Ethics: Are you a hawk or a dove?

Forums: Ethics, Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

A hawk is a person who believes in the necessity of military strength and therefore war.

A dove is a pacifist, believing that war does nothing but perpetuate violence and despair. The dove is willing to die rather than become a soldier.

Which are you? Please explain your position.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 9 • Views: 4,060 • Replies: 35

[+3] - cicerone imposter - 12/25/2015It depends on the circumstances.

@Tuna,

It depends on the circumstances.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

It depends on the circumstances.

In what circumstances would you be a dove?

1 Reply

@Tuna,

When I have the kind of security I now enjoy in this country. Younger folks have taken over serving in our military.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

When I have the kind of security I now enjoy in this country. Younger folks have taken over serving in our military.

You are a hawk.

1 Reply

@Tuna,

So, I take it, everybody who enjoys our security is a hawk.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

So, I take it, everybody who enjoys our security is a hawk.

Surely you know better than that. Accepting that young people are defending you is a hawkish stand. I asked when you are a dove.

Make some sense.

1 Reply

@Tuna,

Show me a dove?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism

1 Reply

Pacifism is a an aspect of western civilization.

2 Replies

@Tuna,

Quote:

"The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point.....

"But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other...

"but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States" (George Orwell, 1945)

Commies, in other words, eh?:

Quote:

“The mere words “socialism” and “communism” draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice-drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex maniac, Quaker, 'Nature cure' quack, pacifist and feminist in England.” (Orwell, 1937)

Not that there's anything wrong with nudists, of course.

0 Replies

@Tuna,

Tuna wrote:

A hawk is a person who believes in the necessity of military strength and therefore war.

A dove is a pacifist, believing that war does nothing but perpetuate violence and despair. The dove is willing to die rather than become a soldier.

Which are you? Please explain your position.

Quite honestly I am literally both...both principles have legitimate contexts wich apply. What do I mean ? Well normally herd group cooperation is more energy efficient but that said cunning brute force (old) Darwinism has its fair share of contextual utilities. So its not that simple to decide. If I had to use statistical behaviour instead I would recommend 90% of the time to opt for dove like action (Neo Darwinism). Abide with social rules and a civilized lawful state. That said don't be a fool. Learn to defend yourself and learn to compete. COMPETENCE requires it in this Universe as it naturally is.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

That applies to individuals as well as nations.

0 Replies

@Tuna,

I am neither. And I must quote Anscombe because she says it so well.

If you won't go to war when you see children being executed by ISIS you are as evil as they come (in my book)

==============
Pacifisim is history's greatest cowardice. Innocent babies, frail old people being tortured and murdered and the coward says "I am peaceful, too bad for them".

" In her essay on “War and Murder,” she [ G E M Anscombe ] defends the so-called Doctrine of Double Effect and rejects pacifism. Despite having such high standards that she opposed even the British fight against the Nazis, Anscombe stops short of all out pacifism because she thinks that one’s moral standards should be high but not too high. Pacifism calls for no use of violence ever, no matter what, which is an ideal that many people can claim to respect but that very few can live with. The result, as she sees it, is that they pay lip service to the ideal of pacifism, go to war anyway, and then see no reason to observe any restrictions whatever on how the war is fought. In this way pacifism actually does harm.

0 Replies

It ain't false dilemma day, is it?

2 Replies

@thack45,

Thack!!!!!

I, and probably many others have missed you.

2 Replies

@thack45,

Yes it is, look at your calendar.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

On the thread subject, I'll have to look back about the subject - the title sounds interesting at the least.

0 Replies

Ah, my memory is that people disagreed or had problems talking with Tuna.

I'm complicated and fairly well informed. I veer to dove, which is a near useless in international conversaations.

0 Replies

@Tuna,

Tuna wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism

Does it seem that pacifists are pacifists till the wind shifts in their direction. Then, they hoist the Jolly Roger.

0 Replies

Ethics: Are you a hawk or a dove?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know