I’ll bite. By immoral do you mean that it violates some abstract absolutist notion of right and wrong? or in a more material and utilitarian sense, do you mean that it results in more suffering than it alleviates? Or something else?
Ah, SagaciousLam my old nemesis. I believe we have danced this dance before.
The utilitarian sense would still imply an absolute notion of morality (i.e. action leading to suffering is wrong).
I am definitely not saying that pacifism is intrinsically wrong, so I think the intended meaning of the above statement would be closer to your second utilitarian meaning (though based on an underlying more basic morality, if that makes any sense).
For the purposes of this dialectic, it might be useful to agree on some base frame of morality, even if somewhat vague, i.e. suffering = bad, death = bad, happiness = good. Nothing revolutionary, just what most people consciously or unconsciously base their ethics on.
I know I missed the boat and can’t get involved with this as the attacker now, but I thought I would comment.
Really, is all death bad? Is all suffering bad? Is all happiness good? What about self-sacrifice? Is the death of the soldier who jumped on the grenade good or bad. I say its a good death. Is the suffering of the marathon runner good or bad? I say its good. Is the happiness of the sadist good? I say its bad.
Couldn’t pacifism be moral if someone were to limit their realm of responsibility to that which a pacifist is capable of? Obviously, if you promised to defend a girl no matter what it took in case of trouble, and simultaneously claimed to be a pacifist, that would be immoral. But what if there was no girl, or a girl who expects to take care of herself when trouble comes a knocking? Would pacifism still be immoral?
Sorry, SagaciousLam, I don’t mean to impede on your ability to take the argument where you want it to go. This all about you. I’m rooting for you. Take Capy down.
Poor choice of wording, but what I meant by that is a governing philosophy that supersedes all others. I.e., if it is your “life philosophy” as I put it other philosophies could not take precedence over it.
So, you couldn’t have pacifism and “protect the innocent and weak” as co-equal doctrines, and pick and choose from those. All I really mean by that wording is that you are serious about your pacifism.
But what if there was no girl, or a girl who expects to take care of herself when trouble comes a knocking? Would pacifism still be immoral?
If there was never a girl (and I take this to be your metaphor for any situation for which intervention might be necessary in order to protect somebody, you sexist pig), then saying you were a pacifist would have absolutely no meaning; it would just sound nice.
If the “girl” was always capable of protecting herself, then the term would still have no meaning.
I may be misunderstanding you, but if I am not, the scenarios you are describing would be like a person patting himself on the back for being a vegetarian in a world without meat.
If it weren’t for the possibility of a draft, that would be true. But it is either all or nothing. You can’t say that you would protect the girl while at the same time saying you won’t kill enemy troops for a cause your country believes is right.
I choose “girl” because its a sore issue for me. Some girls I have dated want me to protect them. They get pissed when I won’t say I will. They question my manhood, maybe with just cause. I’m holding out for the girl who can stand up for herself.
You can give up your personal life. You can’t give up your citizenship… I mean, you can switch citizenships, but at the end of the day, no matter where you are, someone might ask you to kill for their cause. When you say you won’t, it seems to me that you had better be able to say that is your position across the board.
So I’ll throw out my two cents as a reminder of other rational opinions that exist, but I don’t really expect them to have any great impact on this debate…
Pacifism is not immoral, there is no immorality, only intelligent vs. unintelligent actions:
Pacifism is a wise decision, if being a pacifist promotes your survival, and that of you children. For example, declaring yourself a pacifist, and refusing to enlist in armed combat is a wise move for your future survival. On the other hand, declaring yourself a pacifist, while not raising a hand when your wife and children are beaten and bloodied in front of you is not a wise decision in the Darwinian sense, as your progeny will be disadvantaged by this tramatic event.
*A note on point one: If by refusing to enlist in combat when drafted had consequences such as long-term imprisonment or death, then the pacifist approach may also be the wrong choice in this case, as it may disadvantage greatly your family (e.g. loss of salary, no veterans benefits, 100% likelihood of the loss of a father vs. the chance of death in combat, stigma of imprisoned father)
But basically, to sum everything up, if you discount god and religion as holding any true meaning (as I do), then the only true meaning of morality is as it applies to society. Morality then becomes the creation of said society, and upon further analysis, what seems evident to me is that most modern societies have determined that violence is to be abhorred in most circumstances, but when necessary is a legitimate means to an end. It is within the moral framework created by society that an individual must make his/her own choices…
Fair points, but for the purposes of this dialectic, Saggy and I agreed on a basic (if vague) morality. In fact, we couldn’t even have the conversation on any other basis. Pacifism is an inherently moralistic stance, so if we didn’t agree on some basic morals for the dialectic, there would be no conversation at all.
Well what are these morals based on then? How can you define a “basic (if vague) morality”? What is it?
I bet that if you asked people in China they would have a very different opinion of what morality was than you do. The same would probably hold true for the opinions of people from most other places in the world. How then do you argue on whether or not pacifism is moral, when you can not even define a morality? Or do you take the conventional Western, Christian morality as the argumentative stance?
My point is that morality is defined by society, unless there is another entity determined to have defined it, and as such the discussion becomes difficult across cultures, and must in the end involve a comparison of world philosophies.
Haha, I went back and read the top comments (something I should have done before my last post) and I saw that you did define that basic morality. I don’t really think that this is a dogma held by most people as you so claim, however…I believe, at the least, it deserves a bit more clarification.
Death = Bad
Does this hold true for enemies of a state? For serial killers?
Happiness = Good
Is happiness good for others or just for oneself? If the happiness of another decreases the happiness of yourself, is it moral or immoral for the other to be happy? Do you look at the world as a zero sum game of happiness, so that if a rise of 3 happiness units in another results in drop of your own happiness by 1 unit then this is moral?
Suffering = Bad
As in the argument that death is bad, is suffering always bad? Is suffering bad if it can lead to information that saves lives (i.e. torture, human experimentation, etc)? What if suffering is self-inflicted?
I like the train of thought here a lot, and I think the question of whether or not pacifism is immoral will be sorted out a lot more easily once morality is properly understood.
February 18, 2007 at 8:35 pm
I’ll bite. By immoral do you mean that it violates some abstract absolutist notion of right and wrong? or in a more material and utilitarian sense, do you mean that it results in more suffering than it alleviates? Or something else?
February 18, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Ah, SagaciousLam my old nemesis. I believe we have danced this dance before.
The utilitarian sense would still imply an absolute notion of morality (i.e. action leading to suffering is wrong).
I am definitely not saying that pacifism is intrinsically wrong, so I think the intended meaning of the above statement would be closer to your second utilitarian meaning (though based on an underlying more basic morality, if that makes any sense).
For the purposes of this dialectic, it might be useful to agree on some base frame of morality, even if somewhat vague, i.e. suffering = bad, death = bad, happiness = good. Nothing revolutionary, just what most people consciously or unconsciously base their ethics on.
February 20, 2007 at 1:09 am
I know I missed the boat and can’t get involved with this as the attacker now, but I thought I would comment.
Really, is all death bad? Is all suffering bad? Is all happiness good? What about self-sacrifice? Is the death of the soldier who jumped on the grenade good or bad. I say its a good death. Is the suffering of the marathon runner good or bad? I say its good. Is the happiness of the sadist good? I say its bad.
Couldn’t pacifism be moral if someone were to limit their realm of responsibility to that which a pacifist is capable of? Obviously, if you promised to defend a girl no matter what it took in case of trouble, and simultaneously claimed to be a pacifist, that would be immoral. But what if there was no girl, or a girl who expects to take care of herself when trouble comes a knocking? Would pacifism still be immoral?
Sorry, SagaciousLam, I don’t mean to impede on your ability to take the argument where you want it to go. This all about you. I’m rooting for you. Take Capy down.
February 20, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Ok good, so we have some base assumptions down(even though they might be nebulous as Tequila pointed out) and something of a working definition.
Next question: what is a “life philosophy”?
February 21, 2007 at 1:12 am
Saggy:
Poor choice of wording, but what I meant by that is a governing philosophy that supersedes all others. I.e., if it is your “life philosophy” as I put it other philosophies could not take precedence over it.
So, you couldn’t have pacifism and “protect the innocent and weak” as co-equal doctrines, and pick and choose from those. All I really mean by that wording is that you are serious about your pacifism.
February 21, 2007 at 1:16 am
Tequila:
If there was never a girl (and I take this to be your metaphor for any situation for which intervention might be necessary in order to protect somebody, you sexist pig), then saying you were a pacifist would have absolutely no meaning; it would just sound nice.
If the “girl” was always capable of protecting herself, then the term would still have no meaning.
I may be misunderstanding you, but if I am not, the scenarios you are describing would be like a person patting himself on the back for being a vegetarian in a world without meat.
February 22, 2007 at 12:15 am
If it weren’t for the possibility of a draft, that would be true. But it is either all or nothing. You can’t say that you would protect the girl while at the same time saying you won’t kill enemy troops for a cause your country believes is right.
I choose “girl” because its a sore issue for me. Some girls I have dated want me to protect them. They get pissed when I won’t say I will. They question my manhood, maybe with just cause. I’m holding out for the girl who can stand up for herself.
You can give up your personal life. You can’t give up your citizenship… I mean, you can switch citizenships, but at the end of the day, no matter where you are, someone might ask you to kill for their cause. When you say you won’t, it seems to me that you had better be able to say that is your position across the board.
February 22, 2007 at 12:21 am
Have you ever seen “My Sassy Girl?” Now that is my kind of girl.
February 23, 2007 at 7:40 pm
So I’ll throw out my two cents as a reminder of other rational opinions that exist, but I don’t really expect them to have any great impact on this debate…
Pacifism is not immoral, there is no immorality, only intelligent vs. unintelligent actions:
Pacifism is a wise decision, if being a pacifist promotes your survival, and that of you children. For example, declaring yourself a pacifist, and refusing to enlist in armed combat is a wise move for your future survival. On the other hand, declaring yourself a pacifist, while not raising a hand when your wife and children are beaten and bloodied in front of you is not a wise decision in the Darwinian sense, as your progeny will be disadvantaged by this tramatic event.
*A note on point one: If by refusing to enlist in combat when drafted had consequences such as long-term imprisonment or death, then the pacifist approach may also be the wrong choice in this case, as it may disadvantage greatly your family (e.g. loss of salary, no veterans benefits, 100% likelihood of the loss of a father vs. the chance of death in combat, stigma of imprisoned father)
But basically, to sum everything up, if you discount god and religion as holding any true meaning (as I do), then the only true meaning of morality is as it applies to society. Morality then becomes the creation of said society, and upon further analysis, what seems evident to me is that most modern societies have determined that violence is to be abhorred in most circumstances, but when necessary is a legitimate means to an end. It is within the moral framework created by society that an individual must make his/her own choices…
February 23, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Casham,
Fair points, but for the purposes of this dialectic, Saggy and I agreed on a basic (if vague) morality. In fact, we couldn’t even have the conversation on any other basis. Pacifism is an inherently moralistic stance, so if we didn’t agree on some basic morals for the dialectic, there would be no conversation at all.
February 28, 2007 at 4:17 am
Well what are these morals based on then? How can you define a “basic (if vague) morality”? What is it?
I bet that if you asked people in China they would have a very different opinion of what morality was than you do. The same would probably hold true for the opinions of people from most other places in the world. How then do you argue on whether or not pacifism is moral, when you can not even define a morality? Or do you take the conventional Western, Christian morality as the argumentative stance?
My point is that morality is defined by society, unless there is another entity determined to have defined it, and as such the discussion becomes difficult across cultures, and must in the end involve a comparison of world philosophies.
February 28, 2007 at 5:23 am
Casham,
If you really want to charge down that road (and by all means do), I think it is deserving of its own thread.
February 28, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Haha, I went back and read the top comments (something I should have done before my last post) and I saw that you did define that basic morality. I don’t really think that this is a dogma held by most people as you so claim, however…I believe, at the least, it deserves a bit more clarification.
Death = Bad
Does this hold true for enemies of a state? For serial killers?
Happiness = Good
Is happiness good for others or just for oneself? If the happiness of another decreases the happiness of yourself, is it moral or immoral for the other to be happy? Do you look at the world as a zero sum game of happiness, so that if a rise of 3 happiness units in another results in drop of your own happiness by 1 unit then this is moral?
Suffering = Bad
As in the argument that death is bad, is suffering always bad? Is suffering bad if it can lead to information that saves lives (i.e. torture, human experimentation, etc)? What if suffering is self-inflicted?
I like the train of thought here a lot, and I think the question of whether or not pacifism is immoral will be sorted out a lot more easily once morality is properly understood.
March 6, 2007 at 5:21 am
Casham, do it! I’m ready to tackle morality. Create a new dialectic!