Are you a pacifist?

[Anomaly Q3Xr]

I would say I am a mostly pacifist. I do not agree with war or acts of violence. I would always choose diplomacy over violence, and would never be the aggressor. I have used violence as a means of both self-protection and the protection of others, but only as a last resort. I also feel that if a nation or a people are attacked, they are justified in fighting to defend themselves.

[JimmyJazz]

7 hours ago, Frenchace said:

Now I'm confused. Do you believe that to be count as a pacific, you should, for instance, not resist if another country attack you or invade you, like, you just let them destroy you ?

I don't think you can claim to be a pacifist whilst believing that violence should be used to protect territory and/or national sovereignty. I know that other forms of pacifism exist but, for me, you are either an absolute pacifist or you are not one at all. And I am not one, nor would I ever claim to be. 

[The French Unicorn]

52 minutes ago, JimmyJazz said:

I don't think you can claim to be a pacifist whilst believing that violence should be used to protect territory and/or national sovereignty. I know that other forms of pacifism exist but, for me, you are either an absolute pacifist or you are not one at all. And I am not one, nor would I ever claim to be. 

I don't think that in such a scenario, it means "believing that violence should be used to protect territory and/or national sovereignty". I think it means "believing that we violence should not be to protect territory and/or national sovereignty, but that if the other party refuse to engage dialogue and is destroying your land and the life of the population, then fighting back is justified".

[JimmyJazz]

7 minutes ago, Frenchace said:

I don't think that in such a scenario, it means "believing that violence should be used to protect territory and/or national sovereignty". I think it means "believing that we violence should not be to protect territory and/or national sovereignty, but that if the other party refuse to engage dialogue and is destroying your land and the life of the population, then fighting back is justified".

You're describing something close to conditional pacifism but I don't buy it as all warmongers will tell you that it's justified, that the other party is the problem, that they didn't accept conditions, they left them in a position where war was the only choice, etc etc etc... rinse and repeat, they all do it. If you think violence is necessary to protect a nation's claim to territory, that is not pacifism because you are advocating for violence. I'm perfectly okay with interpretable and reasonable arguments over the Just War theory, I believe in it, but I do not think a pacifist can ever believe in such a thing.

[The French Unicorn]

13 hours ago, JimmyJazz said:

You're describing something close to conditional pacifism but I don't buy it as all warmongers will tell you that it's justified, that the other party is the problem, that they didn't accept conditions, they left them in a position where war was the only choice, etc etc etc... rinse and repeat, they all do it. If you think violence is necessary to protect a nation's claim to territory, that is not pacifism because you are advocating for violence. I'm perfectly okay with interpretable and reasonable arguments over the Just War theory, I believe in it, but I do not think a pacifist can ever believe in such a thing.

Just because someone can use the "it was justified" in a bad way doesn't mean that it can't be in another context. If an Ukrainian tell me he stayed in their country to fight the Russians, I won't blame them, really...

 

Also war is not only about the land, you know ? When Hitler attacked, it was not about "claiming a territory". Also people live in these areas. What about them ?

Sure there is always the choice to surrender immediately without facing, and risk things like slavery, life of poverty, or even genocide (for instance in case of Hitler with the Jews). Maybe that what someone should do to count as a pacifist. But then I hope that I am not ruled by a pacifist.

 

 

 

[JimmyJazz]

1 hour ago, Frenchace said:

Just because someone can use the "it was justified" in a bad way doesn't mean that it can't be in another context. If an Ukrainian tell me he stayed in their country to fight the Russians, I won't blame them, really...

 

Also war is not only about the land, you know ? When Hitler attacked, it was not about "claiming a territory". Also people live in these areas. What about them ?

Sure there is always the choice to surrender immediately without facing, and risk things like slavery, life of poverty, or even genocide (for instance in case of Hitler with the Jews). Maybe that what someone should do to count as a pacifist. But then I hope that I am not ruled by a pacifist.

 

 

 

I don't blame them either but I wouldn't call them pacifists for staying put and fighting. They believe that war is better than the alternatives. And the alternatives exist, they could leave the territory, they could move, they could give it to Russia, they could surrender. I would stay put, but I wouldn't do that and then say I'm a pacifist. We could have avoided war with Germany in 1939 if we really wanted to. We would have made concessions but still, if you choose violence over unreasonable concessions, a one-sided surrender or a Carthaginian Peace, you have still chosen violence. You might think it's a Just War but it's not pacifism.

[The French Unicorn]

1 hour ago, JimmyJazz said:

I don't blame them either but I wouldn't call them pacifists for staying put and fighting. They believe that war is better than the alternatives. And the alternatives exist, they could leave the territory, they could move, they could give it to Russia, they could surrender. I would stay put, but I wouldn't do that and then say I'm a pacifist. We could have avoided war with Germany in 1939 if we really wanted to. We would have made concessions but still, if you choose violence over unreasonable concessions, a one-sided surrender or a Carthaginian Peace, you have still chosen violence. You might think it's a Just War but it's not pacifism.

It may not be pacifism but then we have to agree that pacifism is not viable solution. Because saying to people "you could leave your home" will be reasonable or acceptable for all of these people. We all know how miserable refugees can be, if tbey don't die on the sea while they are trying to escape their land. Because people can move but where ? How ? In what conditions ? Who is going to welcome them ? And if the hypothesis of a country who want to conquere all a continent, what do people do : they live a whole continent to a few people and go create surpopulation in the rest of the world ? If this is the whole planet that someone want to invade, the population go to Mars ?

France surrendered in world war II. It resulted in the land being occupied, the population not having enough to live, the population divided between "collabo" and "résistants", and a lot of Jews and other minorities being deported and/or executed. Because Pétain who was leaded the land thought it was a better solution than war, so he agreed to deported Jews, executed the people who were helping them to hide, etc. That is choosing violence, if you ask me. And yet, he could be called a pacifist as he did that to avoid war.

 

Yes world war II could have been prevented. Probably every war could have been. But they were not and another country declared war to another, I don't think there is a choice between "violence or pacifism", because violence will happen no matter what you choose. Maybe sometimes pacifism is still the best or the moral solution, I'm sure we can find cases in history. But sometimes, I do believe that you won't find a lot of people still advocated for their pacifist views if they had ones because it would not be viable, so people who are "true pacifists" as you said would be extrememly rare.

[Purple Wanderer]

Completely re-edited...

 

I think it'd be a more peaceful world. 

If everyone was willing to fight for peace.

 

 

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

I will say this...I consider only they who would not act to harm another intentionally, regardless of justification, to be a true pacifist. I am far from such.

[MarRister]

I guess I could add that for myself, if my country was invaded, while I would be very angry about this, I highly doubt I would fight unless if in direct self defence in order to get away. I would flee more likely. I am not a fighter and don't really intend to change that. Some may look at that as being cowardly, but I can live other places (hopefully) and don't see a point in dying or killing for some land. 

 

I think this mentality was ingrained in me pretty young. Violence was not an acceptable solution in life in my home. My dad was brought up Mennonite by my grandparents who come from a long line of Mennonites, and this was their way and it seems to have been passed down to me even though I am not Mennonite by faith. My family ended up in the States because they chose to leave their homes to avoid religious persecution rather than fight hundreds of years ago. 

[daveb]

I think it might be a more peaceful world if no one was willing to fight for peace.  

(like the old thing about, "what if they had a war and no one came?")

[Autumn ace]

I’m not a pacifist. I don’t like violence, but I do think it can be necessary. Whether it’s an act of individual self defense, or defending your country (like Ukraine with Russias invasion), it can be necessary in response.  

[Jusey1]

No, while I do believe in the idea of being a pacifist and that you should always try the most peaceful options first... But I also believe that if every option FAILS then you're only left with the final hostile option.

[Missing]

I'm not a pacifist. I dislike needless violence and I want violence to be an unsuccessful way for people to get their way. I think there are times when violent retaliation is justified, but choosing not to would lead to the best outcome for everyone involved. Other times, I think idealism and wishful thinking that there's always a non-violent solution to every conflict causes a lot more harm than good. I think glorifying either violence or non-violence can be blinding. Personally, I try to avoid violence as much as possible, but fully embrace it when it is necessary.

[SorryNotSorry]

I'm pacifist, for the most part. However, I have no compunction against giving fate a push in the right direction when it really needs it.

[Euna]

I'm a pacifist "in the making"... I believe war outlives its end date in ways we don't always recognize... the devastation to the environment, the cycles of generational trauma suffered by civilians and their children, etc. Thus it is very difficult for me to conceptualize a truly "just war." Many of the conflicts the US has engaged in would not fall under self-defense either, even though they were rationalized and propagandized in various ways.

 

As far as self-defense in general... I think it is reasonable for people to truly defend themselves against violence, but I am skeptical of preemptive aggression and I'm also skeptical that people will know when to stop being violent once they get into it. As Dostoyevsky put it, "Man can get used to anything - the villain!"

 

A third thought is that the way we treat animals can impact how we treat each other. A pacifist attitude should also consider the well-being and dignity of animals.

[Sally]

A pacifist is an individual -- not a country, or the administration of a country.

 

Oxford definition of pacifist:  a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable.  

[EdInLeeds]

I went to the Quaker bookshop and cafe in London once. I'm not a Quaker, but I find their history of social activism interesting. They are pacifists.

 

They had a huge number of books about how they refused to fight in WWI. That's good, I thought. If I were to go back in time, I would not have fought in WWI.

 

I noticed that they had very few books on WWII, and the few that they had were on Germans who had refused to fight. I couldn't help but think that this is because WWII is seen as more of a "just war" by most people than WWI.

 

I don't think that I can call myself a pacifist, as I think that some wars are worth fighting, horrible though fighting always is.

[uhtred]

I think there is a wide range of what is considered pacifism.  At its extreme, someone would not try to fight to defend themselves or others. At the other it just means not initiating violence except in response to violence.

 

 

[SorryNotSorry]

On 10/26/2022 at 1:44 PM, EdInLondon said:

I don't think that I can call myself a pacifist, as I think that some wars are worth fighting, horrible though fighting always is.

I hold to the caveat that if someone is resorting to dirty tricks to defeat you, well then you shouldn't have any compunction against using dirty tricks against them either.

[notactuallymerida]

I’m against violence for the sake of violence, but I believe that people should (have the right to) defend themselves and others when necessary.

 I’m also supportive of countries defending themselves or aiding other countries in case of an invasion or to bring down a dictatorship (like WWII). What I don’t agree with is starting or participating in wars in order to get something out of it (be it political influence, oil, or something entirely different),

So, no, I wouldn’t say that I’m a pacifist, nor that I agree with pacifism as a concept. Pacifism could only work if everyone were a pacifist and that sadly just isn’t the case. 

[smellincoffee]

I'm a firm believer in the nonaggression principle, which I discovered while reading Gandhi and later applied to my political thinking as I began exploring libertarianism.  I watch videos on nonviolent communication to help me in life and at work, in resolving conflicts peacefullly.   However....I'd say I have a cowboy mentality. I'm happy to live in peace with everyone, but if someone is hurting others,  attempting to harm me, etc, I believe in the immediate, judicious use of force.  I despise bullies and have a hatred enough of them that I deliberately chose not to pursue an interest in law enforcement after college, because I don't trust my ability to restrain myself. I'd be like the guy in the song "Wait in the Truck", who rescues someone who had been beaten by her husband, then just drives to the guy's house and -- well, you can imagine.