Pacifism at its "best"

[7starmantis]

I keep running into this guy who is a complete pacifist, which is almost what I considered myself until hearing this guy.
He is one of the extreme legalistic religous believers who "says" he is against any type of physical defense. He went as far as saying he would stand by and watch his wife and children get raped and murdered before he would take another life. Now, I would like to write this off as brovado, but in today's society of women stoning their children to death because of warped religous beliefs, that may be the truth he is spouting.

This got me thinking, What makes a person feel this way? Fear? Anger? What do you say to someone like this? I mean, I feel for his wife and kids if ever attacked. I know most would say this then end up defending themselves anyway, but there are those who wouldn't. How could someone live with themselves believing this way?

7sm

 

[Phil Elmore]

The Case Against Pacifism, Distilled

 

[TonyM.]

I'm probably missquoting this badly: "Those that abhor violence are condemmed to it."

 

[rmcrobertson]

In the first place, guys, martial arts--unless I missed something--are meant, in the end, to teach a species of pacifism. It's what we tell kids, right? And if-- if we must whack somebody, I was under the impression that martial artists are morally required to keep the level of violence as low as possible. That's not pacifism as such--but I was also under the impression that as an ideal, martial artists are indeed training in the hope that they neever have to smack anybody up.

I looked up Phil's article, and I disagree, which I feel sure will occasion the usual yelling. But what I disagree with profoundly is the notion that to be a real man, to actualize your potential or whatever, one must, "dominate," every situation. Fiddlesticks. Sometimes, it's kinda nice to just listen, for one thing. And giving up the fantasy of absolute dominance allows you to cut out a hell of aa lot of occcasions in which violence seems essential.

As for the RAH quotes from, "Starship Troopers," (!) well, Mr. Dubois doesn't know what he's talking about. (Just incidentally, that's a satirical novel, not a plan for living, though assuredly much of the "philosophy," seems to match Heinlein's own.) Sure, in the short run, if I nuke your house and you're in it, my problem with you is pretty much solved. But it's just beginning with your neighbors, with your family, with your friends...

In the long run, it seems pretty clear that the exercise of violence breeds violence. Or again, did I miss something and there's been what, 6000 years of peace in the Mideast? You slug me, I slug you, and soon I'm firing a recoilless rifle at your kid's school...which causes you to bomb my wife's store...this is a solution? It's short-sighted cruelty--and what's worse in some waays, it's not something that works for long. You want to claim that pacifists have no chance against, say, Nazis? Sure, in the short run. But in the long run, how'd violence work out for the Nazis?

Just incidentally, there's also the fact that historically speaking, the pursuit of violence in war and after war has a nasty habit of helping to create the Adolf Hitlers and the Saddam Husseins of the world.

And to argue that the innumerable Christians, Buddhists, Jains, etc. who have tried to give up violence are simple-minded, or cowards, is absurd. The obvious example would be civil rights marches in the deep South, circa 1961--you think those guys didn't want to bust a few heads? And what would've happened if they did? That took a helluva lot more bravery than target shooting, knife waving, breaking boards and mat training usually does.

As it happens, I am not myself a pacifist. And I quite appreciate the argument that says pacifist groups such as the Amish rely on our violence for their protection in innumerable ways. However, these folks are neither stupid nor cowardly.

In many ways, they're the grownups.

 

[Touch Of Death]

In my best Peter Tosh voice "Everydody is crying out for peace, but no one is crying out for justice. Every body wants to go up to heaven, but nobody wants to die. I don't know why."
Sean

 

[Ceicei]

Pacifism is not the same as peace. Neither is justice the same as unilateral violence.

Justice is the use of deterring power (which may sometimes involve violence) to stop the initial problem.

For an individual, sometimes treatment will stop the problem, sometimes jail time will. Sometimes it may need capital punishment.

For example, in an argument, reasoning may solve the issue. Good. Perhaps one side may not accept reasoning, and tries a punch. Should the person stand and accept the punch? Perhaps the attacker may realize his error and stop then to apologize. This result is still a possibility. Maybe reasoning works now. Suppose the issue is still unresolved, and the attacker decides on giving multiple punches. Is there still hope for verbal reasoning or should a different kind of intervention be needed? Maybe. The invervention could be the involvement of a 3rd party or self-defense.

If 3rd party intervention is used, it could involve more reasoning. Maybe a bit of pressure. Perhaps the attacker will stop. Good. What if the attacker doesn't stop hitting? Now it becomes a bigger problem. The 3rd party intervenor has to decide what more to do. Perhaps separation or the withholding of some possessions/privileges from the attacker may stop this. When separation/withholding time ends, did the attacker learn? Hopefully so.
Did the withholding help him stop? Good chance it did. What about if the attacker is placed with others like him to learn about consequences that effect others and how to stop their attacks by helping each other? Let's say this finally helps him break the cycle. Great! But, what if this doesn't make a difference? He could refuse to learn from all possible different approaches to stopping and go back to attacking.

Return to the original "attackee". Along the way, we hope the attacker may have stopped at some point.

What if the defender chose to use self-defense?
He pops a punch back enough to stop the attacker? Did he stop? Hopefully the attacker learned his lesson. How far does the defender have to go? Just enough to let the attacker think coming back for another chance to hit may not be a good idea?

Is this justice? Sure. Verbal reasoning is justice if it stops the attacker. Intervention of different types/methods is justice if it stops the attacker. So is self-defense if it stops the attacker.

Now, if the defender, after a one punch attack from the attacker, decides to hit back repeatedly until the attacker becomes an unrecognizable pulp, is this justice? Probably not.

What's the difference? Didn't beating him to a pulp stop the attacker? Yes, but its probably much, much, MUCH more than the bare minimum required to stop him.

Justice should be enough to just stop--and resolve the whole issue--and thus may require some level of "violence" if non-violent methods didn't work out.

"Slug-fests", or fighting back and forth continually isn't justice, because it didn't stop and resolve the issue. This is unilateral violence.

Pacifism has its place. It may be enough to deter some people. But its not a guarantee of peace. Neither is "violence" a guarantee of peace as that doesn't deter some people either.

What then is needed to understand how and when to use justice, whether its on an individual level up to a collective (national) level. This is not easy to do.

We, both as individuals and as a society, can only hope to learn from history and experience and realize that absolute pacifism and absolute violence is not necessarily desirable nor an end-all to every single situation.

- Ceicei

 

[Ender]

Well I always go back to what our Pastor said. He is an 8th Dan San Soo Kung Fu. Anyway, someone asked him how can he reconcile being a pastor and teaching martial arts. Well, he said this "if someone attacks you, your wife and your children, are you just going to stand there and say 'Halleujia'?..NO!..take a two by four...and bless them with it!"......thats the way i see it.

 

[Thesemindz]

You want to claim that pacifists have no chance against, say, Nazis? Sure, in the short run. But in the long run, how'd violence work out for the Nazis?[/B]

Are you insinuating that pacifism defeated the Nazis? I always thought that the Nazis were stopped because someone with bigger badder violence came and put a stop to their nonsense.


As a side note, isn't that the only time we would be justified in using our Kenpo? When bigger badder violence is necessary to end senseless wimpy violence?

-Rob

 

[michaeledward]

On one side ....

Jesus
Buddha
Ghandi
Mother Theresa



On the other side ....

The Ceasars
Attila the Hun
Hitler
Hussein


OK .. Everybody choose your side

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by Thesemindz
As a side note, isn't that the only time we would be justified in using our Kenpo? When bigger badder violence is necessary to end senseless wimpy violence?

When does bigger badder violence turn senseless? Isn't Peace the only perfect self defense?

 

[rmcrobertson]

No, what I'm arguing is that the employment of violence at a State level always seems to evoke greater violence and eventually, getting your tail whupped.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by michaeledward
On one side ....

Jesus
Buddha
Ghandi
Mother Theresa



On the other side ....

The Ceasars
Attila the Hun
Hitler
Hussein


OK .. Everybody choose your side

Michael, You for got the Colonizing countries from western Europe, From:
Napoleon
To:
The Spanish,
Portuguese,
French,
British,

and Even the US, in our expansion west, and also our colonies of Hawai'i and the Philippines and other islands.

Hmmmmm, which side should we choose?

 

[TonyM.]

Didn't Jesus bless the moneychangers with a 2x4?

 

[MA-Caver]

Originally posted by TonyM.
Didn't Jesus bless the moneychangers with a 2x4?

Actually it was with a braided whip that he created and he used it on the cages containing sacrficial animals that were for sale to free them.
To say that Jesus was a pacifist is incorrect, though he didn't resist at all during his arrest, trial, and death. He taught turn the other cheek but metaphorically speaking.

 

[michaeledward]

Originally posted by Rich Parsons
Michael, You for got the Colonizing countries from western Europe, From:
Napoleon
To:
The Spanish,
Portuguese,
French,
British,

and Even the US, in our expansion west, and also our colonies of Hawai'i and the Philippines and other islands.

Hmmmmm, which side should we choose?

I think there is a difference between the state and the individual. And in this discussion, I wanted to point out the individual contributor activity, as compared to state activities. Each of the state activities you mention, I think, should be seen as an embarassment to the state, and used as a lesson to learn from. I do not think that I should be held responsible for the "sins of the father". As a citizen in a state, I hope to learn from history and help direct the state away from those activities we have decided were not justified.

Also, I recognize there is a continuum between Ghandi and Hitler, as role models, I think it is imporant to aim at the extreme. If ever I find myself in a situation that calls for a binary choice of 'complete peacefulness' or 'utter destruction', I hope I would choose the path of Ghandi.

I do recognize, that there is seldom, and perhaps never, a situation that requires such a decision. Most likely, there were choices I could have made earlier in time that would have abated such a fateful decision from ever having to be made.

<<< wow ... that was awfully wordy ... but I hope you understand what I mean>>>

Reaching for Gandhi - Mike

 

[michaeledward]

Originally posted by MACaver
To say that Jesus was a pacifist is incorrect, though he didn't resist at all during his arrest, trial, and death. He taught turn the other cheek but metaphorically speaking.

I know. Wasn't Jesus was the first huge star in the 'Pay-per-View' free-for-all fight circut.

Just Kidding - Mike

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by michaeledward
<<< wow ... that was awfully wordy ... but I hope you understand what I mean>>>

Reaching for Gandhi - Mike

Mike,

I hope you reach you goal of being like Gandhi.

I did understand you meaning, and I happen to agree with you, that the difference between a leader of a country using that country and a country doing something that might not like or may not agree with later that was the best course of action or policy.

You were speaking of individuals, and their actions. And how does an individual decide or choose his course of action.

I hope to live the life of a Gandhi, only I already know that when I ahve to defend myself or others, I act and care not for the fallout of my actions. I wish to survive or helps others survive who cannot defend themselves. Afterwards, then I worry about the fallout. This is not the best course fo action, it is just the one I know I have already used. I do use all my resources to avoid conflict, including walking away or buy a round of drinks, yet, ..., .

So, I wish you the best in your goal and thank you for reply so I could follow up as well.

:asian:

 

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by Thesemindz
Are you insinuating that pacifism defeated the Nazis? I always thought that the Nazis were stopped because someone with bigger badder violence came and put a stop to their nonsense.


As a side note, isn't that the only time we would be justified in using our Kenpo? When bigger badder violence is necessary to end senseless wimpy violence?

-Rob

The Nazis lost the war because ther leader was insane, and rather than attacking just Northern africa or just russia he attacked everyone at the same time. They ran out of supplies and couldn't even begin to support their troops when things started going bad. As for us being bigger and badder, our bombing raids were really more to speed up the process of them running out of steam.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I was under the impression that martial artists are morally required to keep the level of violence as low as possible.

Depends on the art...and then on the individual practitioner's own sense of morality and whether he follows the moral dictates of that art.

There are a number of systems that advocate simply thrashing the opponent if a conflict occurs. Not all arts are restrained.

Too often we see society in general assuming ALL martial artists follow an Aikido-like philosophy of love and harmony.

(But then, society assumes a great deal about us concerning a number of things. The other day at a party I pulled out a folder so a woman could cut through some packing tape on a present. A guy next to me said, "You know how to throw that, right?" I didn't bother telling him I wasn't in the habit of throwing a $75.00 Benchmade...but the point he made to me was clear. The assumption was that I had Ninja-like abilities with a knife, simply because I was a martial artist.)



Regards,


Steve

 

[rmcrobertson]

Very good point, which is part of the reason I'm dubious about the quick-fix systems.

However, I didn't argue for an Aikido-like philosophy of love-n'-harmony--especially after reading John Stevens', "Abundant Peace," a great title, considering what a violent right-wing nutbar Ueshiba apparently was for most of his life...