10
Dec
2013
My Position on Pacifism
That only thing that horrifies my would-be fans more than learning I’m a born-again Christian, is to learn that I’m a pacifist. Some people in the comments recently have been asking me (in mild shock) about all this. There’s a whole category on this blog devoted to Pacifism, but if you look at the (currently) second page here, you will see I, II, and III on my explanation.
Bob, I don’t know how much Christianity advocates pacifism, but your posts on pacifism sound an awful lot like Hinduism (except for the anarchism part). Hindus believe that defending yourself and your property doesn’t justify the use of violence, for instance. On the other hand, we do believe that the government can have a death penalty for murderers under certain circumstances.
To me, it sounds weird to say Hinduism is a lot like pacifism when you later go on to say that Hindus advocate executions. That’s like saying I’m a lot like a vegan but under the right circumstances I’ll butcher a turkey for Thanksgiving dinner.
We believe that it can be justified, under certain circumstances, to punish someone for doing certain evil deeds. So in terms of what the government can do we’re not absolute pacifists. But in terms of what ordinary people should do in their daily life, we’re strong pacifists.
Yeah, I get it, but it’s still weird to say Hindus are a lot like pacifist, and then give one of the most anti-pacifist views as one area where you deviate.
Perhaps it would be better to say that Hindus believe in a philosophy of personal pacifism.
It’s not a big, at least to me, if you say that, but I don’t think it makes a lot of sense. How do Hindus believe in a philosophy of personal pacifism if they use force, even if through proxy, against other people?
I mean, I could understand it if you were arguing that “Hey, we have our slip ups but we try our best to not deviate from the principle” but you’re arguing it’s legitimate to use force. That’s exactly the opposite of pacifism.
Ah, yes….dual morality; one of the defining characteristics of a society with a State.
So those people in government positions are not “ordinary” people? How is what government does mutually exclusive from what “ordinary” people do? You outsource your violence to “government” so you can still claim you are a pacifist?
I see a huge contradiction here.
Keshav,
I know of an awful lot of stories in Hinduism that center on the slaughter of people. There are aspects of Hinduism, just like there are aspects of Christianity that center around Pacifism but…
Regardless there is a great deal of truth to be found in Hindu text and beliefs.
Everyone in the world is a pacifist except George.
George is not only a non-pacifist, but he also happens to be a genocidal psychopath who has an instaible desire to destroy and kill.
George kills everyone besides himself.
George grows old.
On his deathbed, George repents to Jesus Christ, and prays to God for forgiveness.
The human race is extinguished.
In heaven, everyone killed by George meets up with George, and in their eternal atemporal infinite wisdom, finally realizes the purpose of having faith in God:
To yearn for death.
The End.
Well done.
I would suggest: “to accept death.” It seems like most if not all spiritual traditions offer a path to acceptance of one’s physical demise.
Although I’m an atheist who would choose continued life on earth over death, ceteris paribus, I think the faithful might be on to something from a personal happiness standpoint.
I suspect you are right in fact, but really it’s atheist materialism that should have the edge here. For believers death is a mystery, but us? We’ve been dead before.
Not sure a materialist can say that Ken B.
When you say “I have been dead before”, to me that would imply that there was a spiritual you before there was a material you.
Sure, the atoms of which you are composed were separated before you were born, but those weren’t you.
I’m jokingly pointing out that being dead is just not being. I have not been before.
Being is not being?
I did not exist for billions years until now.
I am not afraid of not existing for billions of years more…
Matt,
It’s hard to juxtapose merely “accepting” death, alongside the story of the afterlife being infinitely better than Earthly life.
To paint the goal (heaven) as so very wonderful, is, to me, a yearning for that goal, which is the same thing as yearning for death, is it not? Or is the afterlife just considered awesome and real, just not something to yearn for? Kind of awkward…
You are saying that a society of pacifists is an unstable equilibrium.
I agree, but it’s probably fair to point out that a society of war mongers is also somewhat unstable.
Ehhh, it’s lasted this long.
🙂
Wow Major what a stupid story you tell.
First of all, there is a hell and somebody like George is a prime candidate, obviously God is the only judge but the Bible does indicate people like George have a front row seat on the hell train. Secondly, when we go to Heaven, we have to give up our identity or at least under go some sort of metamorphosis, otherwise we would simply muck up that joint. Third, although mankind has free-will, certainly God intervenes at times. this intervention what keeps idiots like George from destroying humanity. In conclusion, your fairyland story is not a teaching tool.
“Wow Major what a stupid story you tell.”
That about sums up my opinion of the good book.
“First of all, there is a hell and somebody like George is a prime candidate”
Oh no no no Gamble. Don’t you know Christianity? It doesn’t matter what you have done. If you repent, and if you ask for forgiveness, and you declare Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, then you’ve bought yourself a first class ticket to heaven.
“…but the Bible does indicate people like George have a front row seat on the hell train.”
Doth my ears deceive me? Gamble, you are talking about Christianity right?
“Secondly, when we go to Heaven, we have to give up our identity or at least under go some sort of metamorphosis, otherwise we would simply muck up that joint.”
Oh so when Christians are praying to God to watch over their dead relatives in heaven, they aren’t actually talking about their relatives at all, but some sort of schmoo blob like substance that includes everyone?
Who knew.
“Third, although mankind has free-will, certainly God intervenes at times. this intervention what keeps idiots like George from destroying humanity.”
Oh ya? And how would God step in to stop it, if man has free will, and one person has chosen to be a geneocidal maniac, and everyone else has chosen to be pacifist?
“In conclusion, your fairyland story is not a teaching tool.”
I’m just calling it like I see bub. Don’t shoot the messenger.
He has completely missed what you did with some of Bob’s recent god posts.
Meh, I’m usually not one to hold lateness against any party goers…because they always have their own stories to tell…
But ya, that one flew over his head.
When I was studying Aikido, my Sensei used to say that if you were aggressed against that it was ultimately your fault for putting yourself in that position. Aikido teaches self-defense while minimizing, if not eliminating, the physical harm done to your attacker.
I don’t mean to imply that you don’t have a right to defend yourself from aggression, but I do think if you accept responsibility for events that is clearly not your fault from a rights perspective, then I think you will be a better person.
So while having a government is bad, it’s our fault for not doing a better job at convincing people that governments are functionally unnecessary for a peaceful and prosperous society.
Cool, thanks for that comment Ben B.
There are some interesting analogies to your point here Ben, in terms of game theory, optimal behaviour and results based thinking.
Take poker for example – you can lose a hand to an opponent who made a mistake because of chance. It’s easy and typical to walk away from this experience and blame the luck of the draw. Technically, you can be correct – it wasn’t your fault you lost, your opponent simply got lucky.
But if you deny yourself that excuse, legitimate it might be, and instead review every decision you made to see if there were yet better decisions you could’ve made even earlier, maybe in prior hands, that would’ve mitigated or avoided the situation you found yourself in that exposed yourself to high risk in the first place.
Yes, that’s what I wanted to convey.
Thanks, Michael.
Your sensei should be careful saying such things publicly. Declaring that individuals have a responsibility to make wise and prudent choices that minimize their chances of being victimized is generally characterized as “blaming the victim” in today’s society.
While I was in the Navy, we watched a training video on how to prevent sexual assaults where the (underage) female victim went to a party (knowing a man who had been harassing her was going to be there), drank copious amounts of alcohol (despite being underage), and then willingly accompanied said harasser back to his hotel room. During the “discussion” after the video, the senior officers present made it clear that in this sort of situation, any attempt to imply the victim was partially at fault is wrong and would not be tolerated.
“Declaring that individuals have a responsibility to make wise and prudent choices that minimize their chances of being victimized is generally characterized as “blaming the victim” in today’s society.”
I was thinking the same thing. Which then made me think of Bill Burr kind of talking about this issue when he was doing a bit about reasons to hit a woman.
I’m not sure I accept your premise that Jesus and Gandhi were “more influential” than Hitler and Stalin. Hitler and Stalin were PLENTY influential. If we’re counting government as violence (and I’m not sure why you wouldn’t) then we could also just as easily include Mao, Pol Pot, and heck even Abraham Lincoln in the “non-pacifist influential people” category. Gandhi is questionable too, as he wasn’t exactly an anarchist. He just wanted Indians to run the socialist government of India. Jesus is a legitimate pacifist, although his influence seems to be declining every year, while many of his most ardent supposed followers tend to reject the pacifism part of his teachings. Perhaps it would be better to say that these men were “more respected” although presumably, they all were respected plenty (at least to their faces) while they lived.
Also, the notion that doves can get by because you don’t have to advertise that you’re a dove seems suspicious to me (and not only because you openly DO advertise yourself as such on this very blog). The only reason a dove can masquerade as a snapping turtle in the hopes of avoiding predatory hawks is because the hawk knows that snapping turtles are a real thing. This is similar to how allowing concealed carry of handguns benefits even those who choose not to carry, because the criminal knows SOME people carry, and he can’t tell who is who. But in a society of all doves (or in a city that bans concealed carry) this advantage disappears.
While I understand your premise of “If everyone is a dove, nobody would be willing to become a police officer and help thugs establish a government” you also have to consider that the more doves, the fewer hawks would be needed to establish one. This is part of the reason why a small handful of British soldiers were able to control hundreds of millions of Indians for so long, or why a handful of plantation owners and overseers could keep large numbers of slaves. You say that a pacifist should pay a mugger rather than risk his life. What if the mugger is the government? Let’s say we have a society of all doves. One guy randomly evolves to become a hawk, and starts sending out tax bills to everyone else. While it’s true that without any other hawks to serve as collection agents, the doves might all be able to resist him and refusing to pay, as a dove, would you still take that chance? Or do you pay the mugger (or President) rather than risk death?
For the record, part of the reason why relatively few British soldiers were needed in India is that the kings who had been ruling India before the British got there allied themselves with the British and enforced British rule. But yes, the reason why relatively few Indians were willing to participate in an armed uprising against British rule was in large part due to a Hindu belief that you should be a “dove”.
Fair point. I don’t claim to know much about colonial Indian history. My general point is that it’s not a one-for-one exchange here. One well motivated hawk can potentially hold hundreds or thousands of doves at bay.
All told, the Indians did pretty well out of British rule, so their strategy didn’t suck too bad. The British built railways, brought technology, brought organized democratic government, and opened up trade routes. Now that India is independent they benefit from all of these things.
And a common language. And cricket.
The second part is questionable now. God decided to take a break.
IMO, they have since regressed into disgusting mysticism of bathing themselves in poop infested waters as ritual.
Many well to do Indians who can afford it get the heck out of the country to escape this.
Then we have a perfectly normal taxation system, or protection money if you prefer.
The shitty thing is when you have to pay the mugger and the government, and both of them keep cranking up their rates.
Right, I’m just trying to point out what appears to be a contradiction in Bob’s original article.
On the one hand, he says that paying a mugger is a perfectly rational thing to do.
On the other hand, he says that a small gang of hawks couldn’t seize control in a society of doves because the doves wouldn’t want to become cops.
But if the doves response to aggression is always “Give the aggressor what they want, don’t risk a violent confrontation” the Hawk wouldn’t need any cops. Taken to an absurd level, if EVERY dove simply gave in to the demands of someone who wrote them a letter saying “pay me money or I’ll beat you up” then a SINGLE Hawk could extort money from 7 billion doves without requiring the assistance of any other Hawks whatsoever
Having the doves knuckle under causes the system as a whole to stabilize without too much loss of life.
The hawks don’t seize control in a society, they just set themselves up with a job. Trade is a rather universal concept. Reciprocity continues to apply because those tough guys still need food, material goods, ammunition, and people to make that stuff for them.
Does pacifism extend to children, since their misbehavior is much less a threat to your safety than someone robbing you? If so, doesn’t that rule out spanking as a tool for raising children? And for those who will claim that spanking is not that painful or jarring for a child, I would ask why you would do it in the first place? The whole point of spanking is to change behavior, and if a child is not fearful of the punishment why would they change their behavior.
Of course pacifists would be against spanking. How could they justify not being against it?
I don’t think a pacifist has to object to spanking a child. Parents have authority over their children, and if the spanking is corrective and not punitive, isn’t unreasonably harsh, and stops by the age at which the child can be reasoned with.
Its not analogous to an adult attacking another.
does this perspective create a “grain of sand” problem? Yes, but a two-year old is safely on one side of that problem.
Your reasoning doesn’t convince me that it is not in keeping with pacifism to spank a child. Maybe there is an argument that can square spanking with pacifism, but I’ve never heard one that convinces me.
This is like David Friedman’s flashlight aggression problem.
Is a hug violence? Depends on the subjective experience of the people being hugged.
Can you detain your child in a house? what if the toddler wants to leave? certainly a pacifist can’t detain their child.
You’d have to convince me that preventing a toddler from roaming the neighbourhood is in the same category as spanking for me to buy into that argument. And if you did convince me that “detaining” a toddler was in the same category as spanking, then I would say a pacifist would have to be against it, as well.
if detention isnt violence then you’re going to have to revise a lot of other opinions I suspect you hold.
Simply picking a child up could be construed as violence if we can’t establish consent.
At some point, you have to admit children are different.
First off, I’ve never claimed that children aren’t different. I’ve simply stated that I believe that it goes against pacifism to spank a child, and that I don’t believe preventing a toddler from roaming the streets is in the same category as spanking. You’ve not given me any argument that sways me to think otherwise.
Michael,
I really do not like examples that include children. If the child is so freaking bright, he should have petitioned for emancipation prior to leaving the house. As far as I am concerned, my children are my property until they emancipate…
I don’t completely agree with that. I like how Walter Block approaches it better. You don’t own your children you own the guardian rights to your children.
A few things on your point. One, spanking must inflict a reasonable amount of pain/fear on the child, otherwise you cannot justify it as a corrective behavior because it leaves no impression on them. Second, children have a pretty solid ability to reason by age 3 or 4, and very few parents who spank stop at that point. And third, what kinds of behavior do the parents have the moral right to correct? Does it stop at the child harming themselves or another, or can it be used for issues of preference, such as manners, religious rules and beliefs, or just them trying to sneak cookies before dinner?
Coincidently, I’m in the middle of watching this debate between Molyneux and Block regarding spanking.
I dont think your questions are really related to spanking, but are much broader in relation to the ethics of raising a child. I don’t have any of these answers, sorry.
if detention isnt violence then you’re going to have to revise a lot of other opinions I suspect you hold.
Simply picking a child up could be construed as violence if we can’t establish consent.
At some point, you have to admit children are different.
What do you mean by detention? Most children over the age of four or five are able to unlock the front door and walk away, and the parents who do not spank have figured out a way to convince their child that it is in their best interest to stay within the confines of the house unless supervised. As to picking a child up, if they are asking to be put down they should be as long as the situation is safe. And I agree that children fall under slightly different moral rules, but I think it is more in regards to what the parent owes the child than to what the parent can do to the child.
Most is all? Or do libertarians do these things by majority vote?
Well, maybe this would be more reason for you not to think of Hinduism as a pacifist religion, but Hindus believe that it can be justified in certain circumstances to use force to punish children. Our main principle is that you shouldn’t use force for material gain, so using violence to protect your body or your property is wrong, as is killing animals for food. But using force to enforce justice and punish wrong-doers is a different story.
By the way, part of the problem may be translation. One of the chief principles of Hinduism is called Ahimsa, which is usually translated as nonviolence, because it means “not Himsa”, and Himsa is usually translated as violence. But Himsa does not quite mean violence as defined by Western notions like the non-aggression principle of libertarianism. It means something like “attacking a physical object containing a soul, for purposes which have to do with the material world.” Those purposes include staying alive, being happy, having material possessions, fulfilling your desires, etc.
“But using force to enforce justice and punish wrong-doers is a different story.”
I’m guessing we just define pacifism differently because that statement would disqualify you from being a pacifist, in my book. Based on how I use that word, I’d say you are not a pacifist, but you have some of their same tendencies.
Yes, we do seem to have different definitions of pacifist. I think pacifism, in most people’s conception, does not imply anarchism.
In any case, would you at least agree that Hinduism is more pacifist than other religions? To give a concrete example, a lot of Hindu kingdoms in India fell to the Muslim invaders simply because their armies refused to pick up a sword and fight, not out of cowardice but out of moral principle. (This is related to the founding of Sikhism, by the way) Do you know of any other case where entire armies refused to defend their countries against invaders?
I’m no theologian, so I wouldn’t argue against that.
Czechoslovakia, 1938. Tel was praising the men who let that happen. Though to be fair I don’t think that’s an example of what you had in mind. But it’s a good example of the kind of consequences you must expect and accept.
Ken B, what were the circumstances in the case you’re talking about? In the case I’m talking about, in numerous Hindu kingdoms in India, the king would order his army to prepare for war. They would put on their armor and take up swords, and then when they asked their king what principles of Hinduism justified them using force, and the king would respond “We’re not fighting for Hindu principles, we’re fighting to save the kingdom from danger”, they would literally put down their swords (sometimes while they were on the battlefield) and refuse the king’s orders.
On a side note, this led to the emergence of Sikhism as a major religion. I think this is roughly how it happened, but I may be wrong: The king of Punjab, a small kingdom in India, faced the same situation as the rest of the kingdoms, but instead of simply putting up with his soldiers’ refusal to fight, he had an idea. Sikhism was a brand new religion, and unlike Hinduism it allowed people to use violence. So he had the Sikh religious leader at the time come and convert his soldiers to Sikhism, so that they’d be willing to fight the Muslims. To this day, the majority of people in Punjab are Sikh.
Keshav
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/10/Colorado-6-year-old-suspended-for-kissing-a-girlery interesting.
Are you jesting about 1938? Anyway that was mostly to get a shot at Tel over that strong disagreement, and to point out another case where pacifism has an enormous cost. Not pacifiim in this case really, but failing to resist on the idea that that would be the moral high ground certainly.
i have no idea why that link got posted. typo of paste command i guess
Ken B, I’m not jesting. I don’t really know the details of how the Nazis took over Czechoslovakia.
Without resistance.
The Czechs were willing to fight if the Brits and French were. This was the famous “Peace in our time”.
Well I would say the same thing about Libertarians, seeing as they oppose the initiation of force. But there are some Libertarians (Walter Block being one outspoken example) who have absolutely no problem with spanking. One possible reason for this is that a lot of their parents spanked, which would mean that their parents would have done something immoral. It’s easy to speak out against union bosses and people in the military industrial complex when no one you care about is one of them.
It’s not that Walter Block has no problem with spanking, he just disagrees that it violates libertarian principles. This is one of the few issues I disagree with him on, though we differ only slightly.
Maybe I overstated Walter Blocks position on spanking, but I think you understated it. He has talked about spanking his son on more than one occasion, and to my judgement he had no problems with what he did.
Watch his debate with Molyneux about spanking. He immediately agrees with Molyneux on the utilitarian case against spanking.
I definitely will. But I’ve definitely heard Walter Block say in one of his speeches that he has spanked his son and that sometimes there is no other way to deal with a child.
I don’t think it’s so much “I don’t want to criticize my parents” as it is “My parents spanked me and looking back, it either did no significant harm or perhaps even made me a better person.”
How can you know how you would have turned out if you weren’t spanked? Maybe you would have been better. Isn’t one of the questions Libertarians ask when people say that “things would have been a lot worse if it weren’t for the stimulus” “How do you know that they wouldn’t have been better?” I’m no expert, but I have never seen a study that shows that spanking children has better outcomes for children, so the question is that if there is at best no difference, then why would you subject a child to spanking in the first place?
The same way Keshav justifies the death penalty?
I agree with Dan, no matter how you slice it spanking is an act of violence. The rationale is ” for his own good”, but pacifists reject that. A vegetarian who eats only hamster meat is not a vegetarian. Even if the hamster needs eating.
Pacifism is what Christ chose. He stood before Peter as he used his sword and commented that those that live by the sword will so to die by the sword. However, I would also suggest that there is a time to stand and fight. I would suggest that it should be done in communication with God to know when it is appropriate to fight for something and shed blood.
Christ’s role was to be the unspotted lamb led to slaughter, and raised up for the world to see. The serpent on the staff that if the world would simply look upon it might be ‘saved’. The role God would have us play is for each one of us to learn of ourselves. To some it will be a martyr, for others the general that stops the Nazi’s to others the foot soldiers that place their lives on the line for their home. Seek your own understanding of what you should be and take comfort in so long as it is what God would have you be that is what you should do.
I am not a pacifist in classical terms. I know force has its use. I also know history is written by the ‘victor’. I also do not believe in forcing others to do as I will.
Just as all tools have their place and use, so to does force and the willingness to lay down your life that someone else might live. To be willing to use your body as both a shield and a sword knowing full well the chance of an early death is not something to run from, but rather it is something to understand where you hold your own belief and thoughts and again, what God would want of you.