Pacifism, is it now a dirty word in the US of A?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, to absolute opposition to the use of violence, or even force, under any circumstances.

Pacifism may be based on principle or pragmatism. Principled (or Deontological) pacifism is based on beliefs that either war, deliberate lethal force, violence or any force or coercion is morally wrong. Pragmatic (or Consequential) pacifism does not hold to such an absolute principle but considers there to be better ways of resolving a dispute than war or considers the benefits of a war to be outweighed by the costs.

I became a pacifist in 1964. I knew a few other pacifists (mostly Amish) and it was not considered dishonorable at the time (except to Archie Bunker) but it seems to me that the US of A no longer recognises the valdity of pacifism as a personal ethical code of conduct. I guess it's a good thing I am getting on in years devoting my thoughts to gardening and the Lady Diane, the Sally dog and the Fred Parrot. I do, however, find it a sad state of affairs when other thoughts and other rooms are disallowed by the unwashed masses of bigotry and violence, by money and guns, by oil and McMansions, by greed. Forgive them father for they know not what they do.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,810 • Replies: 58

No top replies

"Pacifism" has not been a dirty word in Vietnam or Iraq. The neocon's only challenge is the liberal's quick withdrawal of our troops to save everybody's lives while reducing the recruitment of suicide bombers.

It's "stay the course" while the generals plan a withdrawal of our troops later this year and next - even though the Iraqi government has not yet asked us to leave, and there is termoil in the ranks of the Iraqi army/police that continue to kill each other and torture prisoners - like any democracy.

0 Replies

With as many supposed Christians lurking about the White House for the past six years one would assume that pacifism would be the leading edge of this nation's foreign policy by now, but so far, not so much.

Out in the Osage, or east of there in Pottawatomi County, while riding my bicycle past Mennonite farm after neat, tidy, clean Mennonite farm, I stopped many times to have a drink of water (and twice a piece of apple pie which cannot be described). The People (they get a capital P in my book) liked looking over my machine and had good questions about the efficiency of slender tires vs. fatter ones, side pull brakes vs. the then newer center pull ones.

They were embarrassed by my short sleeved jersey and my skin-tight bicycle shorts. After I had talked to a few I always started a conversation by apologizing for my attire and, if I was invited to a home, asked for and was given something to cover my nakedness.

In those spare rooms, holding glasses of cold tea, the People would explain how the wars raging around the planet would end if all humanity would accept pacifism as a creed. The heat of anger would be become as cool as the glasses in our hands. I was always struck by both the simplicity of the idea and the bravery it would take to express such thoughts to a stranger.

Nodding, nodding, I would mount my bicycle and ride out down the lane, much fuller of hope for the world, much fuller of apple pie and homemade cheese, much fuller of the real reason Christ ought to be more evident in the world, but then I'd bump and thump across the cattle guard and turn homeward down the highway and slowly that music would fade.

This was years ago. Nothing has changed. What is wrong with us?

Joe (what IS wrong with me) Nation

0 Replies

I have noted with dismay the falling out of fashion of pacifism, beginning in the late stages of the Vietnam era and progressively moving that way since. America has become more pugnacious than ever, more unforgiving. It is fashionable to spend billions at war defeating percieved enemies, while stoutly maintaining we don't have the resources to afford to work for peace.

0 Replies

Amen, Edgar.

Are there any true pacifists left, other than the Mennonites? How many of us ever think about pacifism and the courage it takes to stand up for one's beliefs?

Yeah, Joe, the Mennonites are so right, but no one ever listens long enough to try finding peaceful solutions; in fact, how many of us have ever heard or read anything about the Mennonites? You were truly fortunate to have made contact with them.

0 Replies

I don't think so. I think most everyone still uniformly respects the beliefs of the Amish and other true believers in Pacifism. At the same time; I think too many far more moderate Liberals hide behind the Pacifist ideals, only when it suits them. This is (one reason) why I think "Liberalism" has become a dirty word in certain circles... but I don't think Pacifism has.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

With as many supposed Christians lurking about the White House for the past six years one would assume that pacifism would be the leading edge of this nation's foreign policy by now, but so far, not so much.

Out in the Osage, or east of there in Pottawatomi County, while riding my bicycle past Mennonite farm after neat, tidy, clean Mennonite farm, I stopped many times to have a drink of water (and twice a piece of apple pie which cannot be described). The People (they get a capital P in my book) liked looking over my machine and had good questions about the efficiency of slender tires vs. fatter ones, side pull brakes vs. the then newer center pull ones.

They were embarrassed by my short sleeved jersey and my skin-tight bicycle shorts. After I had talked to a few I always started a conversation by apologizing for my attire and, if I was invited to a home, asked for and was given something to cover my nakedness.

In those spare rooms, holding glasses of cold tea, the People would explain how the wars raging around the planet would end if all humanity would accept pacifism as a creed. The heat of anger would be become as cool as the glasses in our hands. I was always struck by both the simplicity of the idea and the bravery it would take to express such thoughts to a stranger.

Nodding, nodding, I would mount my bicycle and ride out down the lane, much fuller of hope for the world, much fuller of apple pie and homemade cheese, much fuller of the real reason Christ ought to be more evident in the world, but then I'd bump and thump across the cattle guard and turn homeward down the highway and slowly that music would fade.

This was years ago. Nothing has changed. What is wrong with us?

Joe (what IS wrong with me) Nation

Yeah...I have never worked out how so many "christians" can be so aggressively pro war.....

From an outsider viewpoint, the US appears a quite militaristic and militarily aggressive culture, speaking broadly.

I had not received an impression that pacifism ever went over well in the US...so I aminterested that some of you perceive a real change.

I mean, this administration is especially sabre rattling...but still I am surprised that such a difference is perceivable internally.

0 Replies

i'll start with a disclaimer that i know precious little about mennonites, so if i make errors, i'd appreciate a correction. i think an ethos of total nonresistance is admirable. however, the ultimate rationale for it seems to be that by emulating Christ, one will be rewarded in the afterlife. but if a mennonite comes across a crime in progress, my understanding is that he or she can only admonish the attackers to halt, and if that fails, perhaps he or she can call the police, although i'm not even certain if that's allowed. if the crime victim is not a pacifist, however, not doing everything possible to aid the victim strikes me as morally wanting.

0 Replies

Yitwail makes sense here.

I am somewhere between the described pragmatic pacifist and the principled one. I have some primers for that. I understand reasons to war, and reasons to hold back. I think that presently the rush to war is the world keynote, and is amost entirely bullshit. I am not sanguine as I understand in time the leading economic reasons for much war, and the leading economic reasons for keeping war rattles happening. Not that all of the impetus for war is economic... more that world theater is the display resting on thickets of glancings.

0 Replies

Also, Diane, I am long a pacifist, and you ask if there are any true ones. Look in your neighborhood. We do not all belong to sects, or even groups.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I don't think so. I think most everyone still uniformly respects the beliefs of the Amish and other true believers in Pacifism. At the same time; I think too many far more moderate Liberals hide behind the Pacifist ideals, only when it suits them. This is (one reason) why I think "Liberalism" has become a dirty word in certain circles... but I don't think Pacifism has.

Could you give us a few examples, Bill? (to the bit of your post I've italicized.) I'm not exactly sure what you mean here.

0 Replies

The world needs pacifists. However, there will always be a need for us other guys. How many people died during non-violent movements?! A lot.

America could use more pacifists. Or even better: international concern and understanding. Some stick may be necessarily. The balance is simply off.

Perhaps (ok, most definetly) my view is slanted. I don't feel the problem is violence so much as greed.

Also, JoeNation's story was beautiful. Joe, you have a way with words.
However, I feel that is a glamorized version of Mennonites. Very romantic - but my experience is otherwise.

Mennonites here in Canada would not fight in the wars. Many sects will not support violent means or involvement in conflict: at what price?!
The issue is deeper.

I've had many discussions with Mennonites that gave me the distinct impression of a priveledged lot. They garner the freedoms fought for - came to Canada for peace and freedom of religion and expression, have land and communities - yet contribute nothing to preserving that peace.
These are my personal feelings. To me; it feels like "We want what you have, but we are going to disagree with it vocally and fight it internally".
It's like a spoiled kid. In other circumstances - they would be slaughtered!

Pacifism does not work in all circumstances. It simply doesn't. It only works where there is some grain of belief in non-violent resolution, some principles of peace, some degree of value in human life.

Interesting topic.

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I don't think so. I think most everyone still uniformly respects the beliefs of the Amish and other true believers in Pacifism. At the same time; I think too many far more moderate Liberals hide behind the Pacifist ideals, only when it suits them. This is (one reason) why I think "Liberalism" has become a dirty word in certain circles... but I don't think Pacifism has.

Could you give us a few examples, Bill? (to the bit of your post I've italicized.) I'm not exactly sure what you mean here.

I've had a few beers tonight, so I don't know how well I can articulate my thoughts, but I'll try.

I have always had mad respect for the man who can truly turn the other cheek. That's quite a thing, that. I don't mean the coward who sees wrong and is paralyzed into inaction until someone like me acts... I mean the man who truly is incapable of violence. That may very well have been Jesus... and that is a beautiful thing.

I believe my stepfather is such a man... or was meant to be... but Vietnam changed that... though only briefly. The man has been plagued by what he had to do then... and pretty much has been ever since. Big, strong man who has never, ever, been in a fight in his whole life outside of that experience. I doubt he ever would have... or will be again.

My best friend in the whole world, too, has never been in a fight. He's a bigger man than I, but I've always jumped in front of him before the proverbial sh!t hit the fan. The one time I know of, when I wasn't there, he called me with a terrible feeling of guilt that he wasn't capable of violence when a situation called for it... Actually that's come up twice. Both times, I did my damnedest to let him know the truth; that's part of what makes him the better man than me. And make no mistake; he is the better man. Anything ya'll might like about me, probably rubbed off of him.

That's probably too much background info for an answer, sorry. Like I said, I've had a few...

The italicized portion refers to those who mostly disagree with our (the US's) current actions... who aren't necessarily against action... just against this action or that. The majority, or so it seems to me, who are against this war or that aren't necessarily against all war... just those they view as unjust. This isn't a true Pacifist's point of view. My stepfather believed in the righteousness of Vietnam, but would, could, never have volunteered for it because he is a natural pacifist. Entirely too often, IMO, Liberals (who I'll remind ya'll for the zillionth time are people I respect and a few are my favorite people in the whole world) play the "Pacifist" card when the simple truth is that they believe we're wrong in this offensive or that. Since the majority would support a just War, like that against a "Hitler", reaching for the "Pacifist" card is as disingenuous as the Nazi calling for Nationalism.

I'll continue to respect Liberals and Pacifists alike for various reasons, but I can not accept that the Liberal who claims Pacifist reasoning when it's convenient, but not ALWAYS... has any respect coming for his/her Pacifism. That just doesn't add up.

0 Replies

OB, interesting point you raised, that some people are pacifist by nature. and that both examples you gave were men. it's something i've never givn thought to until now, but i presume women are more likely to be pacifist by nature. just to clarify this, do you still think it possible for someone who is not a pacifist by nature, to become one through conviction & self-discipline?

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

OB, interesting point you raised, that some people are pacifist by nature. and that both examples you gave were men. it's something i've never givn thought to until now, but i presume women are more likely to be pacifist by nature. just to clarify this, do you still think it possible for someone who is not a pacifist by nature, to become one through conviction & self-discipline?

Absolutely. But it's more self-discipline than I could ever muster. Also, I would agree that women are more likely to be pacifist by nature.

0 Replies

Some interesting posts since last night that made me take another look at what I had written.

Jo, I wasn't speaking in terms of all pacifists being members of a sect; just that I valued the Mennonite belief in peace, in negotiated settlements instead of war. Now that flushd has posted, I have to give some thought to that sect, since I really know nothing about them except for the fact that they are pacifists.

If a pacifist is a citizen of a country, don't they deserve the save rights as the others? It is a philosophy, not an excuse, at least as far as true pacifists are concerned. My stepfather told me that during WWII, pacifists took up where they could, farming, helping in factories, etc.

It's what Occum Bill was saying about his friend. A great human being who can't engage in violence. If people don't live by their beliefs, thier lives would be meaningless. Moral courage is the toughest of all.

Even though I abhor war, I can understand how wars begin and why a friendly nation will intervene if they are desparately needed or if they are being attacked (not if they think they might be attacked) and certainly not for purposes of gaining power and wealth, but if more effort were put into negotiations, the 'need' for most wars would disappear. It's those needs that are covers for greed that brings out the call for violence.

The basic reason for pacifism on my part is the bestiality it brings out in otherwise 'normal' people (if there is such a thing as normal). As soon as this war started, I wondered when the first incidence of abuse would take place. It is inevitable in war. Violence and killing take over rational thought, the human brain can't keep following the mores of society when violence defines their world. And as soon as that first act of brutality takes place, the people involved will never be the same. They will never be able to go back to being the same man or woman they were before the war. Thankfully, there are only a few who will take part, who aren't strong enough to take a stand and refuse to be part of something so extreme. Thank heaven these people are in the minority, but for most, even being exposed to inhumane treatment of others and to the general insanity of war, they will become tainted somehow. An example is all the soldiers who suffered emotional problems, sometimes for years, after a war. Most of them didn't do anything outside the rules of war, but just being a part of that world of brutality has maimed them both physically and emotionally. That, to me, is the greatest sin of war.

0 Replies

Reading Tolstoy's "The Kingdom of God is Within You" was an eye-opener for me in regards to trying to understand true pacifism and Christianity. According to Tolstoy, the only true Christians are those who refuse participation in conflict, such as the Quakers and Mennonites. He goes so far as to state that true Christians would refuse to pay taxes to a government that supports a military. Interesting, indeed, and raises a point such as flushd has stated.

"True pacifists" benefit from the protections offered them by being citizens of a country that respects their pacifism. And yet, some would go so far as to refuse to financially support the government that protects their freedoms.

Should a 'free society' that guarantees freedom of religion excuse true pacifists from financially supporting a military?

Tolstoy - The Kingdom of God is Within You

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I don't think so. I think most everyone still uniformly respects the beliefs of the Amish and other true believers in Pacifism. At the same time; I think too many far more moderate Liberals hide behind the Pacifist ideals, only when it suits them. This is (one reason) why I think "Liberalism" has become a dirty word in certain circles... but I don't think Pacifism has.

Horsie poop . . . for that to be credible, you'd have to be able to show a pattern of "moderate liberals" (however you intend to define that) supporting wars for ideological reasons while opposing other wars for ideological reasons. I doubt that you can do that.

Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge were the radical young Republicans of their age (roughly, 1880-1920). They believed in what was then called "a forward policy," which envisioned the United States projecting its military might in the world. They were considered dangerous radicals. The war fever fanned by Pulitzer and Hearst in 1898 was called yellow journalism, and conservative republicans, President McKinely most notably, were opposed to war with Spain.

After the war, Roosevelt became Governor of New York, much to the dismay of Thomas Platt, the Republican Boss of New York. Platt worked hard, and created a sensation with his coup over Mark Hanna, getting Roosevelt "kicked upstairs" with the Vice Presidential nomination in 1900. Of course, no one foresaw the assassination of McKinely, and Roosevelt's succession, and his subsequent reelection were seen as disasters by moderate and conservative Republicans as well as Democrats. When William Howard Taft succeeded Roosevelt, as his picked successor, Roosevelt saw his moderate policies and reaching out to the conservative wing of the party as betrayal--his decision to run against Taft in 1912 assured Wilson's election.

Republican or Democrat, the rank and file of American political parties were opposed to overseas "adventurism," and had looked askance at Roosevelt's "Great White Fleet," and the chicanery which accompanied the "revolution" in Panama, and the recognition of that province of Columbia as an independent nation, ready to negotiate the construction of an isthmian canal. Wilson was reelected in 1916 on a slogan that he had kept the U.S. out of the European war. Republicans might have supported Wilson's proposal for the League of Nations if he had made an effort to meet them half way, but he didn't, and Republicans blocked U.S. participation with satisfaction, and used the fact for political credentials in their subsequent campaigns.

Isolationism and opposition to foreign wars is deeply engrained in the American political psyche. Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, the long tradition of the Americans in to "avoid foreign entanglements" as Washington advised, and to keep out of "European quarrels" and foreign military adventure.

I'd expand on this even more, but the Sweetiepie Girl is waiting for me, and growing impatient.

0 Replies

Quoting Diane,
"Are there any true pacifists left, other than the Mennonites? How many of us ever think about pacifism and the courage it takes to stand up for one's beliefs?"

I think of pacifism often, at least once a day, usually in the context of efforts not being made in the larger world. I don't know how true I am. I just am. I'm not courageous, as it happens. I think if more people inclined to pacifism in high places much could be worked out to forestall the dropping of countless bombs. J don't equate pacifism with giving away the store: instead I think the tendency toward bellicosity has driven too much of the military action in our dealings with others.

0 Replies

J_B wrote:
Reading Tolstoy's "The Kingdom of God is Within You" was an eye-opener for me in regards to trying to understand true pacifism and Christianity. According to Tolstoy, the only true Christians are those who refuse participation in conflict, such as the Quakers and Mennonites. He goes so far as to state that true Christians would refuse to pay taxes to a government that supports a military. Interesting, indeed, and raises a point such as flushd has stated.

Those are ideals that will never happen - ever. All we need to do is look at the world today and in the past and see that most leaders of the world belong to one "christian" religion or another. Most citizens would not dare not paying their taxes for fear of going to prison and breaking the laws of their respectdive country. Those are sentiments only possible in fables.

0 Replies

Pacifism, is it now a dirty word in the US of A?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know