1) What is pacifism?
2) If you are a pacifist, why are you a pacifist?
3) If you are not a pacifist, why not?
4) Is it contradictory for a pacifist to harm someone in self-defense?
5) Is it contradictory for a pacifist to harm someone in defense of someone else?
6) Is it contradictory for a pacifist to harm someone in defense of his property?
Read my Nolan Chart column "Me & My Big Mouth"
1. The idea that there is never righteous to use force against anothet human being.
2. I'm not.
3. Because I think every human being has the right to defend himself against those who initiate force. If I were to get robbed, pacifism claims that it is immoral for me to defend myself, with violence if neccesary.
4, 5, 6. Yes, at least according to the definition above.
Johannes basically said everything I was going to. :x
I guess we could call that hard-line pacifism. Then the soft-line pacifism would be the idea using force should be avoided even when its use would be technically permissible? I think mainstream Christianity is soft-line pacifist, but not hard-line pacifist.
EDIT: Something went wrong...
I just wanted to clear things up here, because, if pacifism refers to an ethical belief that no force, of any kind, can be used against anyone, at any time for any reason, then I am not a pacifist. If, however, pacificsm refers to an ethical belief that aggressive force can be countered with defensive force, then I am a pacifist.
Mark,
Soft-line pacifism vs hard-line pacifism can be a justified distinction. However, my spountanous perception is that you reduce the idea of pacifism to something fuzzy. We might as well call it a sound practising of right ethics, or "soft-line self defence" or something similar.
It all depends on what we let the concept pacifism to accommodate. I think my definition has the advantage of separating paficism from other things, wich is kind of the epistemological point with conceptualization. But I'm not sure, we must also take in account of how the word is used by people in general.
If, however, pacificsm refers to an ethical belief that aggressive force can be countered with defensive force, then I am a pacifist.
I don't think that is pacifism under any understanding. A pacifist is not casual about defensive force. At the least he is very reluctant to use it.
I understand.
My thinking was to seperate the pacifism of Tolstoy who considered the use of defensive force to be worthy of moral condemnation. And the "pacifism" of the Catholic Church which does not consider the use of defensive force worthy of moral condemnation, but does promote the avoidance of use of defensive force as virtuous.
"A non-violent man or woman will and should die without retaliation, anger or malice, in self-defense or in defending the honour of their womenfolk. This is the highest form of bravery. If an individual or group of people are unable or unwilling to follow this great law of life, retaliation or resistance unto death is the second best, though a long way off from the first. Cowardice is impotence worse than violence. The coward desire revenge but being afraid to die, he looks to others, maybe to the government of the day, to do the work of defense for him. A coward is less than a man. He does not deserve to be a member of a society of men and women." - Mohandas Gandhi