Pacifism

Is there really anything wrong with being a pacifist? Some folks on reddit criticized me for labeling myself a pacifist as if it's such a bad thing. When I think of pacifism, I think of hippies and the Amish (and no I'm not saying the hippies and Amish are the same but they are both pacifists). How can pacifism be a bad thing? Anyone here that is genuinely a pacifist?

 

Some folks on reddit will criticize you no matter what you say...

 

They also had something negative to say about Gandhi and Mother Teresa. I listed them as examples of pacifism.

 

Some in the human race are eaten up with the desire to harm others. Pacifism is the way to conduct oneself right up until threatened by violence. So, I suppose I'm not a pure pacifist.

 

A small example is this: My daughter and her (now ex) boyfriend were driving through a mall parking lot here in Eugene and came upon a man throwing a woman around by her hair as she screamed. He did not hesitate to jump out of his car and smack the shit out of that guy and run him off. I vote yes on what he did, pacifist or otherwise. I hope that I would do the same thing in a situation like that.

 

No; there's not. I respect anyone who can adequately resolve the conundrums associated with that choice. Even someone just thinking along those lines is at least trying to refrain from harming others, and in this Sahā world that intent is quite noble, and must count for something.

I remember a question posited in college;
"You're standing on a street corner, and you're armed. There's a man standing 20' from you. Would you shoot him? Why or why not?"
Then;
"You're standing on a street corner, and you're armed. There's a man standing 20' from you. He's firing a rifle into a schoolyard full of kids across the street. Would you shoot him? Why or why not?"

There's a story from the Jataka Tales of a previous incarnation of the Buddha, where he was a sea captain. He became aware that a notorious pirate had slipped aboard incognito; intent on murdering and robbing his wealthy passengers in their sleep.
(A) He could do nothing; all of his passengers would die.
(B) He could raise the alarm; the passengers would kill the pirate.
(C) He could kill the pirate.
He chose to kill the pirate himself; saving not only the lives of his passengers, but saving them from the karmic debt of killing by assuming it to himself.

Life is complex. Despite the First Precept (I vow not to kill, but to respect all life), there might be extraordinary circumstances when Pacifism doesn't inure to the fulfillment of the Mahayana vow to save all beings.
May peace be with you.

 

pacifism is preferable to the lack of it.
consideration and logic in the service of consideration is key to making it practical.

sometimes you have to let people think you're angry as the only way to get them to stop being inconsiderate.
like the old story about having to get the mule's attention first because some people are so narcissistic that's all they can hear.
but people who think they're doing the world a favor by sabotaging peace, aren't,
and that statistical sum of aggressive inconsiderateness is authoritarian tyranny.

so generally its all about what kind of world you want to live in, and the best worlds to live in, are those which effectively prevent the dominance of aggressiveness.
i mean those that can find a way to stay that way at the same time.

nothing comes automatically from a particular perspective or intention, but it is possible to achieve.

 

Hello again Poet mate. Reddit has no manners.

 

You do you and live life true to yourself pacifist or combative someone’s always gonna criticise.

I think I feel most comfortable in the middle. In the past I’ve let things go that on reflection I probably should have stomped on pretty early but I’ve also stomped on things I probably should have left well alone because it didn’t make any difference but things have worked out well the opposite way too.

 

As a child of the early sixties, I was initially brought up with Movies/film of War and Westerns.
"The Good guys of the Allied forces and Brave cavalry men against the Nasty Nazi's and Cruel Japanese,- along with Barbaric 'Red' 'Indians'"
I then saw the News films showing not just the victims of holocaust but the aftermath of Hiroshima , practices in 'Nam, and learned of American history. This was coupled with the genuine threat of Nuclear and Chemical WW destruction - and the consequences of such.
My mindset developed into one of consideration and/of justification.
Nations are not Good, Bad and Ugly - It is people which are.
I was soon enticed by the prospect of Pacifism, and I looked into joining up to CND, though in truth it was moreover that Greenpeace with it's slightly more radical methodology that appealed.
"My Credo of Faith, is where I sit -
Harm No one, but take No shit"
I do however have a lot of respect for those who chose the pathway of Pacifism - for they have more self-discipline than I

 

the opposite of of a rational pacifism screws everything up for everyone.

 

Better to look for love and peace rather, than war any day.

 

Replying to an old thread, but... no. Nothing wrong with it. It's just not realistic to expect the world to be pacifist.

 

If a significant percentage of the world population in all parts of the world were pacifist and worked in this direction, I think the world would be immune to the threat of a holocaust by super-weapons wiping out humanity.

So I would say the pacifist philosophy is highly realistic in this regard.

I admire the Amish theological doctrine that shuns modern technological advances, probably giving a message that such advances are not adequately balanced by proportionate increase in wisdom. Military technology has advanced to the point of being a threat to the survival of mankind.

The Soviet-Russian military scientist Andrei Sakharov, who had tested and developed Soviet nuclear weapons, himself became a lifelong pacifist and peace activist after witnessing the terrific devastation caused by thermonuclear weapons tests, and was subjected to state persecution in this regard till his death. The Sakharov Prize, which is awarded annually by the European Parliament for people and organizations dedicated to human rights and freedoms, is named in his honor.

Eastern philosophy states that nonviolence is a byproduct of peace and calmness within. So it stands to reason from this that violence manifests from the restlessness and agitation within. So pacifism should be a state of mind or being in itself, and arises with self-effort.

It is said that wherever Mahavira ( the founder of the Jain religion and main exponent of nonviolence) walked, the sentient beings in that region for miles around became nonviolent themselves.

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar on Mahavira's teaching of Ahimsa or nonviolence

The serial killer Angulimala became nonviolent and pacifist in Buddha's presence though his initial intention was to kill him.

 

Sometimes people get offended at pacifists because of their approach and timing in bringing up pacifist perspectives. Not because they don't think pacifism is good or that peace and non violence aren't preferable. It would be more likely that someone gets offended when point of consideration about peace is presented to them in a situation where they feel that the circumstances demand violence, or at least for the air of belligerence to be taken seriously. I think most people think that peace is preferable. And some people are surely malicious agitators. And others, no doubt, are reddit trolls who will say whatever to be edgy. But I think that if I were being oppressed in a serious way, or otherwise radicalized toward a violent mentality that felt just or necessitated, I might find a pacifist perspective unwelcome. I might view it as privillaged, naive, or condescending. I might feel insulted that the pacifist did not think first that I would prefer peace, too, and came to my convictions through a rational process whereby I carefully considered the ethics involved. That said, I'm not trying to critique pacifism, just offer an emotionally oriented explanation for where that criticism might come from.

 

I would go further.
Of course even a pacifist should be permitted to defend themself without compromising their pacifist belief.

I consider pacifism to be the desire of/practice by, an individual, to deal with all matters in a peaceful manner but, also, (because one person has no real control over another and their behavior), I consider pacifism to include the right to protect their own or another's peace. A defensive role.

That means; if one person is being assaulted/attacked by another, pacifism permits the pacifist to step in and protect the peace of the assaulted person (to defend them).

If it doesn't include that defensive role, then I would consider pacifism to be wussism or wimpism, which I really don't think it is.

 

John Lennon said it best…”all I am saying is give peace a chance”

 

When they came to arrest Jesus His disciples cut off someones ear, and then Jesus told them to put their sword away. Jesus didn't defend Himself but He died on the cross.

There also aren't any examples of Jesus taking up arms to defend people like John the baptist, who was beheaded. So from that standpoint I don't see using violence to defend others permissable either.

But one example that is often overlooked is when Jesus made a whip of cords and drove out the money changers from the temple, and overturned their tables. Which has a different context.