|
Feb 2024
10:29am, 16 Feb 2024
31,736 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
Pacifists are Wrong to Aspire for the Purity of “Clean Hands”; and Pacifism is Based on Bad Theology
Objection: The clean hands objection holds that pacifists are so committed to keeping their hands clean that they fail to act on other requirements of life. The clean hands objection holds that pacifists are disconnected from the world of concrete human reality. As Anscombe puts this in her critique of pacifism, the pacifist holds “withdrawal from the world as man’s only salvation” (Anscombe 1981a, 52). This is tied to a theological objection that holds that pacifists incorrectly believe that they can overcome the limits of human nature. A version of this objection that is often directed against Christian pacifism holds that war will remain necessary because of the fallen and sinful nature of human beings. This objection also reminds Christian pacifists that there is explicit advocacy for war in the Old Testament and that Paul’s letter to the Romans allows the sovereign to use the sword to execute God’s wrath. The objection holds that since we are not perfect, we must employ the imperfect means of war and violence to attain moral ends. From this standpoint, defenders of the idea of a just war argue that love of the neighbor and the need for a just social order will occasionally necessitate just wars.
[That's enough copy/paste - Ed.]
|
|
Feb 2024
10:29am, 16 Feb 2024
16,902 posts
|
Dave W
But when you boil it down it’s an individual decision. I can see that a lot of people have moral and religious values that they feel would not allow for them to take a life. And that’s between them and their beliefs. But when those beliefs come up against the hard decisions sometimes presented to us in real life then it’s a deeply personal choice. Maybe some people who feel they don’t have that dilemma gravitate towards professions that are confrontational. Can’t say that I gave it a great deal of thought before I started. But I always knew that I may have to go to war or to take someone’s life to save myself or other people. Not a decision I struggle with.
|
|
Feb 2024
10:31am, 16 Feb 2024
16,903 posts
|
Dave W
But there is also the charming saying “Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity” which makes me smile even while believing it to be wrong.
|
|
Feb 2024
10:33am, 16 Feb 2024
49,416 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Appreciate everyone's input of views. Very interesting. NE, thanks for explaining and as I say, I accept the challenges and criticism. Will keep soul searching.
|
|
Feb 2024
10:37am, 16 Feb 2024
31,738 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
I just don't see how personal pacifism can be translated into pacifism at the state level.
Pacifist states are practically unheard of throughout history, and as Uhtred son of Uhtred says in my Last Kingdom books: "The clever man knows that weakness invites War". I think that's true; would that it were not.
|
|
Feb 2024
11:19am, 16 Feb 2024
2,728 posts
|
Canute
As commented here before, I am not an absolute pacifist. In my younger days I would have fought to defend my country. I also hope I would have had the courage to go to prison rather than fight in an unjustified war – for me it was Vietnam. In the end, my congenitally deformed feet saved me from having to take that stand (and whenever those feet cause me grief when running subsequently, I thank them).
Overall, I think that humans are far too prepared to justify war rather than engage in more thoughtful strategic thinking beforehand.
In the case of Vietnam, US and Australian involvement was justified by the domino theory – the anticipated progressive fall of SE Asian countries to communism if we did not stop it in Vietnam. At first sight, that theory was supported by the fact that the victory of the communist North in Vietnam was closely followed by the gains of the Pathet Lao in Loas and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Pol Pot’s rule in Cambodia was horrific. However, SE Asia did not progressively fall to communism. As I see it, the progressive fall was halted by growing prosperity in several SE Asian counties, largely supported by international trade. There are pros and cons of promoting international trade, but I think that there is little doubt that in general promoting prosperity is a better defence against autocrats/dictators than war. But it requires a long-term strategy.
At the current time, there is little doubt that Israel is justified in defending itself against Hamas. The goal of destroying Hamas is understandable. However, killing a large number of civilians and destroying much of the fabric of Gaza runs the risk of ensuring that another generation of young Palestinians will support whatever might replace Hamas. There were and are other options, including negotiation with the PLA and engaging other Arab nations in finding a satisfactory solution.
As for Putin and Russia, NATO now has few options other than military support for Ukraine, but a more thoughtful strategy of promoting prosperity in Russia in the 1990’s by promoting economic development via equitable trade, rather than engaging in triumphalism, might have avoided the current situation.
Absolute pacifism is naïve but so too is heavy dependence of the military.
|
|
Feb 2024
11:34am, 16 Feb 2024
49,418 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
"... in general promoting prosperity is a better defence against autocrats/dictators than war. But it requires a long-term strategy." This  G
|
|
Feb 2024
12:47pm, 16 Feb 2024
10,161 posts
|
Northern Exile
This what? Delusional?
|
|
Feb 2024
1:02pm, 16 Feb 2024
2,729 posts
|
Canute
I will invoke Godwins law to extend the discussion.
In the 1990's the West made the same mistake regarding Russia as the Allies made following victory over Germany in 1918. However the allies got it right after 1945 with the Marshall plan and with sparing Hirohito.
|
|
Feb 2024
10:13am, 20 Feb 2024
21,116 posts
|
Chrisull
15,000 years ago, our ancestors made the short trip across the land known as the channel and the final parts of Doggerland to make the uninhabited island once more an abode after the glaciers retreated. They had already have to leave 6 or 7 times in the previous 800,000 years when conditions became too tough.
In the terms of deep time, this was a blinking of an eye, the planet has existed 4.5 billion years, of which mammals have been present for a mere 205 million years and the first hominids appeared about 6 million years ago. The original hunter gatherers chased herds of large mammals to the north and west, eventually ending up here.
The first recorded Ice age art is found in Creswell Crags dating to 13,500 years ago, and things like agriculture, metal working, enclosure have sprung up in the mean time. The Romans visited 2000 years ago, and after unsuccessful forays under Julius Caesar, they conquered the entire island excepting a patch north of the Antonine wall in modern day Scotland. They brought a wholly alien way of life, but yet in many ways recognisable, with innovations such as paved roads and hot water, the former being used without much improvement as the main mode of transport til the 1700s. You can still find their coins and their mass factory produced pottery known as Samian ware in many urban gardens across Britain.
Once they left, Britain was gripped by an anarchy, as Vikings, and the Jutes, Angles, Saxons and Celts vied for power of their own small states. Their conflicts were brutal, but forgotten as hardly any written records survive of the time. Under Aethelstan, the first time the disparate Anglo Saxon tribes of Mercia, Wessex, Northumbria and East Anglia were united in the early 900s after the last Vikings were driven out in the battle of York.
Wars raged intermittently over the next 1000 years, most notably the Civil War which saw 1 in 10 of the male population die in battle. (On Mainland Europe the Thirty Years war saw a similar rate of attrition). Historians remarked of the time, that war simply redrew the map slightly until the next one came along.
In 1914 the Great War that was meant to end all wars saw mass industrialised slaughter introduced. Warfare that saw huge amounts of life thrown away just move metres forwards. Those who sensibly refused to take part were labelled cowards, thrown in jail (you can see their art and poetry in Richmond Castle), or shot. Those who were so traumatised, were often also labelled cowards and shot. Only post 1960 did we start understanding that shellshock was part of a greater psychological damage known as PTSD - that army seniors and politicians sstill The First World War from a historical perspective changed little, Prussian aggression was halted, but the punitive terms of the treaty of Versailles created a fertiile ground for German nationalism to take hold, and for a myth of the "stab in the back".
The end of the second world war ushered in by huge loss of life on the Eastern front, mass fire bombings and the nuclear holocaust of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The election the same year supposedly popular wartime leader Winston Churchill voted out by an unprecedented amount. The rebuilding of the countries involved took decades. Germany had to exonerate 99% of all Nazis to help rebuild the country.
The ensuing cold war was supposed to see the end of traditional warfare, with the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, was a concept that argued, neither side would be stupid enough to bomb the other, because it would lead to their own destruction. However since then conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Gaza have seen one ideology or religion attempt to assert dominance over another. And while the direction of progress, has lead to a more stable society in the West, climate change, mineral exploitation, refugees, border disputes , ethnic tensions and religious rivalries have meant for many the promises of a more prosperous, secure future have not been realised. And so here we are. Anyone care to disagree?
Put in the context of the above, why would I pick up a gun and join one nation state against another for values and ideologies held by people in control that don't align with mine? They'll be gone and forgotten within milliseconds of time. Often family, our nation's particular values and history are invoked (Goebbels and Mussolini were very good with pro family propaganda), to persuade us to fight but really it boils down to whether it is safe and secure to live in place compared to another. If it isn't I would choose to move. Our forebears were nomads, and the concept of land ownership is a very recent innovation (John Locke was the philosopher who proposed this in 1690 in the second treatise of Government.)
We're not here very long in the grand scheme of things. In 1100 years time I would wager the United Kingdom will not exist as we know it. (as it didn't 1100 years ago). So my pacifism stems from a knowing of where I am in the universe, I don't have to fight anyone, I wish no one ill and anyone trying to convince otherwise is ultimately out for their own personal gain.
In a 100 years time no-one personally will remember me. In a 200 years time my family will have been forgotten. In a 1000 years time the country I came from will likely not exist. In 5000 years time, no-one will even know what any of us alive did or were doing or why. If historians exist then, they might evoke phrases like ritual, and food, and tribes, They might find evidence of violence in our bones. They might wonder why. But that's all.
|
