Aggressive Paficism

[MA-Caver]

A while back (1984) I bought the newest book by (one of) my favorite Sci-fi authors; Alan Dean Foster, "Voyage To The City Of The Dead." A nifty read concerning the finding of an entirely new species of alien life-form.
There was a bit of philosophy in it that I found particularly appealing to my martial nature.
Fast-forward to the new century and having a conversation with a fellow Martial Artist and MT-er about the use of the skills that we've learned in our respective journey in MA. I paraphrased the philosophy to her and she liked it so much that she wanted the exact quotation.
Fast forward again to today and I roam around a used book-store and lo! there be the book in question. Buying it (wonderfully cheep for $0.50 ) and reading the book until I found the bit that I'd like to discuss here.
(yeah long bla bla intro but background I felt was necessary here).
Quick intro of the characters then I'll type the conversation verbatum... it's interesting and you'll see why.
Characters: Color coded so their conversation isn't mixed up too badly
Lyra (Human) research alien sociologist enraptured by the seeming pacifist society of the race she is studying now upset in finding out they have different views than originally thought
Etienne (Human) geologist also Lyra's research partner and exasperated husband
Tyl (alien race known as the Tsla) leader of a band of porters helping the humans and subject to the research and the discussion below
The Mai (alien race at odds with the Tsla).

Lyra looked uncomfortable. "It is my understanding that your society is a pacifistic one."
"Of course, that is true."
"Then how can you talk of gaining merit by fighting?"
"Like a storm or rock fall, a declared enemy is an agent of nature. As an enemy it removes itself from the considerations of civilization."
Etienne was enjoying his wife discomfiture enormously.
"But your enemy is acting in what he considers a civilized manner."
"He must be judged by civilized standards."
"You mean by Tsla standards."
"Naturally. You do not think that we would adopt the standards of the Mai?" He sounded politely outraged. "A truly civilized people instinctively knows what constitutes civilized behavior."
"Sounds like expediency to me."
"Not at all. Our moral standards are not nearly so flexible."
"Then you feel remorse when you kill an enemy?"
"Naturally. An enemy is one who freely abjured his soul. How else could we feel but sorry for him?"
"That wouldn't, however, have prevented you from killing every Mai in Hochac who opposed you?"
"No, it would not. By opposing us in the recovery of your property they would have demonstrated disregard for civilized behavior, thus removing themselves from consideration by those who adhere to such behavior. I see no contradiction in this."
"No, contradiction at all." He glanced at his wife. Lyra's note-taker was running and she didn't look up at Tyl. "Just wanted the point clarified."
"I thought," Lyra said quietly, "that the Tsla considered it sinful to kill."
"To kill any civilized person, yes, a terrible sin. But there is no moral restraint against defending oneself from the hostility of an uncivilized person any more than it is sinful to raise a roof to keep out the rain."
"All perfectly clear, " Etienne agreed. He was content. It was clear that his initial worries about the safety of the Tsla were unfounded. For all their vaunted pacifism they were quite capable of taking care of themselves should the need arise. Killing a civilized person is a sin. Anyone who assaults me is uncivilized. Very neat.

Now there has been discussion here in MT, a number of times in a number of different ways about the right and wrong in defense of one's self. The why's and wherefores of it all to hurt someone with the skills we Martial Artists have learned ... for the express purpose of defense of ourselves and our loved ones.
Here is a philosophy of the Tsla (a fictional alien race) that teaches the same ideals that mimic the Buddhist priests that started it all. Ok, never mind that it's sci-fi and never mind that it's a alien race that is holding this line of thought... it's the idea.
To hurt/kill someone civilized is a sin, a wrong, against the law (of our society). Anyone trying to hurt ME, a civilized person is uncivilized because they have chosen to abjure their right to civilized behavior as we deem in our (respective) societies. So it's not wrong to defend, even to death against the hostility of the uncivilized.
I, for one, agree with this line of thought. Here I am not hurting anyone, minding my own business, going about my life, sometimes even helping people from time to time and this other person decides he wants what I have and decides that best way to have it is to hurt me til he gets it. Uhh, no. I don't think so.
But there are those who would oppose this line of thought. Perhaps they are true pacifists not lifting a finger to prevent harm to themselves (or others) because it would violate their sense of principals.
What are your thoughts on this? As to the idea of applying your sense of civilized behavior to others and when they do not behave in the manner you deem civilized it's right to hurt them if they are out to hurt you?
Originally the human woman Lyra, was puzzled at the alien's concept of gaining merit through fighting even though the aliens proclaimed themselves pacifists. We do the same here. How many times have we accorded kudos to those who fight back against their attackers or leap into a fight to help another to defend themselves? Are we pacifists or are we pacifists/aggressors?
Thoughts?

 

[Kacey]

First, great book! I have a copy of it myself; the Tsla had some... um... interesting turns of philosophy, including dismissing expedience as a point in the above discussion, stating that "our moral standards are not nearly so flexible".

The problem lies, I think, with equating self-protection and the protection of others with endorsing aggression for its own sake. Ghandi set a wonderful example of passive resistance, but there are times when such resistance is futile - the resisting group may not be large enough, the danger may be too immediate, and so on. If someone attempts to rob me, there is very little I own that is worth potentially dying for (and none of what I routinely carry with me falls in that category - it's why I have a safe deposit box), and said robber can have whatever I have on me. If someone attempts to kill me, however, I am going to do my damnedest to be the one who leaves the encounter alive.

On the other hand, while I train in a martial art, I would never use my skills for anything but defense, of myself or others who need assistance. Too many people still believe in the precepts of "kill or be killed" and "might makes right". These are societal issues that society is addressing all too slowly, and often with little success - and until they are properly addressed and attended to, that attitude, and the danger it poses, will remain.

There is, I think, philosophical difference between protecting oneself and others, and being the initial aggressor. Like the Tsla, I believe that anyone who attacks me has proven their own lack of civilization, and thus the rules of civilized conduct do not apply to such interactions.

 

[Steel Tiger]

I can see a very real danger in this line of philosophy.

In the example we have the Tsla have defined the Mai as uncivilised and thus an enemy. Enemies can be contented with and violently stopped if need be. OK. This seems pretty logical.

This is where I see the problem. This is not an argument of universal truths but one of perspective. If one chooses to suspend pacifistic intentions against a group because they have been deemed unworthy of such consideration, then it is no great stretch to describe someone, anyone, one does not like or agree with in a similar way and be nasty to them. In our example there is no reason given as to why the Mai are considered uncivilised, but I would suggest it is simply because they are not Tsla.

The problem with this form of ethical system is that it actually is very flexible. To suspend a person or groups right to societies protections they simple need be defined as being outside the system. We have seen it time and agian in recent human history. Look at the treatment of black people in the 18th and 19th centuries. They were defined as not entirely human and thus forfeited any consideration of their humanity.

I think that on the surface it seems like a neat and interesting system of ethical belief, but beneath the surface is a roiling mass of problems waiting to be exploited.

 

[morph4me]

The problem that I have with this philosophy isn't with the idea of killing someone while defending yourself but with the reasoning behind it. "They aren't civilized so they remove themselves from the considerations of civilized people"' This philosophy sounds alot like " They're (insert ethnic group here), they aren't like us, it isn't like killing a human being."

I agree with Kacey, "I train in a martial art, I would never use my skills for anything but defense, of myself or others who need assistance." Not because I feel those people aren't civilized, but because they have to be stopped before they can hurt someone else.

 

[Ray]

Thoughts?

I generally kept my sci-fi selection to a short list, usually by Artie Clarke or Isaac Asmiov--I don't read sci-fi so much any more. However, I hear that an entire religion was created by a sci-fi writer.

 

[Cruentus]

Wow... This is very philosophical and complex; too much so for me. The reality is that complex philosophies are out the window if you actually have to kill someone to save your life, another's life, or because you are ordered too.

My take on it is very simple; and I will speak very hypothetically here.

Let's just skip the fighting part and the use-of-force discussions and get right into the heart of the matter; killing. My take on it (which may be very different then others) is this: Killing is a professional endeavor. It's all business, and there doesn't have to be additional thought or empathy that goes into it. If I am in a position to kill someone, I don't have to like or dislike them, and they don't need to be "uncivilized" or "civilized" or what have you. It's incidental. If I kill, it is the actions of the mark that causes his death, not so much mine. If the mark hadn't of decided to do whatever it was that caused me to kill him, then he wouldn't be dead.


It is that simple. Actions have consequence. If I were to attack a civilian in an unprovoked and lethal manner, and someone stops me by shooting me, then who's fault is it? If I am a Jihadist hiding in alleys and setting up IED's, and a US soldier clips me, who's fault is that? Well, it ain't the fault of the person doing the clipping, that's for sure. So, if I happen to be that person, should I care?

I don't...

C.

 

[Steel Tiger]

It is that simple. Actions have consequence. If I were to attack a civilian in an unprovoked and lethal manner, and someone stops me by shooting me, then who's fault is it? If I am a Jihadist hiding in alleys and setting up IED's, and a US soldier clips me, who's fault is that? Well, it ain't the fault of the person doing the clipping, that's for sure. So, if I happen to be that person, should I care?

There is definitely a simplicity involved in the philosophical case that has been presented, and I think you have outlined a part of that simplicity - actions have consequences. What I see when I look at the philosophy presented is a powerful system for determining why a particular action has a consequence. But it is relative. The action has a consequence for a particular group for a particular reason, which that group gets to define. For instance, what if the fatal action was wearing red on Sunday? To you and me that is harmless and worthy of no retribution. But when you define an entire group so that any action they take is an affront where are you? Its not a nice place.

In the scifi example the Tsla have abdicated responsibility for examining or understanding the Mai by defining them as "uncivilised" and "enemy". So whatever happens to them is their fault for not being part of Tsla society.

Its a bit tough for us to necessarily get our heads around because we are all humans and our various societies are are pretty much the same. As a result, those we call enemy are not necessarily uncivilised (by our own definition) so there is not that automatic dismissal of them as irredeemable outsiders.

What was that Obi-wan Kenobi said, something about evil being a matter of a point of view?

I would like to point out here that this view of evil is not my own. From a Taoist philosophical position, for there to be good there must, unfortunately, be evil.

 

[CoryKS]

I think it's a fairly broad definition of pacifism to include those who are willing to defend themselves with violence if attacked. One can defend oneself and still be considered peace-loving (a reluctant warrior), but not pacifist. In this case, the alien was incorrect in defining his race as 'pacifist'.

The main problem I have with the categorization of a declared enemy from civilized to non-civilized is that it removes economy as a factor in dealing with it. There can be no way for a 'non-civilized' enemy to regain its civilized status. But in reality it is possible for a combatant to be given incentives to stop its aggression. Being faced with an existential threat, for instance, an enemy may decide that whatever cause it was fighting for is less important than its continued existence and can negotiate for peace.

 

[Doc_Jude]

I largely agree with this philosophy, even in this instance. Of course, it would have to be based upon accurate and current inherited wisdom, not racism. Such mindsets have saved many lives over the last 10,000yrs.

Of course, I'm also a fan of Cainism (M.W. Stover)....

 

[MA-Caver]

I would like to point out here that this view of evil is not my own. From a Taoist philosophical position, for there to be good there must, unfortunately, be evil.

Ah, yes true for one cannot exist without the other, this is an essential law. However; the evil doesn't necessarily have to be yours does it? Yet, in today's societies there is both and no one absolute. Nazism for example was good in that it united and strengthened a broken and despondent German people but evil in that it slaughtered millions of innocents behind the scenes. Communism did basically the same, made a war-torn people stronger but millions suffered again.
On a personal level most of us are good hard-working citizens with families that we strive to care for best as we may in our own fashion. But, we all have some hidden evil, don't we? A vice shall we say? But the definition of evil is to hold back from the good, or morally reprehensible. However large or small it's still there. What we (choose) do with it I think defines our level of civilization as a whole.

I think it's a fairly broad definition of pacifism to include those who are willing to defend themselves with violence if attacked. One can defend oneself and still be considered peace-loving (a reluctant warrior), but not pacifist. In this case, the alien was incorrect in defining his race as 'pacifist'.

The main problem I have with the categorization of a declared enemy from civilized to non-civilized is that it removes economy as a factor in dealing with it. There can be no way for a 'non-civilized' enemy to regain its civilized status. But in reality it is possible for a combatant to be given incentives to stop its aggression. Being faced with an existential threat, for instance, an enemy may decide that whatever cause it was fighting for is less important than its continued existence and can negotiate for peace.

Yes that's true, I recall a psychologist teacher saying that no-one stops doing anything bad unless they're more fearful of the consequences than the act they're doing. An example he gave was his uncle who was a 2 pack a day smoker and discovered that he started showing signs of cancer after a visit to the doctor. He quit. Subsequently he died of cancer anyway but years longer than had he didn't. The Japanese of the 1940's sued for peace because they realized that to continue would further decimate their population to near genocidal proportions. Consequence.
But what the Tsla were saying was deeper I think. True, judging others by their standards (and who doesn't?) and deeming them uncivilized because they do not adhere to the same principals as the Tsla do. In the novel, within the Mai culture it's okay to acquire wealth by any means necessary or appropriate. If you can't buy/trade for a desired item from your neighbor then steal it if you can get away with it. Yet to those outside the Mai race this was wrong/evil. With the Tsla trying to reacquire the item (in the novel's case a hovercraft belonging to the humans in the story) meant getting it despite the costs. It was wrong/evil to steal from the humans and thus taking it back by any means necessary and whatever the costs because the Mai were being uncivilized in stealing it in the first place.
During the cold war the U.S. and the Soviet Union were guilty of the same thing. Technological secrets that were stolen by spies and intercepted before reaching the "other-side". Intercepted by any means necessary, including the killing of the spies who stole the technology.
The Tsla were raising a moral question for us humans. We humans have gone to war in order to prevent the evil inflicted upon other countries/races and their own. Evil as defined by that defending country/race's opinion of what is evil/wrong/sinful. Think Crusades and the World Wars, Korea, Vietnam and presently the War Against Terrorism. We fought because we perceive the ones we're fighting are evil. Ironically they see US as evil. So are they the uncivilized ones or are we? Or... are all of us?