Pacifism

Discussion in 'Random Thoughts' started by PoeticPeacenik, Feb 1, 2021.

  1. Desos

    Desos Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,524
    Likes Received:
    311
    Candido Rondon explored the amazon rainforest and led roosevelt's expedition in the amazon. He would sometimes encounter hostile tribes and he used to say:

    "Die if you must, but kill never."
     
    kinulpture likes this.
  2. newo

    newo Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    12,282
    Likes Received:
    12,704
    Overall pacifism is a good thing but it has its limits. When someone tries to take advantage of your pacifism they deserve what's coming to them. I believe violence should be a last resort, but it's still a resort. You can't let other people dump on you. There are times when you must stand up for yourself, start out with a dialogue, but if a knuckle sandwich is the only thing they'll respect then give it to them.
     
    kinulpture and Kama'aina like this.
  3. Death

    Death Grim Reaper Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    16,212
    Likes Received:
    280
    ""Don't mistake my kindness for weakness""
     
  4. Kama'aina

    Kama'aina Members

    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    420
    Adam Smith said compassion to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent. I totally agree.

    Another saying that I think applies here is, "You can't truly call yourself peaceful unless you're capable of great violence. If you're not capable of great violence you're not peaceful, you're harmless."

    Peace is generally the best course. But not always. And debates like this seem to be the province of those who have never seen true evil at work. If you have seen pure, unmitigated evil at work you'll agree that some people simply need killing.
     
    kinulpture likes this.
  5. Piobaire

    Piobaire Village Idiot

    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    9,170
    Weapons are the tools of violence;
    all decent men detest them.

    Weapons are the tools of fear;
    a decent man will avoid them
    except in the direst necessity
    and, if compelled, will use them
    only with the utmost restraint.

    Peace is his highest value.
    If the peace has been shattered,
    how can he be content?
    His enemies are not demons,
    but human beings like himself.
    He doesn’t wish them personal harm.
    Nor does he rejoice in victory.
    How could he rejoice in victory
    and delight in the slaughter of men?

    He enters a battle gravely,
    with sorrow and with great compassion,
    as if he were attending a funeral.
    Tao Te Ching 31
     
    granite45 likes this.
  6. Kama'aina

    Kama'aina Members

    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    420
    I would really enjoy it if you could use your own words, rather than cut-and-paste things from the internet. I bet it would be more interesting because you're clearly smart.

    And it's starting to sound like privilege when one doesn't acknowledge the existence of evil. A lot of people in the world would disagree with you.

    And so what if it appears in the Tao, which also says weapons will be used. (Right up there in your quote.)
     
    kinulpture likes this.
  7. Piobaire

    Piobaire Village Idiot

    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    9,170
    I'm not that smart. Actually, everything that I think I know I plagiarized from someone else; I can't think of a single idea I can claim as original. Therefore, rather than potentially mangle the meaning and intent by poor paraphrasing without attribution, it seems more appropriate (and honest) that I quote folks smarter than myself verbatim, with citations.
    Of course evil exists; but what is it's nature? Is it absolute and innate, or relative and circumstantial? Do I do evil because I am evil, or am I evil because I do evil; is it who we are, or what we do? Would repentance of my evil deeds and commitment to "abstain from all evil, practice what is good, and liberate all beings" cause me to no longer be evil? What is humanity's true nature; original sin and depravity, or "Buddha nature" ("all beings are whole and complete, imbued with compassion and wisdom", but due to our delusive thinking, we've lost touch with this)?

    "Despite all appearances, no one is truly evil. They are led astray by delusion. Contemplate this truth often, and you will offer more light than blame and condemnation."
    The Dhammavadaka

    I have a strong preference not to go through life seeing my fellow humans as innately evil, and despite our frequent ethical lapses, I'd encourage everyone not to see themselves as evil, either.
    One can be peaceable, with "peace as your highest value", which is not the same as being pacifistic; resorting to violence "only in the direst necessity" and if compelled to do so, "only with the utmost restraint". The capacity for violence in extremis, as a last resort.
    You're dying of a bacterial infection. I administer an antibiotic which saves your life, but kills millions of living organisms. Is that violence? Would that conflict with pacifistic values? Would that violate the 1st Precept of 'not killing, but respecting all life'?
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2024
    Kama'aina likes this.
  8. Kama'aina

    Kama'aina Members

    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    420
    Okay, I can understand the quotes usage. But I think you're seriously underestimating your intelligence.

    I agree with only using violence in direst necessity. No problem with that.

    But direst necessity exists, right now.

    Let me give you an example: (And this maybe does require a trigger warning, for real, so here it is.)

    A three year old girl is abducted. Or purchased. Or perhaps was born to a woman who was already a trafficked sex slave.

    From that age she is raped again and again and again. She is used in making porn. She is rented out to perverted men for sex. And always there is the porn and the rape and the pain, and it comes from men, and women, and kids her own age. She has a hollow, haunted look in her eyes that will never go away.

    What do we do with the men who run or finance such operations, or the men (and, again, some women) whose job is to procure such kids?

    The harm they cause is beyond heinous. They do it over and over and over.

    They have some freakishly expensive attorneys who are hella good at their jobs, and law enforcement has a hard time finding them, to say nothing of bringing them to justice.

    I say that more good than bad is accomplished by killing such men. Even if it's by extrajudicial assassination.

    Those kids (and plenty of adults) are in a clearly dire situation and sometimes the ends do justify the means.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2024
    kinulpture and scratcho like this.
  9. Kama'aina

    Kama'aina Members

    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    420
    One more thing: these operations are usually run by criminal syndicates, from the Vor V Zakonye to the Triads, organizations that tend to have a lot of blood on their hands for a lot of activities.
     
    kinulpture likes this.
  10. Kama'aina

    Kama'aina Members

    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    420
    PoeticPeacenik: there is nothing wrong with being a pacifist, that is who you are and that is good. But also know that is due in part to ignorance (and, really, I do not mean any negative connotation by that) that you can claim that mantle. I envy you.
     
    kinulpture likes this.
  11. Piobaire

    Piobaire Village Idiot

    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    9,170
    I'd say 'that depends'. If someone is subdued and cannot threaten others, such as on the ground in handcuffs or in a jail cell, violence can not be considered defensive, and therefore can't be considered justified. Execution, judicial or otherwise, is nothing more than murder. If a person is actively threatening others with a weapon and their victims are at high risk of being grievously wounded or killed, I can certainly understand the impulse to use force (perhaps lethal force) to defend them. However, moving the scenario from the micro to the macrocosmic level, it's at least worth considering that that's sometimes how wars between nations start. I'm reminded of Miyamoto Musashi, the greatest samurai in feudal Japan. Although he'd killed many in combat, he considered his greatest victories to be the confrontations he resolved without drawing his sword. Perhaps I'm just not imaginative enough to come up with a nonviolent solution.

    "Never think that war, no matter how necessary nor how justified, is not a crime. Ask the infantry and ask the dead."
    Ernest Hemingway

    The above scenario brings up another question; choosing pacifism when I'm personally threatened may be perfectly reasonable, but what if others are threatened, and I'm in a position to actively defend them? Do I have an ethical right to inflict the consequences of my pacifist choices upon them without their consent? Do they have a reasonable expectation of aid and protection based upon our shared humanity?
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2024
    kinulpture and Kama'aina like this.
  12. Kama'aina

    Kama'aina Members

    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    420
    I don't believe you have any failing in imagination. Remember what I said about your self-underestimation?

    I think there are two differences at play between us:

    We have different experiences and they lead us down different paths, and...

    Some innate differences in our being do the same thing.

    Those are neither good nor bad, as I see them. Just differences.

    And you're certainly right about how wars can start! A series of back and forth fuckups until the bombs start falling. It would be nice if we could avoid that.

    I still see extrajudicial killing--and yup, it's definitely murder--as something that is sometimes justified.
     
    kinulpture likes this.
  13. jcp123

    jcp123 Members

    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    86
    Nothing wrong with pacifism.

    In my book, defensive violence is acceptable, the rest not so much.
     
    skip and Kama'aina like this.
  14. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,830
    Likes Received:
    14,999
    I have always preferred Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English's interpretations better than most.

    Thirty-one

    Good weapons are instruments of fear; all creatures hate them.
    Therefore followers of Tao never use them.
    The wise man prefers the left.
    The man of war prefers the right.

    Weapons are instruments of fear; they are not a wise man's tools.
    He uses them only when he has no choice.
    Peace and quiet are dear to his heart,
    And victory no cause for rejoicing.
    If you rejoice in victory, then you delight in killing;
    If you delight in killing, you cannot fulfill yourself.

    On happy occasions precedence is given to the left,
    On sad occasions to the right.
    In the army the general stands on the left,
    The commander-in-chief on the right.
    This means that war is conducted like a funeral.
    When many people are being killed,
    They should be mourned in heartfelt sorrow.
    That is why a victory must be observed like a funeral.​
     
  15. kinulpture

    kinulpture Member

    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    207
    Only abt, 12 yrs ago. I just had to introduce my older brother to the concepts of covert action. Which is utilized, much more often than ppl realize. I didn't even mention friendly fire. I couldn't actually believe he really never heard of covert action. Plz simply plz, Google search the entire public records of just the us military. There far more public actions there than some folks can comprehend. & guess what? Far more aren't in public record.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice