0
   

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

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jul, 2006 08:55 pm
Disturbingly enough, I am with Bill on this one.

I think few people are actually pacifists, although I was surprised to see the definition appears to be broader than I thought it was:

Pacifism

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, in any circumstance.
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 actually thought that one had to meet the definition of Deontological pacifism to be considered a pacifist...so there you go.

Quite an interesting article at Wiki:

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

Anyhoo, I think very few are pacifists.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jul, 2006 09:02 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
But, as the righties will continue to tell us, "we" voted for this president and congress into office, and "they" represent the citizens of this country. "That" is our voice - so they tell us.


And they'd be absolutely correct in that if 100% of the eligible voters actually voted for them!
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jul, 2006 09:12 pm
dlowan wrote:
Anyhoo, I think very few are pacifists.


That's probably correct, if we're going by a strict definition of the term.

My personal leaning is a strong preference for peaceful rather than violent resolution of conflict, whenever humanly possible. A long way short of ideal, I know.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jul, 2006 09:13 pm
msolga, It's never 100 percent for any president or congress. It just requires a electoral vote majority in the US. With the questionable ballots and denial of black votings in several districts in Florida, and the supreme court interference, we must wonder if Bush really won - legally.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jul, 2006 09:17 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
msolga, It's never 100 percent for any president or congress. It just requires a electoral vote majority in the US. With the questionable ballots and denial of black votings in several districts in Florida, and the supreme court interference, we must wonder if Bush really won - legally.


Isn't it time to accept the results and get on with your life?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jul, 2006 09:19 pm
Not if there is any possibility for a repeat of 2004, and the electronic voting machines are still not fraud proof.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jul, 2006 09:21 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
msolga, It's never 100 percent for any president or congress.


I know, I know, c.i.!
Even in Oz, where voting is compulsory, a 100% vote is an impossible achievement! And as if all voters would vote for the one party! Impossible!
I was supporting your argument.
Perhaps my intended meaning might have been more clear if I'd put a :wink: at the end of my post!

:wink:
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jul, 2006 10:19 pm
msolga, No sweat; I'm slow on the uptake most times, and my responses are "off the top" without much consideration for its various meanings.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jul, 2006 10:27 pm
No problem, c.i. Very Happy
Just a bit of cultural misunderstanding. It happens often! Sometimes I feel like I'm speaking another language entirely! :wink:
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jul, 2006 11:04 pm
I have made two, no three attempts to bookmark this, accompanied by a comment or two. I know what I want to say, but I am nowhere near as smart as yall are. I'll have to work on it.
Somehow it involved the notion that there are no atheists in foxholes. A decline in pacifism, is there is one, may relate to how, until recently, how sanitized war had become. It was nothing personal for most of us. But now the kid next door goes off, not drafted but having enlisted, and he comes home dead.
This isn't a political thread and I don't mean to make it one.

But I guess that is where I hit a wall. I am a liberal. Probably one of the most liberal here on A2K. And I reckon I am a pacifist. The problem that I have is where the notion of pacifism meets the reality of the world.

In the 1960's we put flowers in our hair and in the gun barrels of the soldiers watching us. We were pacifists (peace activists).

And that where I am going to leave this. Vietnam went away, the draft went away. And we got fat and happy. But boiling below the surface,,,
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jul, 2006 04:11 am
dlowan wrote:
Disturbingly enough, I am with Bill on this one.

A rare pleasure indeed. When this happens, call your bookie and take any odds less than 20 to one we're right! Believe me; we must be. (Love you Deb :wink:)
0 Replies
 
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jul, 2006 04:36 am
Msolga, I think the article our beloved bunny linked to on Wikipedia gives a clear explanation of why I feel many people claim to be paicifsts, but actually aren't.

Quote:

This suggests that many who advocate "non-violence" or pacifism, especially political parties that participate in government, actually advocate what is more properly called de-escalation or even arms reduction (on a very large scale) rather than outright disarmament (which is advocated by many pacifists). Many outstanding pacifists of this sort have taken part in defensive military actions when their countries were attacked, but others prefer to leave their country if it is preparing for aggressive war (such as Germany in the 1930s). Clearly a party that writes and enforces law is not non-violent. It can be pacifist, however, by refusing participation in external conflicts, refusing to supply weapons, and sheltering refugees but not combatants. There are many definitions of such "pragmatic pacifism".


Also bear in mind, that the word pacifism is very fashionable. And thus bound to be used in ways that are not appropriate for the term.

Finally, while I usually try to steer clear of it, there's also Freud's Id.
Many may claim to be pacifists, but when they feel threatened see nothing wrong with applying violence to save themselves.

Naj
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jul, 2006 05:27 am
Re: Pacifism, is it now a dirty word in the US of A?
dyslexia wrote:
Pacifism, is it now a dirty word in the US of A?

After reading your question, I tried to remember the conservative attacks on liberals that I've heard over the last few years. As it turns out, I find very few attacks on principled pacifists; most of the attacks I do remember rely on the charge that liberals want to have it both ways. ("I voted for the war in Iraq before I voted against it".)

So, based on my limited knowledge, my answer to your question would be I don't think so.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jul, 2006 05:50 am
Many interesting responses and I thank those here who have responded. I would note that several posters (O'Bill and Thomas) have noted that one should judge the "sincerity" or "principled" of the purported pacifist in order to determine the value. I am somewhat puzzled as to how one could go about determining another's principles or sincerity. My personal feeling is that "pacifism" relates to acts of war rather than personal behavior but that's not really the point here.
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jul, 2006 05:06 pm
After reading Deb's link to the definition of pacifism, I better understand both sorts of pacifists.

While I never claimed to be a pacifist, I am a dove according to wickipedia. That belief isn't limited to war, but to all situations that may lead to violence.

On the issue of guns there is often a misunderstanding. In the West, guns are considered tools--even Dys hunted most of the meat he and his (then) wife ate during college.

Both of us came from pioneer families whose livlihoods depended on guns and hunting. That tradition has continued and it is nothing like the violence in major cities like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles.

When I read of the death of a baby who was shot and killed while in his crib, by a bullet that came through the wall of his house, of course I wanted all the guns off the street immediately. But western ranchers and farmers are not the ones in gangs using their guns to shoot other people.

I went off on this tangent to point out that issues can become muddied by misconceptions. The real problems need to be targeted in order to make any meaningful changes.

I think I once shocked Thomas by saying that I felt all gangs should have membership requirements that included accurate shooting skills. Then they would really shoot each other and not innocent bystanders. That takes me off the pacifist list in a big way, but I'm still a dove.

Besides, Dys won't tell me where he keeps the ammo.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jul, 2006 05:43 pm
I don't know who voted for the Iraq war before they voted against it. since it wasn't me, I can't get into that. I would have allowed myself to be drafted into WWII, against my will and better judgement, but I have been reluctant to endorse anything since. I endorsed the original fight against Bin Laden, because it was the only option we were being allowed. [Little did I know, Bush wasn't sincere about that one]. The other action I supported was the Clinton air campaign in the former Yugoslavia. [Mass murder was being committed]. In all instances, if statesmen had worked it correctly, all the killing would not be necessary.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jul, 2006 06:03 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Many interesting responses and I thank those here who have responded. I would note that several posters (O'Bill and Thomas) have noted that one should judge the "sincerity" or "principled" of the purported pacifist in order to determine the value. I am somewhat puzzled as to how one could go about determining another's principles or sincerity. My personal feeling is that "pacifism" relates to acts of war rather than personal behavior but that's not really the point here.
Not following you here Dys. Neither Thomas nor I noted any such thing. We both answered your original question, No, pacifism hasn't become a dirty word.

As to defining pacifist; I think one must at the very least refrain from endorsing any war to earn the title. Otherwise, you just lean pacifist. Kind of like claiming abstinence, because you only fool around a little. Doesn't fit. Dove doesn't sound as appealing or commendable, necessarily, but I think it's the more accurate word for many commenters' positions.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jul, 2006 08:35 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
I endorsed the original fight against Bin Laden, because it was the only option we were being allowed. [Little did I know, Bush wasn't sincere about that one]. The other action I supported was the Clinton air campaign in the former Yugoslavia. [Mass murder was being committed]. In all instances, if statesmen had worked it correctly, all the killing would not be necessary.


edgar, i presume you're refering to the invasion of Afghanistan? i supported that one myself, but was afraid to say so, anticipating i'd get hammered for it. Embarrassed

but i'm skeptical that statesmanship could have prevented the bloodshed in the Balkans, it's not known as the powder keg of Europe for nothing. and the Taliban didn't seem to be the type to be swayed by statesmanship, either, but it's all academic now.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jul, 2006 08:46 pm
dlowan wrote:
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.

Joe (what IS wrong with me) Nation


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



I think it's because the christians see a lot of non-pacifist non-christians in the world that need to be killed before peace on earth can have any real chance. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe - Discussion by Relinquish
can we reconcile darkness in man with madness(lunacy) ? - Question by studentnorway
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
In the GRAND scheme of things, what matters? - Question by komr98
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
How can something come from nothing? - Question by ripple
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Pacifism, is it now a dirty word in the US of A?
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/08/2025 at 10:16:59
▲ ▼