Ok, how does tv have anything to do with war? The rest(minus guns)have weak relationships to war, at best.
TV would be impossible without waves/signals, which were created to relay information to and from troops/bases in war.
TV = Propaganda tool for the military/government
No, I don't believe in the liberal theory of foreign policy that rests on the notion of humanitarian aid via bombs and bullets ("The Iraqi people are 'democratically deficient' and we need to bring democracy - and get rid of the dictator - no matter what").
I think the whole concept of a "just war" is an ideological obfuscation and mystification when it comes to a rigorous analysis of the causes and functions of war within global capitalism.
This Btw, are you European? (Liberal means something much different in the US.)
Yeah, It was the Neo-cons over here that started the war.
I asked you whether you were sure that we didn't need WWII to kick-start the mass production of penicillin. Then you turn around and say:
The main antibiotic that was being mass-produced was penicillin which was being used to treat STIs and was triggered by the war.
It seems you're implying that the production of penicillin is independent of the war.
I'm asking you whether the same course of events would've happened if WWII never happened so you can't use information from the opposite scenario to draw a conclusion.
I do think that the same course of events (dealing with penicillin) would have happened around the same time.
I personally think that humans are naturally a self-destructive species so war isn't really going to stop.
Because of that, I think that instead of laying down arms to avoid a lose of life is counter-intuitive to "peace" because the intervention of an outside power can potentially reduce the time a conflict has to last drastically. Ex. The United States involvement in WWI.
Aristotle may have put it better:
"We make war so we can live in peace."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"May god have mercy on my enemies, because I will not." - George S. Patton
Personally, I don't think war is ever justified.
I think all people can resolve all conflicts without bearing arms.
I'm also a complete pacifist, too... so yeah, that implies the above.
I believe that Gandhi had it the most correct:
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
I think people fool themselves into believing that they fight for peace.
I think nations fool their people into fighting and believing that they do so to protect their nation, their neighbors, their families, and their way of life.
I certainly don't think war benefits technology. In war you gain nothing. You gain nothing but more tyranny, and blood at your own hands.
If another man's blood is what you desire, than by all means say that war is justified.
Personally, I don't think war is ever justified.
I think all people can resolve all conflicts without bearing arms.
I'm also a complete pacifist, too... so yeah, that implies the above.
I believe that Gandhi had it the most correct:
I think people fool themselves into believing that they fight for peace.
I think nations fool their people into fighting and believing that they do so to protect their nation, their neighbors, their families, and their way of life.
I certainly don't think war benefits technology. In war you gain nothing. You gain nothing but more tyranny, and blood at your own hands.
If another man's blood is what you desire, than by all means say that war is justified.
I don't think we can resolve conflicts. And if you do, try sitting down with someone part of Al Queda and you can tell him nicely to stop. I read this in a book, so I am paraphrasing, but will give credit. I will try to void as many arguments that most pacifists think: Argument one: It is always wrong to kill another.
-In the book he points out that if you don't always think this, you are not a pacifist. As soon as you kill someone, whether it be the nicest guy in the world, HItler, Stalin, or anyone, you are not a pacifist. So my question for you isn't is killing moral, but when is it? It can be up in your face, like doing it to save an innocent mans life. Sometimes it isn't. If we don't kill the sniper killing the school children, they die. And the point of that was is that there is moral and immoral killing. Argument two: Thou Shall Not Kill
-A bit religious, but it is used as an argument. This is actually not what it says in the ten commandments. It is actually worded as "Thou shall not murder" Even in Hebrew there is a difference between murder and killing. Murder is deliberately killing an innocent person, while some killing is justifiable, as seen in my previous argument. Argument three: Human Life is the Supreme Value -This is the main philosophy of pacifists, but it also is its major weak point. In most beliefs, that sometimes life must be sacrificed for the sake of morality. Your thinking is the opposite, Morality must be sacrificed for the sake of life. So you would find it immoral to kill the doctors of Japan and Germany during WW II performing disgusting and torturous surgery's on other human beings and the only way stopping them was through death? So you say that lives are above everything, even morality? Long lives should not be take more value than good lives. If you can't kill murders, what might stop them from killing more human beings, making the more deaths than could be prevented. Argument four: Nonviolence is the best way to resist evil
-Though people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were able to bring something forward without violence, it is not always possible to do so. When Churchill is the enemy, of course nonviolence would be the course of action, but when it's Stalin or Hitler, or even Charles Manson, nonviolence means nothing, squat. All it does is increase violence. Argument five: You can't fight violence with violence
-I will keep this short: With what then will you fight criminal violence? Argument six: Nuclear Weapons Necessitate pacifism
-I am tired, I will just say this. This doesn't keep us from using nonnuclear weapons to fight evil. The refusal to use nuclear weapons is not related to the doctrine of nonviolence; it is ones refusal to fight a specific war due to moral beliefs.
I will say this though, I would try to make as many nonviolent attempts to stop something before resorting to violence. This is a last resort, meaning, once every attempt to not hurt someone fails, moral violence must be used to fight immoral violence.
All credit goes to the book "Think a Second Time" by Dennis Prager
Oh and he pokes a huge whole in Gandhi's logic. If you want me to add that too.
Short, Short, version of a previous post: yes war is necessary, it is in our human nature, and many many many technological advancements are thanks to military funding. (if you use a computer, you have to approve of the cold war, because that is where computer tech came from).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
After 10:30 PST, my IQ drops to around that of a shovel, please disregard anything I say after aforementioned time, it will likely not make any sense, and is best ignored.
i believe war can be justified even for selfish reasons like starting a war for oil while the average person may not think its worth it it actually is. could you imagine if there was some saudi arabian coupe and or oil supply was cut off? things would be just as hell and turmoil over here now i know it sounds selfish or terrible but thats how life is. a endless struggle over trying to gain piece for ones people
just adding this. technically anything can be solved by force theres no argument. its a fact and if you dont agree tell me one situation that cant be solved by force
i believe war can be justified even for selfish reasons like starting a war for oil while the average person may not think its worth it it actually is. could you imagine if there was some saudi arabian coupe and or oil supply was cut off? things would be just as hell and turmoil over here now i know it sounds selfish or terrible but thats how life is. a endless struggle over trying to gain piece for ones people
just adding this. technically anything can be solved by force theres no argument. its a fact and if you dont agree tell me one situation that cant be solved by force
Probably wouldn't affect us as much as you think, we get most of our oil from Canada. Seeing as we pretty much have full control over what happens to their economy, they won't stop giving us oil for a long time.
I don't think we can resolve conflicts. And if you do, try sitting down with someone part of Al Queda and you can tell him nicely to stop. I read this in a book, so I am paraphrasing, but will give credit. I will try to void as many arguments that most pacifists think:
I don't think it is really possible to "void what most pacifists think". Pacifism is an ideal. You can't void an ideal. You can display how an ideal is not fully practicable in reality... but most idealists conclude that on their own, and only hold the ideal as a standard in order to practice it within reality.
As for discussing with an Al Qaeda member, I'd certainly be happy to speak to them, if you take away their weapons.
Most of the Al Qaeda are illusioned on what their holy manuscripts actually say. So if I were to read up on the matter beforehand, I could point out to them their delusions, as well as reason with them.
I understand why some may say that would be a pointless endeavor. I get why some people don't hold the idealisms that I do. But I do hold the idealisms and I don't think that it would be pointless to do such a thing. And I firmly believe, given enough time, I could reason with anyone.
Argument one: It is always wrong to kill another.
-In the book he points out that if you don't always think this, you are not a pacifist. As soon as you kill someone, whether it be the nicest guy in the world, HItler, Stalin, or anyone, you are not a pacifist. So my question for you isn't is killing moral, but when is it? It can be up in your face, like doing it to save an innocent mans life. Sometimes it isn't. If we don't kill the sniper killing the school children, they die. And the point of that was is that there is moral and immoral killing.
Pacifism is not the rejection of killing anyone. The book would be wrong on that end.
Pacifism is the rejection of war and/or violence, by definition. Although there are actually many definitions of it. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pacifism
But, what constitutes war? What constitutes violence? These things are not well-defined terms.
If a man were to kill another man to protect himself, or others, is that really violence? It's certainly not war.
If a life must be ended, in order to reject violence, is the act of ending that life actually violence itself?
But let's take a step back... What constitutes the necessity to kill? If a man is able to stop someone from creating violence, from murdering others, without the death of the individual himself... but killing him is 'easier'... is that necessity, or motivation playing it's role?
Like I said before, pacifism is an idealism. People who practice it hold it as a standard, not as a law or necessity.
People who hold the pacifist ideal would do everything possible to reject war and violence... however, in reality, sometimes necessity plays it's role. Whether necessity is an act of violence or not, is entirely up for debate and opinion.
Argument two: Thou Shall Not Kill
-A bit religious, but it is used as an argument. This is actually not what it says in the ten commandments. It is actually worded as "Thou shall not murder" Even in Hebrew there is a difference between murder and killing. Murder is deliberately killing an innocent person, while some killing is justifiable, as seen in my previous argument.
A "bit" religious? That is an entirely religious precept. Pacifism is an areligious concept.
Religion has only as much meaning in Pacifism as an individual will give it.
For all actual purposes, an Atheist may be a Pacifist, with no contradictions.
But to argue for the religious perspective... perhaps one may see their pacifist views as being based on the 'thou shall not murder' ideology. In such a case, the concept of violence would again be applied based on necessity, depending on means of 'justification'. In such a case, one may still be a Pacifist based on THAT ideal.
But I can't really give this point a good argument, personally. It's entirely focused on a very specific religion.
Maybe someone else who holds those intertwined beliefs can do a better job of it.
Argument three: Human Life is the Supreme Value -This is the main philosophy of pacifists, but it also is its major weak point. In most beliefs, that sometimes life must be sacrificed for the sake of morality. Your thinking is the opposite, Morality must be sacrificed for the sake of life. So you would find it immoral to kill the doctors of Japan and Germany during WW II performing disgusting and torturous surgery's on other human beings and the only way stopping them was through death? So you say that lives are above everything, even morality? Long lives should not be take more value than good lives. If you can't kill murders, what might stop them from killing more human beings, making the more deaths than could be prevented.
I'm honestly not sure where this argument is stemming from. I don't think it applies.
For one, you assume all pacifists believe human life is of 'supreme value'. As pacifism is simply the rejection of war and violence, I don't think that is necessarily the case.
Can one simply not just deject the matters of war and violence? To detest such things with no regard to actual value of human lives? I would believe so, very easily.
But let's suppose it is, for the sake of argument.
But let me address another issue. Why is morality sacrificed? What IS "morality"? Is morality not just another religious concept? If so, you're trying to inject another religious concept into an areligious ideal.
Without regard to religion, "morality" has no meaning. "Right" and "Wrong", without religion, can only be defined by individuals and their perspective. Without religion, "morality" does not really exist... the people are simply amoral. In other words, individuals define for themselves what is "right" and what is "wrong". There is no overlying concept of "God", or anything else, to oversee and define these things for them.
Perhaps maybe "laws" of the government. But not everyone agrees with the laws of their government, so I see it fit to toss that definition of 'morality' aside because of self-contradiction.
So then, let's take a look back at your argument, now that I've defined 'morality' in context:
1. Someone's individual expression of "right" and "wrong" (= areligious "morality") must be sacrificed for the sake of life.
2. Your example: Doctors performing atrocious experiments others. (Apparently they must also be killed?)
3. You argue that in this case lives are above the individual's personal definitions of 'right' and 'wrong'.
4. And you ask what stops murderers from continuing, if you can't kill them.
Well, let me address each of your points now.
1. One defines 'right' and 'wrong' themselves, which includes their pacifist ideal, for the sake of securing another's life, because it is of a great value? I see no problem with that, as a concept...
2. Here's the problem. First of all, I hope you see the flaw in your example. You assume that the doctors must be killed, but don't explain at all why? Even if they are performing horrible acts, they are not providing you with violence. They are not holding a gun up to anyone's head when you show up... they are doctors. Scientists. They don't need to be killed out of necessity. They can be stopped, so why kill them?
As well, you're assuming that if it were necessity to stop them, that the act of stopping their violence would in fact negate one's own personal definitions of 'right' and 'wrong', specifically of pacifism.
As I've previously pointed out, the nature of killing another for necessity is not necessarily considered to be 'violence'.
Only an individual, through experience, may judge what is necessity and by personal opinion if that 'necessity' is still 'violence'.
3. That would still be true, in the cases's above... but I'd also like to point out no where is it mentioned that the value of lives may be different depending on the people. If a man, who has murdered hundreds, were killing another at the very moment you approach... would it be fair to say that the murderer's life is just as valuable as the victim's? Not quite. Even in pacifist views, "value" is another perspective. One may hold all lives to be valuable, but then believe that some are more valuable than others, but that value is still above the value of other things (such as material possessions). This is easily a perspective understood, I believe.
4. Can we not hold them prisoner, or evaluate them and their situation? Every circumstance should be viewed differently, and different measures to approach the circumstances and the outcomes.
We may value someone's life.... even if that life is in a prison... can we not?
And perhaps, it is even deemed 'necessary' by peers to reduce the prison load, or to 'remove certain individuals' from society. Does that constitute violence by all definitions? Perhaps one may disagree with that act, claim it really is violence. They would be free to protest the act in accordance to their Pacifist views, wouldn't they? At least, they would in the more civil governments...
Argument four: Nonviolence is the best way to resist evil
-Though people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were able to bring something forward without violence, it is not always possible to do so. When Churchill is the enemy, of course nonviolence would be the course of action, but when it's Stalin or Hitler, or even Charles Manson, nonviolence means nothing, squat. All it does is increase violence.
Does it? Does it really? Can you prove that?
I can not argue these statements, because I do not have any evidence to support or argue them. However, I would have to point out that I do not believe you have any evidence to support them either.
Personally, I believe they are incorrect.
...By the way, Charles Manson was brought to justice by nonviolent means... wasn't he? He was not killed by the police, but brought to court... he currently serves a life sentence.
If you're intending to argue that somehow his capture represented violence... I'd like to know how you'd argue that.
Argument five: You can't fight violence with violence
-I will keep this short: With what then will you fight criminal violence?
I think this has been self-explanatory so far.
We do what we've always done, and if there is some necessity to kill individuals, for example, a gun fight (although, I might contend that eventually bullets do run out, and there might be other means to resolve the fight...)... then it just shows that the idealism stands as an idealism. It really changes nothing...
But if Pacifist ideals could lead to better ways to resolve conflicts then by all means why would we not do that!?
Argument six: Nuclear Weapons Necessitate pacifism
-I am tired, I will just say this. This doesn't keep us from using nonnuclear weapons to fight evil. The refusal to use nuclear weapons is not related to the doctrine of nonviolence; it is ones refusal to fight a specific war due to moral beliefs.
You're correct that the typical refusal to use nuclear weapons is not related to the doctrine of nonviolence. It is to the concept of 'mutual assured destruction'.
However, if that concept were not to apply, then wouldn't it fall back on pacifism to carry out? Otherwise, we would have nuclear bombs flying around destroying each other because of war.
In a way, you may see the concept of mutual assured destruction as an aspect of pacifism... :wink.gif:
Really, you're just lending this argument to me... Perhaps when you're less tired you can make a better one.
I will say this though, I would try to make as many nonviolent attempts to stop something before resorting to violence. This is a last resort, meaning, once every attempt to not hurt someone fails, moral violence must be used to fight immoral violence.
Then you hold some pacifist beliefs then? Good. :smile.gif: Everyone should have some, I think.
It'd be a dirty world if people were ruthless.
All credit goes to the book "Think a Second Time" by Dennis Prager
Oh and he pokes a huge whole in Gandhi's logic. If you want me to add that too.
Well, that's nice... but I haven't read that book, and by just saying that he does that gives me no room to argue. It's just a statement you're making. If I can't argue or question it, then I can't determine it's validity.
If I can't determine it's validity, then I can only dismiss it.
Personally, I think Gandhi summed Pacifism up with this quote.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
I don't know of any way someone can argue against that. To me, this statement is infallible.
Edit: And sorry this post is so long... I was just trying to thoroughly address each point.
Judging from what op said, its pretty obvious war can be justified somewhat for those reasons.
But we all know our world leaders would rather choose the 'gimme more stuff' reason instead.
Bringing freedom to afghan? more like bringing oil to US.
War gives nations a reason to strive for more advanced weaponry, but for more advanced weaponry you need better tech, and that tech could also have a great use in modern life.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You are now reading this. You just lost the game.
You have just read this. You are also manually breathing.
technically anything can be solved by force theres no argument. its a fact and if you dont agree tell me one situation that cant be solved by force
How about the redundancy of using force to solve problems? The cyclic nature of hostility and aggression?
How do you solve those problems by force?
(Answer: You can't. :tongue.gif:)
You can't solve everything by force, that's a silly argument. You say there is no argument, but there are tons (lol).
I mean, examples are too obvious...
What if a murderer killed your family? How do you solve that problem? By killing him? How does that solve ANY of your problems, your family was just murdered!
What if you murder a guy's family? How do you solve that problem? By killing everyone else before they all kill you? You just murdered someone's family, they are going to get you. There is no way to solve your problems. More aggression certainly won't solve them.
What if a nation wants to make a trade-treaty with you, but their demands are very high and you don't want to give in to those demands. Should you threaten them until they either give in or declare war on you? Do you really think that will solve that problem?
Saying that force can solve any problem is..... well, just not true.
Force doesn't solve any problems at all. It only creates them. Look around you. The world is full of examples and evidence to prove this. You only need to open your eyes.
I also forgot about this thread, but anyway, I don't have time to read all of it yet, but pacifism isn't just war, its war or violence. I will read the rest of your post right now, but that is one of the statements I saw. Oh, and again, these are just common arguments that pacifists use. You may not use or apply to them.
TV would be impossible without waves/signals, which were created to relay information to and from troops/bases in war.
TV = Propaganda tool for the military/government
This
Btw, are you European?(Liberal means something much different in the US.)Yeah, It was the Neo-cons over here that started the war.
I do think that the same course of events (dealing with penicillin) would have happened around the same time.
Because of that, I think that instead of laying down arms to avoid a lose of life is counter-intuitive to "peace" because the intervention of an outside power can potentially reduce the time a conflict has to last drastically. Ex. The United States involvement in WWI.
Aristotle may have put it better:
"We make war so we can live in peace."
I think all people can resolve all conflicts without bearing arms.
I'm also a complete pacifist, too... so yeah, that implies the above.
I believe that Gandhi had it the most correct:
I think people fool themselves into believing that they fight for peace.
I think nations fool their people into fighting and believing that they do so to protect their nation, their neighbors, their families, and their way of life.
I certainly don't think war benefits technology. In war you gain nothing. You gain nothing but more tyranny, and blood at your own hands.
If another man's blood is what you desire, than by all means say that war is justified.
Because there was a large peace time need for it.
I don't think we can resolve conflicts. And if you do, try sitting down with someone part of Al Queda and you can tell him nicely to stop. I read this in a book, so I am paraphrasing, but will give credit. I will try to void as many arguments that most pacifists think:
Argument one: It is always wrong to kill another.
-In the book he points out that if you don't always think this, you are not a pacifist. As soon as you kill someone, whether it be the nicest guy in the world, HItler, Stalin, or anyone, you are not a pacifist. So my question for you isn't is killing moral, but when is it? It can be up in your face, like doing it to save an innocent mans life. Sometimes it isn't. If we don't kill the sniper killing the school children, they die. And the point of that was is that there is moral and immoral killing.
Argument two: Thou Shall Not Kill
-A bit religious, but it is used as an argument. This is actually not what it says in the ten commandments. It is actually worded as "Thou shall not murder" Even in Hebrew there is a difference between murder and killing. Murder is deliberately killing an innocent person, while some killing is justifiable, as seen in my previous argument.
Argument three: Human Life is the Supreme Value
-This is the main philosophy of pacifists, but it also is its major weak point. In most beliefs, that sometimes life must be sacrificed for the sake of morality. Your thinking is the opposite, Morality must be sacrificed for the sake of life. So you would find it immoral to kill the doctors of Japan and Germany during WW II performing disgusting and torturous surgery's on other human beings and the only way stopping them was through death? So you say that lives are above everything, even morality? Long lives should not be take more value than good lives. If you can't kill murders, what might stop them from killing more human beings, making the more deaths than could be prevented.
Argument four: Nonviolence is the best way to resist evil
-Though people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were able to bring something forward without violence, it is not always possible to do so. When Churchill is the enemy, of course nonviolence would be the course of action, but when it's Stalin or Hitler, or even Charles Manson, nonviolence means nothing, squat. All it does is increase violence.
Argument five: You can't fight violence with violence
-I will keep this short: With what then will you fight criminal violence?
Argument six: Nuclear Weapons Necessitate pacifism
-I am tired, I will just say this. This doesn't keep us from using nonnuclear weapons to fight evil. The refusal to use nuclear weapons is not related to the doctrine of nonviolence; it is ones refusal to fight a specific war due to moral beliefs.
I will say this though, I would try to make as many nonviolent attempts to stop something before resorting to violence. This is a last resort, meaning, once every attempt to not hurt someone fails, moral violence must be used to fight immoral violence.
All credit goes to the book "Think a Second Time" by Dennis Prager
Oh and he pokes a huge whole in Gandhi's logic. If you want me to add that too.
Thinking about coming a mod to simply not moderate.
Short, Short, version of a previous post: yes war is necessary, it is in our human nature, and many many many technological advancements are thanks to military funding. (if you use a computer, you have to approve of the cold war, because that is where computer tech came from).
just adding this. technically anything can be solved by force theres no argument. its a fact and if you dont agree tell me one situation that cant be solved by force
Probably wouldn't affect us as much as you think, we get most of our oil from Canada. Seeing as we pretty much have full control over what happens to their economy, they won't stop giving us oil for a long time.
Thinking about coming a mod to simply not moderate.
Let's not forget radar.
I don't think it is really possible to "void what most pacifists think". Pacifism is an ideal. You can't void an ideal. You can display how an ideal is not fully practicable in reality... but most idealists conclude that on their own, and only hold the ideal as a standard in order to practice it within reality.
As for discussing with an Al Qaeda member, I'd certainly be happy to speak to them, if you take away their weapons.
Most of the Al Qaeda are illusioned on what their holy manuscripts actually say. So if I were to read up on the matter beforehand, I could point out to them their delusions, as well as reason with them.
I understand why some may say that would be a pointless endeavor. I get why some people don't hold the idealisms that I do. But I do hold the idealisms and I don't think that it would be pointless to do such a thing. And I firmly believe, given enough time, I could reason with anyone.
Pacifism is not the rejection of killing anyone. The book would be wrong on that end.
Pacifism is the rejection of war and/or violence, by definition. Although there are actually many definitions of it.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pacifism
But, what constitutes war? What constitutes violence? These things are not well-defined terms.
If a man were to kill another man to protect himself, or others, is that really violence? It's certainly not war.
If a life must be ended, in order to reject violence, is the act of ending that life actually violence itself?
But let's take a step back... What constitutes the necessity to kill? If a man is able to stop someone from creating violence, from murdering others, without the death of the individual himself... but killing him is 'easier'... is that necessity, or motivation playing it's role?
Like I said before, pacifism is an idealism. People who practice it hold it as a standard, not as a law or necessity.
People who hold the pacifist ideal would do everything possible to reject war and violence... however, in reality, sometimes necessity plays it's role. Whether necessity is an act of violence or not, is entirely up for debate and opinion.
A "bit" religious? That is an entirely religious precept. Pacifism is an areligious concept.
Religion has only as much meaning in Pacifism as an individual will give it.
For all actual purposes, an Atheist may be a Pacifist, with no contradictions.
But to argue for the religious perspective... perhaps one may see their pacifist views as being based on the 'thou shall not murder' ideology. In such a case, the concept of violence would again be applied based on necessity, depending on means of 'justification'. In such a case, one may still be a Pacifist based on THAT ideal.
But I can't really give this point a good argument, personally. It's entirely focused on a very specific religion.
Maybe someone else who holds those intertwined beliefs can do a better job of it.
I'm honestly not sure where this argument is stemming from. I don't think it applies.
For one, you assume all pacifists believe human life is of 'supreme value'. As pacifism is simply the rejection of war and violence, I don't think that is necessarily the case.
Can one simply not just deject the matters of war and violence? To detest such things with no regard to actual value of human lives? I would believe so, very easily.
But let's suppose it is, for the sake of argument.
But let me address another issue. Why is morality sacrificed? What IS "morality"? Is morality not just another religious concept? If so, you're trying to inject another religious concept into an areligious ideal.
Without regard to religion, "morality" has no meaning. "Right" and "Wrong", without religion, can only be defined by individuals and their perspective. Without religion, "morality" does not really exist... the people are simply amoral. In other words, individuals define for themselves what is "right" and what is "wrong". There is no overlying concept of "God", or anything else, to oversee and define these things for them.
Perhaps maybe "laws" of the government. But not everyone agrees with the laws of their government, so I see it fit to toss that definition of 'morality' aside because of self-contradiction.
So then, let's take a look back at your argument, now that I've defined 'morality' in context:
1. Someone's individual expression of "right" and "wrong" (= areligious "morality") must be sacrificed for the sake of life.
2. Your example: Doctors performing atrocious experiments others. (Apparently they must also be killed?)
3. You argue that in this case lives are above the individual's personal definitions of 'right' and 'wrong'.
4. And you ask what stops murderers from continuing, if you can't kill them.
Well, let me address each of your points now.
1. One defines 'right' and 'wrong' themselves, which includes their pacifist ideal, for the sake of securing another's life, because it is of a great value? I see no problem with that, as a concept...
2. Here's the problem. First of all, I hope you see the flaw in your example. You assume that the doctors must be killed, but don't explain at all why? Even if they are performing horrible acts, they are not providing you with violence. They are not holding a gun up to anyone's head when you show up... they are doctors. Scientists. They don't need to be killed out of necessity. They can be stopped, so why kill them?
As well, you're assuming that if it were necessity to stop them, that the act of stopping their violence would in fact negate one's own personal definitions of 'right' and 'wrong', specifically of pacifism.
As I've previously pointed out, the nature of killing another for necessity is not necessarily considered to be 'violence'.
Only an individual, through experience, may judge what is necessity and by personal opinion if that 'necessity' is still 'violence'.
3. That would still be true, in the cases's above... but I'd also like to point out no where is it mentioned that the value of lives may be different depending on the people. If a man, who has murdered hundreds, were killing another at the very moment you approach... would it be fair to say that the murderer's life is just as valuable as the victim's? Not quite. Even in pacifist views, "value" is another perspective. One may hold all lives to be valuable, but then believe that some are more valuable than others, but that value is still above the value of other things (such as material possessions). This is easily a perspective understood, I believe.
4. Can we not hold them prisoner, or evaluate them and their situation? Every circumstance should be viewed differently, and different measures to approach the circumstances and the outcomes.
We may value someone's life.... even if that life is in a prison... can we not?
And perhaps, it is even deemed 'necessary' by peers to reduce the prison load, or to 'remove certain individuals' from society. Does that constitute violence by all definitions? Perhaps one may disagree with that act, claim it really is violence. They would be free to protest the act in accordance to their Pacifist views, wouldn't they? At least, they would in the more civil governments...
Does it? Does it really? Can you prove that?
I can not argue these statements, because I do not have any evidence to support or argue them. However, I would have to point out that I do not believe you have any evidence to support them either.
Personally, I believe they are incorrect.
...By the way, Charles Manson was brought to justice by nonviolent means... wasn't he? He was not killed by the police, but brought to court... he currently serves a life sentence.
If you're intending to argue that somehow his capture represented violence... I'd like to know how you'd argue that.
I think this has been self-explanatory so far.
We do what we've always done, and if there is some necessity to kill individuals, for example, a gun fight (although, I might contend that eventually bullets do run out, and there might be other means to resolve the fight...)... then it just shows that the idealism stands as an idealism. It really changes nothing...
But if Pacifist ideals could lead to better ways to resolve conflicts then by all means why would we not do that!?
You're correct that the typical refusal to use nuclear weapons is not related to the doctrine of nonviolence. It is to the concept of 'mutual assured destruction'.
However, if that concept were not to apply, then wouldn't it fall back on pacifism to carry out? Otherwise, we would have nuclear bombs flying around destroying each other because of war.
In a way, you may see the concept of mutual assured destruction as an aspect of pacifism... :wink.gif:
Really, you're just lending this argument to me... Perhaps when you're less tired you can make a better one.
Then you hold some pacifist beliefs then? Good. :smile.gif: Everyone should have some, I think.
It'd be a dirty world if people were ruthless.
Well, that's nice... but I haven't read that book, and by just saying that he does that gives me no room to argue. It's just a statement you're making. If I can't argue or question it, then I can't determine it's validity.
If I can't determine it's validity, then I can only dismiss it.
Personally, I think Gandhi summed Pacifism up with this quote.
I don't know of any way someone can argue against that. To me, this statement is infallible.
Edit: And sorry this post is so long... I was just trying to thoroughly address each point.
But we all know our world leaders would rather choose the 'gimme more stuff' reason instead.
Bringing freedom to afghan? more like bringing oil to US.
War gives nations a reason to strive for more advanced weaponry, but for more advanced weaponry you need better tech, and that tech could also have a great use in modern life.
You have just read this. You are also manually breathing.
How about the redundancy of using force to solve problems? The cyclic nature of hostility and aggression?
How do you solve those problems by force?
(Answer: You can't. :tongue.gif:)
You can't solve everything by force, that's a silly argument. You say there is no argument, but there are tons (lol).
I mean, examples are too obvious...
What if a murderer killed your family? How do you solve that problem? By killing him? How does that solve ANY of your problems, your family was just murdered!
What if you murder a guy's family? How do you solve that problem? By killing everyone else before they all kill you? You just murdered someone's family, they are going to get you. There is no way to solve your problems. More aggression certainly won't solve them.
What if a nation wants to make a trade-treaty with you, but their demands are very high and you don't want to give in to those demands. Should you threaten them until they either give in or declare war on you? Do you really think that will solve that problem?
Saying that force can solve any problem is..... well, just not true.
Force doesn't solve any problems at all. It only creates them. Look around you. The world is full of examples and evidence to prove this. You only need to open your eyes.
Thinking about coming a mod to simply not moderate.