thought on pacifism

[MJRW]

Was discussing with a semi-liberal but interested in at least trying to shoot friend. Seems slightly fed California prepackaged thoughts on self-defense and so forth. In the discussion pacifism came up and I responded something that stumped him but he may ponder and respond tomorrow. So, I'm hoping some of you can argue the point and others help defend it if it is defendable. This was the statement:

"Pacifism is actually irresponsible since it creates a greater pool of easy victims and therefore increases the need for men and women to risk their lives to defend those victims."

 

[Moparmike]

No help here...

I really dont see how anyone can argue with that statement.

If 75% of a town took up means to defend themselves and others at all times (CCW and sleeping next to a firearm), then that town would have much less people needing to be defended. If .0000075% takes up the means, that means that 99.9999925% are vulnerable, and completely unable to be protected by those looking out for themselves.

 

[Lictalon]

How about some variation of:

"Yes, but it's not up to the individuals to protect others, but the authorities. That sort of attitude leads to vigilantism and causes more crime than it solves."

or

"Crime, like the poor, will always be with us. People who commit crimes do so no matter if there's a gun on the other side of the door...they do so because socio-economic conditions have mandated that they must commit crime in order to survive."

Just some thoughts. I've had arguments aplenty with antis...

 

[Standing Wolf]

Pacifism is actually irresponsible since it creates a greater pool of easy victims and therefore increases the need for men and women to risk their lives to defend those victims.

I like the notion, but fear there's a logical flaw in it: what's the connection between easy victims and criminal acts? Clearly, no mugger would dare attack an obviously armed man, and lots of muggers prey on the elderly and obvious weak people, but those are the extreme ends of the bell curve. I have to believe the majority of criminals choose their victims at random and/or whimsically.

If my neighbors were too stupid to defend their lives and property, would that make it my responsibility to defend them?

I see pacifism as the abandonment of responsibility for oneself.

 

[MJRW]

"Yes, but it's not up to the individuals to protect others, but the authorities. That sort of attitude leads to vigilantism and causes more crime than it solves."

Counters?: Vigilantism isn't the natural next step from ability to defend oneself nor does it necessarily lead to more crimes than it solves. Second, authorities are only authorities to criminals due to their ability to use force/violence in a greater degree than the criminal may use.

"Crime, like the poor, will always be with us. People who commit crimes do so no matter if there's a gun on the other side of the door...they do so because socio-economic conditions have mandated that they must commit crime in order to survive."

Counters?: Alternatively they may commit crimes in order to survive because it is easier than surviving by hard work. However, even crime to survive need not be violent crime and this is pacifism creates a pool of victims particularly for violent crime. I further submit that the known ability to defend a home or person on a grand scale would cause a criminal to seek crimes in which a victim/defender encounter is very unlikely.

 

[Baba Louie]

"Pacifism is actually irresponsible since it creates a greater pool of easy victims and therefore increases the need for men and women to risk their lives to defend those victims."

If we're ALL pacifistic (?) in nature, there's no NEED for anyone to defend anybody, right?
You should then point out "Thats how cows and sheep operate and it works for them... most of the time... they do get eaten a lot tho come to think of it."
Because in the real world there are predators (like humans) who find them tasty and easy to get close to...

Someone here once wrote that to make a point, they'd like to poke a pacifist in the nose two or three times and see if they got up off the floor ready to fight or just lay there cowering... my money's on said pacifist getting up swinging... but I could be wrong. Still and all, its a noble gesture to teach someone their true nature via such a lesson.

Something like that happened to me in about the 3rd grade at lunch one day and we both got sent to the principals office... and did it again on the walk home from school... only to become lifelong friends to this day. Both of us, very pacific in nature until something was said about my mother and I responded in like kind... never a good thing to do at that age. It got "handy" fast. Whereas I'm not a predator, I ain't your prey and you best leave my momma outta this, kinda attitude just came out of nowhere.

Of course you're making an assumption that someone SHOULD jump in and defend said pacifist... but maybe said pacifist doesn't WANT anyone to do so, since it would put their savior in a position where he/she would have to "lower" themselves to an unacceptable level guilty of "Irresponsible" behavior.
Only if they DO expect someone to come to their rescue would they have a point that is undefendable.

Then I'd suggest we focus on punching some holes in paper and discuss "self-defense" at a later date... maybe ask him if this quote from Tucker is valid or not...

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature...

Henry St. George Tucker, from Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on the Laws of England"... and see what his response may be.

 

[Hutch]

I'd draw a distinction between pacifism and the delegation of the power of defense to a 3rd party. A true pacifist wouldn't take up arms in their own defense, or ask others to do so on their behalf. Ain't too many of them around. Most people who claim to be pacifist simply want the hard work of maintaining order delegated to someone else, so they won't have to sully their hands with it.

 

[ceetee]

How about this? I am a pacifist.

My definition of "pacifist" is: a person who enjoys peace.

I find my life much more peaceful if I know myself to be safe from goblins. To that end, if I am approached by a goblin in a non-pacifistic manner, (and I have anything to say about it) there will be a brief outburst of noise, then (hopefully) all will be peaceful again...

 

[freewheeling]

I'm new to the this forum and to being armed, but have studied a bit on these kinds of issues during a long drawn out process of becoming over-educated. From the perspective of "mass violence" (i.e. war) the most often cited philosopher is Reinhold Neibuhr, and his position on what constitutes a "just war" might shed a bit of light of this issue. His philosophy was that WWII, was just and that the position taken by pacifists was immoral in that particular instance. His reasoning was that in a "fallen world" it is unjust to refuse to defend your country from injustice and evil, and by extension there's a duty to support the military defense of one's country against the evil of totalitarianism. I'm fairly certain that he would have taken a similar position on the Iraq War were he alive today, but for some reason he opposed the Vietnam War. I think he would give "pacifists" a pass, however, if they agreed to support the war effort in some material way even though eschewing violence themselves.

And that really brings up an important point in "Public Choice" philosophy. If your pacifist friend believed that not only he, but also you, must be a pacifist then he has what philosophers of game theory call a "meddling preference," in which your behavior is actually more important to him than his own. And one big problem with pacifism is that there's a slippery slope in that direction.

I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that a decision to be a pacifist is necessarily immoral, because there's probably some kind of optimization function where those who are willing to defend themselves with violence reduce the "criminal load" to the point that pacifism actually has an overall benefit. But that observation is conditioned on two things:

1. That such pacifists eschew "meddling preferences;" and

2. That there is a sufficient number of non-pacifists that the responsibility for crime suppression doesn't rest entirely with Law Enforcement. And that includes both "self-policing" behavior (individual morality) as well as self protection. In that regard the Public Choice philosopher and economist Mancur Olson (who should have won the Nobel, but died too soon) did a great deal of research aimed at demonstrating the economic impossibility of allowing responsibility for the suppression of crime to rest entirely with public law enforcement. In other words, they simply couldn't do it without bankrupting the society.

Interesting topic.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I find my life much more peaceful if I know myself to be safe from goblins. To that end, if I am approached by a goblin in a non-pacifistic manner, (and I have anything to say about it) there will be a brief outburst of noise, then (hopefully) all will be peaceful again...

That is called "slide-lock" pacifism.

 

[BHPshooter]

That is called "slide-lock" pacifism.

I like it.

Wes

 

[SMLE]

There was a reason the Colt SAA was called the "Peace Maker".

My take on the "we don't need guns because the police will protect us" kind of pacifism is that it is equal to saying; "I am too special and enlightened to have to protect myself, therefore I shall demand that some other mother's son or daughter risk their far less special and enlightened life for me." Or; "I don't belive in guns, so I don't own one but I shall not hesitate to summon someone else's loved one to bring a gun and risk his/her life for me."

My personal brand of pacifism is; "I will be peaceful and not offer you violence unless you offer it to me, then I will kill you as quickly and efficiently as possible in order to restore peace." See my Signature line.

 

[freewheeling]

My take on the "we don't need guns because the police will protect us" kind of pacifism is that it is equal to saying; "I am too special and enlightened to have to protect myself, therefore I shall demand that some other mother's son or daughter risk their far less special and enlightened life for me." Or; "I don't belive in guns, so I don't own one but I shall not hesitate to summon someone else's loved one to bring a gun and risk his/her life for me."

I read something recently to the effect that the BBC has a program that's supposed to have an MP in with a group of citizens who then tell him some piece of legislation that they think will improve life in the British Isles. Apparently the polling they did indicated that the single most important change the BBC viewers wanted to see was the legalization of handguns for self protection. The MP who had taken some sort of oath to push the required legislation was heard to call the BBC viewers who requested it "idiots" or some such thing.

I discussed this with several relatively "pacifist" friends of mine in the UK, and they concurred that the "social contract" between the police and the people that was supposed to rule out weapon use by civilians has broken down. Apparently breakins are at record levels, from young kids who simply feel far too asured that they won't be harmed for a little harmless burglary or even assault.

Hurrah, I found the citation:
The BEEB Didn't Bargain for This

And here's a short quote:

The Independent reports that Mr Pound's reaction was provoked by the news that the winner of Today's "Listeners' Law" poll was a plan to allow homeowners "to use any means to defend their home from intruders" - a prospect that could see householders free to kill burglars, without question.

 

[Camel]

My argument

"Would you kill to defend your own life?" Obvious answer is "No"

Then either:

"But you would expect the police to kill in your defence? Isnt that a little selfish?"

or

"In a situation where both your life and the life of an innocent were in peril and you had the means to eliminate the danger by killing the threat would you?" If not "You would risk another's life to satisfy your own morals?"

I find these work pretty well.

 

[Drjones]

Not precisely on target, but you get the idea. These sum up my feelings about "pacifism."

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest thing. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war is worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing about which he cares more than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, who has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

- John Stuart Mill c. 1775


"That he which hath no stomach to this fight, Let him Depart...
We would not die in that man's company
that fears his fellowship to die with us."
- W. Shakespeare, Henry V


"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
--Sigmund Freud

 

[Marko Kloos]

"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay--and claims a halo for his dishonesty."

-Robert A. Heinlein

 

[freewheeling]

"Would you kill to defend your own life?" Obvious answer is "No"

Then either:

"But you would expect the police to kill in your defence? Isnt that a little selfish?"

or

"In a situation where both your life and the life of an innocent were in peril and you had the means to eliminate the danger by killing the threat would you?" If not "You would risk another's life to satisfy your own morals?"

I can find nothing wrong with that line of logic.

 

[dischord]

Pacifism seems a red herring to me. It is a rare human who can take punch after punch or stand by while loved ones are injured and do nothing. Eventually, anger and survival instincts kick in. For 99.9% of the population, pacifism is the conceit of those who have never faced the need to defend themselves or others.

What's more pertinent -- and where you might be able to find some common ground -- is the idea of non-aggression. I'm not necessarily talking about the libertarian non-aggression principle, but about the normal human ethic of "leave me alone and I'll leave you alone."

Gun ownership, and in particular CCW, requires a bit of what might be called "pacifism light." You are ethically obliged to control yourself in the face of aggression and to make a sound decision about the use of force.

So make sure he understands that self-defense does not mean aggression or vigilantism ... that a fleeing criminal would be allowed to flee. If need be, make analogies to the self control of martial arts.

Regardless of whether it's guns, knives, sticks or fists, our society is losing the ethic of controlled force, and that leads to two groups: those without the ability to control their force and those without the ability to bring force.

A society of self-controlled guard dogs is more peaceful (more pacific) than a society in which rabid wolves prey on scared sheep.

 

[BigG]

It depends on whether the person professing "pacifism" is morally consistent within his behaviour before I will call him a charlatan. If the person objects under pain of conscience that his god would not want him to be doing that then I would expect him to obey the other tenets of his god, also. In other words if a nominally christian guy conveniently refused to defend his country but had kids by a dozen different unmarried women, refused to work, and sold drugs for a living I would have a hard time believing he was conscientiously objecting to military service.

But you're right, by and large, those of you who feel that it is an intellectually dishonest, freeloader sort of position for most people to take; trying to seize the moral high ground without contributing anything to your society. Hmm. Reminds me of some pols - and preachers.

 

[iapetus]

ceetee

How about this? I am a pacifist.

My definition of "pacifist" is: a person who enjoys peace.

www.dictionary.com

pac·i·fism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ps-fzm)
n.
The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.

Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.

I used to consider myself to be a pacifist, by your definition, until I learnt that the "proper" meaning of pacifism is a refusal to fight under any circumstance.


In my mind, to be truely "anti" something, you have to make a stand and try to stop the something. It's not enough to just say "I don't like this!" and hope it goes away.

I generally consider myself to be "anti war". However, I know that there have been, are, and always will be evil people who are not anti-war, and see nothing wrong with attacking an innocent country, killing or enslaving their people, stealing their land, etc. If someone like that decides to attack you, no amount of "dialogue" or "showing them a better way" will stop them. The only thing that will stop them is armed defence. To be truely "anti war", you need to be prepared to stand and fight to stop someone making war on you.

Refusing to fight under any circumstances isn't "anti war" - it's pro-war, just as surely as abolishing the police and courts would be "pro-crime".

 

[Trebor]

I worked with a woman who was a "True Pacifist." She was a minister in the Church of the Brethren. The way she explained it to me was that they believed that the Spiritual Harm you did to yourself by harming another, even in self-defense, was ALWAYS greater than the physical harm they could do to you. (Btw, the attacker also suffered great spiritual harm in attacking you)

Another way to look at it was that would you be willing to risk your chance to go to heaven just to prolong your life here on earth?

Now, I don't agree with these concepts, but I can understand them. She truly believe that she could miss out on her promised afterlife if she harmed another, AND was willing to accept the consequences of that while here on earth. That takes a lot of faith.

Now, I DO separate her beliefs from those people who call themselves "Pacifists," but are merely uncomfortable with the notion of defending themselves, YET are perfectly willing to let someone else do it for them.

 

[iapetus]

Oh, and to answer Freewheeling:

freewheeling

I read something recently to the effect that the BBC has a program that's supposed to have an MP in with a group of citizens who then tell him some piece of legislation that they think will improve life in the British Isles. Apparently the polling they did indicated that the single most important change the BBC viewers wanted to see was the legalization of handguns for self protection. The MP who had taken some sort of oath to push the required legislation was heard to call the BBC viewers who requested it "idiots" or some such thing.

Almost, but not quite.

The willing suggestion was changing the law about self defence against a home intruder from "You can use any justifyible force" to "you can use any force".

The MP behind the event was "disappointed" by the results. He quoted someone else who had said "The people have spoken - the bastards!", and I think said his enthusiasm for direct democracy had been reduced. I don't think he called anyone "idiots" though.


I think your suggestion about allowing handguns (or any sort of firearm) for self protection would be better.

The irony is, you can own shotguns if you have "good reason" to, and you could use a shotgun for self defence, if you could convince the jury it was "justified" in the circumstances, but "self defence" does not count as a "good reason" for owning one.

(Someone on these boards mentioned a case in the UK where business man stabbed an attacker with an [illegal] sword-cane he was carrying. Apparently, he was convicted for carrying an illegal weapon, but not punished for actually using it, as it was "justified force" in the circumstances! Don't know if it's true though).

 

[MoNsTeR]

People who commit crimes do so no matter if there's a gun on the other side of the door...they do so because socio-economic conditions have mandated that they must commit crime in order to survive

This is the argument that seems the most dangerous to me, and it's no surprise that someone who believes it would be anti-gun. Arguing that people will commit crimes regardless of the possible consequences is equivalent to saying criminals behave irrationally, which is absolutely false.

Criminals may act stupidly, but like all humans they always act rationally. That is, they weigh expected benefits against expected costs, and act if the former exceeds the latter. Though this process may proceed unconsciously, it is how ALL deliberate decisions are made by humans.

To assert that criminals behave irrationally is to declare them to be sub-human. And once you've decided they behave like animals, all sorts of inane excuses for criminality can be conjured up. Morality becomes a moot point, as animals have no such thing. As in the quote above, "socio-economic conditions" are frequently blamed. For humans, "socio-economic conditions" are ultimately our own responsibility, but not so for unthinking animals. Plainly, it becomes easy to justify all manner of state control of people's lives based on these premises.

One of the strengths of the arguments for laws favorable to home defense and CCW is that they acknowledge the rationality of criminals. An increase in the proportion of armed potential victims increases the expected costs of crimes, which reduces the rate at which they're committed. Arguments like the above, if allowed to prevail, can defeat pro-gun causes before we even get started, by planting that belief that criminals are sub-human.

 

[BigG]

Like Monster said, the profit motive is behind many decisions. People may act stupidly but they also act rationally. Don't let anyone tell you a criminal ain't weighing the odds.

 

[freewheeling]

Iapetus:

Almost, but not quite.

The willing suggestion was changing the law about self defence against a home intruder from "You can use any justifyible force" to "you can use any force".

The MP behind the event was "disappointed" by the results. He quoted someone else who had said "The people have spoken - the bastards!", and I think said his enthusiasm for direct democracy had been reduced. I don't think he called anyone "idiots" though.

Right. It had been a few weeks since I read the article, and since I was up late wasn't incluned to re-read it. The funny thing is that quite a few of my UK friends who opposed the War in Iraq are in favor of such a change in the statute. There's a general recognition that things aren't working, and, well here are some quotes, first from a non-pacifist:

My friend arrived at his elderly mother's house to find a hoooligan had broken in and was hitting the elderly lady.
My friend picked an iron bar and smashed in the hoologans's head.
The police then arrested my friend for causing the hooligan bodily damage.
At the trial, the hooligan arrives there all bandaged up and my friend tells the story exactly as it happened to the judge.

My friend was found guilty.
The judge then turned to the 'victim' who had come down from Liverpool to see a football match.
My friend's punishment was to pay the hooliogan's fare back to liverpool.

The British justice, woops I mean legal, system is very much pot luck

And now from a thinking British "pacifist" who has been living in the US for a few years:

I'm not surprised by this, either. What Jethro [above] relates happens all the time in the UK. There is a lawless, criminal element amongst young people which seems to be running amok in the UK, and getting away with it for the most part.

My friend in London (Ealing area) has an 88-year-old neighbor who has had her home broken into THREE times recently, this last time while she was home. Then, the house across the street had the windows smashed in and thieves enter in broad daylight. And this has never been known to be a "dicey" area.

I agree with the populace, that they should be allowed to defend themselves, the same way they would in America. It is not right that old people (or anybody else) should be allowed to be victimized in this way (though, sadly, they still will be, laws or not).

Quite frankly, I feel safer in most of the U.S. than I did in England. There was something about these types of Clockwork-Orange-like kids without consciences that frightened the life out of me.

Now Jethro (the first quote) is an avid Bush supporter, while Joy (the second quote) doesn't have anything much good to say about Bush. But if anything she's more "militant" than Jethro on this issue.