politicist (new word). I believe in the primacy of the interst of the state. In this perticular case, I'm a firm believer that war was the wrong response to the problem and will infact cause more problems in the long run. That's why I didn't support it. I also do believe that any terrorists should be killed on sight. Period.

Thanks Azure, well worth reading and a good response to claims that pacificism is evil...

------------------
I'm the Wanderer without a clan... I bring justice without favorism. Though you may not agree with it, my judgement is final... and inconsequential

[Fljotsdale]

Excellent article! Brilliant, in fact.
If EVERYONE were a pacifist there would be no war, no violence and probably no injustice of any kind as well. A state to be passionately desired, imo.
However, since everyone is NOT a pacifist, we DO need to protect ourselves, just as we do against burglary, rape, or any other crime.
But protection, imo, should not take the form of aggression, especially when the aggression also kills/damages the innocent.
People who take damage (or even lose their lives) to protect or save others are heroes. That is why soldiers are respected - they are willing to put their lives on the line for their country, so they are heroic.
But other people also put their lives on the line, without any aggression at all: people who save someone from drowning, people who rescue others from dangerous buildings/areas (like the WTC) and lose their own lives doing so, people who stand up and say 'this is wrong' when everyone disagrees so strongly that they have been imprisoned, tortured, mobbed or assassinated. Peaceful people are heroes too.
And peaceful people want to save this world from going into another world war. They want to save lives, not destroy them. They want justice not vengeance. They want the guilty brought to justice not the innocent killed as 'colateral damage'.
I'm not quite a pacifist, because I am living in a dangerous world, but I am as near pacifist as dammit is to swearing.

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


Here be Dragons!
Proud to be Dubbed Queen of the Illuminati by Diogenes.

"If I say something to you and it can be taken two ways, and one of those ways upsets you...I meant the other one."

What a nice discourse concerning the morals of pacifists and thier adversaries. I hope more people see through the vail of mis-understanding that obscures "pacifists" because of it?

I have some thoughts of my own...

I Agree: It is logic, not ego that dictates "if everyone were a pacifist we'd have no war".
But it's not that way, yet. Only an individual can freely choose non-violence. Until every individual chooses not to be violent, violence we will have. a person is not necessarily conditioned by expirience to have the degree of discipline and control over their emotions that enables someone to feel thier own violence but not share it towards another.(the action not the emotion, a fine line between anger and violence)

Its a mis-perseption that the moment you believe in and practice non-violence, that violence and anger just disappears. No, on the contrary. Every human being has violence and anger to manage. Human beings have violence to manage collectively, as well. Learning how to control and hold my own feelings from manifesting as violent actions, and channeling those feelings into constructive, conscience actions is central to why I call myself a pacifist and a better person than before. I really cant blame or judge people for thier nature, for it is my own as well, even if it happens to include violence.

It can be easy to be violent, but so difficult, sometimes, to be peacful.

"The difficult way for freedom is on the road to heaven, for we CAN have peace like heaven on earth."
Unknown


[This message has been edited by G'kar (edited 10-26-2001).]

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by G'kar: What a nice discourse concerning the morals of pacifists and thier adversaries. I hope more people see through the vail of mis-understanding that obscures "pacifists" because of it? I have some thoughts of my own... I Agree: It is logic, not ego that dictates "if everyone were a pacifist we'd have no war". But it's not that way, yet. Only an individual can freely choose non-violence. Until every individual chooses not to be violent, violence we will have. a person is not necessarily conditioned by expirience to have the degree of discipline and control over their emotions that enables someone to feel thier own violence but not share it towards another.(the action not the emotion, a fine line between anger and violence) Its a mis-perseption that the moment you believe in and practice non-violence, that violence and anger just disappears. No, on the contrary. Every human being has violence and anger to manage. Human beings have violence to manage collectively, as well. Learning how to control and hold my own feelings from manifesting as violent actions, and channeling those feelings into constructive, conscience actions is central to why I call myself a pacifist and a better person than before. I really cant blame or judge people for thier nature, for it is my own as well, even if it happens to include violence. It can be easy to be violent, but so difficult, sometimes, to be peacful. "The difficult way for freedom is on the road to heaven, for we CAN have peace like heaven on earth." Unknown [This message has been edited by G'kar (edited 10-26-2001).]

I agree, G'kar. Controlling anger is the key, not losing anger.
We actually need anger - controlled anger - to motivate us, just as much as we need love. They are a combination that can overcome injustice of all sorts. Without anger and love we would just be intelligent vegetables.

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


Here be Dragons!
Proud to be Dubbed Queen of the Illuminati by Diogenes.

"If I say something to you and it can be taken two ways, and one of those ways upsets you...I meant the other one."

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: I agree, G'kar. Controlling anger is the key, not losing anger. We actually need anger - controlled anger - to motivate us, just as much as we need love. They are a combination that can overcome injustice of all sorts. Without anger and love we would just be intelligent vegetables.

Your on a roll, Fljotsdale

If I did turn out to be an intelligent vegtable, I could only hope to be a sweet potato

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by G'kar: Your on a roll, Fljotsdale If I did turn out to be an intelligent vegtable, I could only hope to be a sweet potato

LOL! What vegetable would I be...? Hm. Old sour rhubarb, I think. So nothing would eat me, lol!

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


Here be Dragons!
Proud to be Dubbed Queen of the Illuminati by Diogenes.

"If I say something to you and it can be taken two ways, and one of those ways upsets you...I meant the other one."

[AzureWolf]

A bump for my opinons. And you dont have to be pro-pacifist to post in here people

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

"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.