|
Willhelm on pacifism: Pacifism is a strange concept. It is actually the use of force against justice, ethics, moral obligation, love, compassion, peace, security, prosperity, dignity, and hope. POPPED POPPED What? That makes no sense Willhelm, I thought that you would know better than that.... Why does it not make sense? Pacifism is restraint against acting out for yours and others' defense, resulting in direct contradiction to the moral imperative. How that translate to aggression exactly? Ghandi was a pacifist and so was Martin Luther King jr. They believe in non-violence. And what moral imperative would that be, if it they consciously, based on their moral outlook decide that violence is never the answer. I may not agree, but to say that it is aggression nonsense. No , your misunderstanding me. I am not saying peaceful-resistance and non-violence cannot be effective in certain conditions. That was not my point. And, I do not think you can classify MLK as a pacifist in the true sense of the word. He was operating in civil framework against injustice. But, you may be right saying he was. That's a different issue. How that translate to aggression exactly?I am speaking about the contridictory FORCE applied against the will and the moral conscience to protect and preserve innocence. I am speaking in a philosophical sense. The force applied against one's moral conscience to protect the innocent denies the moral imperative because if ev... But isn't the moral imperative a personal one, not a communal aspect? Pacifism is based on the idea that "violence begets violence" and that by acting in a violent manner, even in a defensive posture, you are adding to the overall use of violence and justify it as a tool within society. So the pacifist is moved by his moral imperative not to commit further acts of violence. True that I would not see pacifism as a panacea, but to say that it is in itself aggression just turns it on its head and I find it to be an incorrect assumption on your part. The concept of the moral imperative is that in every situation you ask yourself this: Would my action be morally justified on the basis and expectation that everyone else do the same thing. Now on global scale and in the absence of violence, aggression, or evil, the moral imperative would certainly support pacifism. We live in no such world and it would be pollyanish to suggest pacifism as virtuous. So, in order to deny the moral obligation ( by resistance, ie force applied against the moral conscience or will) to survive, protect, and confront aggression, you are allowing the evil to prevail and innocence to be harmed. I do not think you can classify MLK as a pacifist in the true sense of the word. He was operating in civil framework against injustice. Pacifism and non-violent (passive) resistance are not equal. As pointed out, one of the key differences is the civil framework. Both MLK and Gandhi had the advantage of appealing to a distictively Western -- British more specifically -- tradition. I challenge anyone to prove beyond a doubt that either man would have thought his approach as applicable to a despotic regime as to the situation they faced. The cost in blood would be too high in comparison to an active alternative. True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of just... Furthermore, I would argue that the current "pacifists" are motivated as much by isolationism and a burning desire to win victory in the "war against Republicans", in contrast to the War on Jihadism (terror is a tactic, not the enemy), as they are by any true call of pacifism. Thus to compare them to MLK or Gandhi is to give their base motives a veneer of goodwill they do not deserve. Cniq cniq, I agree with you 100%. MLK and Ghandi were not pacifists. It seems to me MLK certainly would not oppose and did not oppose WWII, for example. |
View the Top Clips from May 3, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|
