25 Dec 2013

The Greatest Challenge to Pacifism

Pacifism 33 Comments

It’s not anything involving US foreign policy, since it’s easy to come up with plausible objections/alternatives to mass bombing, regardless of the horrors allegedly being rectified. Nope, for me the greatest challenge comes from something like this:

I certainly don’t want my son thinking that the way to deal with bullies is to beat the crap out of them, but nonetheless I’m rooting for Ralphie.

33 Responses to “The Greatest Challenge to Pacifism”

  1. Ken B says:

    Yes Bob, you are right: the greatest challenge to pacifism is its utter failure, both as a moral response and as a basis for social action, in nearly every situation. Even funny ones.

    And be careful not to put your eye out.

    • Keshav Srinivasan says:

      How is letting yourself be bullied a failed moral response?

      • Ken B says:

        How is standing by whilst Breivik takes aim a moral response?

        • Keshav Srinivasan says:

          Because the act of injuring him or killing him in that circumstance is inherently immoral, and the ends do not justify the means.

          • Ken B says:

            Since you support injuring people to make them pay taxes, and I believe the death penalty in some cases, it seems to me your position is not one you consistently hold. What are the considerations that allowyou to make these exemptions?

            • Keshav Srinivasan says:

              Hindus believe that the government can under certain circumstances use force to enforce justice (not for consequentialist or materialistic reasons). The justification for this is that in such a case the government would be acting on behalf of the gods, not on behalf of the people, and so it is allowed to do certain things that would otherwise be immoral. (If a government is not acting on behalf of the gods, then this doesn’t apply. So an illegitimate government would have no justification to levy taxes, for instance.)

              • Ken B says:

                I feel I have teed this up for MF to hit out of the park … MF?

                Anyway this sounds more to me like an extreme deference to theocracy not pacifism. Your argument explicitly repudiates pacifism.

                All believers make exemptions if you do it “for the god[s]”. Mohammad and Urban II spring to mind.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                Why can’t individuals without state power, who use defensive force to stop mass murderers from killing them and/or their families, be considered acting “on behalf of the Gods”?

                What if two Hindu governments are at war? Who is acting on behalf of the Gods and who isn’t?

                How can you tell, through reason and evidence, who are killing people “on behalf of the Gods” and who are killing people “on behalf of no Gods”?

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                Ken B, I’ve agreed on previous threads that Hinduism is a pacifist philosophy as far as the personal morality of ordinary people goes, but it’s not absolutely pacifist when it comes to government action. (Although even in the case of government it is still relatively pacifist compared to other religions. Earlier I gave the example of armies refusing to defend their kingdoms against invaders.)

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                “Why can’t individuals without state power, who use defensive force to stop mass murderers from killing them and/or their families, be considered acting “on behalf of the Gods”?” Hinduism only grants the power to use violence to certain individuals, whom the gods have authorized to act on their behalf.

                “What if two Hindu governments are at war? Who is acting on behalf of the Gods and who isn’t?” If two such governments are fighting, we need to determine who is on the right side, by applying Hindu principles to the reasons for the war and the actions done during the war. It could be, and in fact it most often is the case, that no one is on the right side, meaning that the war is morally unjustified. So in that case no one would be acting on behalf of the gods.

                “How can you tell, through reason and evidence, who are killing people “on behalf of the Gods” and who are killing people “on behalf of no Gods”?” Well, morality isn’t a natural phenomenon, so you can’t really use sensory evidence to determine it. But you can use the principles laid out in Hindu scriptures to determine who is allowed to act on behalf of the gods, and what actions they’re allowed to do, and in what circumstances.

              • Ken B says:

                Do you deny language is a natural phenomenon?
                Love? Pain?

                It is hard to escape the conclusion Keshav that fundamentally you do not accept evolution by natural selection.

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                Ken B, let me clarify. I wasn’t trying to say that humans’ sense of morality is not a natural phenomenon. I was saying that actual objective good and evil is not a natural phenomenon.

                And I do believe in evolution.

              • Ken B says:

                How do you detect this alleged objective non evolved morality except through the capacities of evolved minds?

                If the answer is you don,t, then what does it add, other than a certain feeling of comfort?

                Fundamentally I think scalding babies is wrong because it hurts. If it gave the sustenance through embedded heat pumps in their skin and delighted them I,d be all for it. I can get all that from my evolved apparatus. What source am I missing?

                Anyway I am off for a week. Happy New Year.

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                Ken B, the sense of morality that a particular human has due to various emotions produced by his brain may deviate from objective morality. So reading Hindu scriptures can correct those deviations, because they discuss what the gods have actually commanded humans to do.

              • Ken B says:

                That’s funny Keshav because I found this used to excuse the slaughter of Hindus:
                “So reading the Koran and hadith can correct those deviations, because they discuss what god has actually commanded humans to do.”
                Which includes a lot of slaying as you well know.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                “Hinduism only grants the power to use violence to certain individuals, whom the gods have authorized to act on their behalf.”

                So those who happen to wage violence with or without God backing, who then happen to develop a territorial monopoly, who are then typically labelled as statesmen, THAT’S when “the Gods” have granted their authority?

                “Well, morality isn’t a natural phenomenon, so you can’t really use sensory evidence to determine it. But you can use the principles laid out in Hindu scriptures to determine who is allowed to act on behalf of the gods, and what actions they’re allowed to do, and in what circumstances.”

                How?

              • Ken B says:

                Keshav, shepherds rooting in an old cave find old manuscripts. They match the Hindu scriptures except, remarkably, base their assertions not on any known Hindu gods but on the will of one god. Would that change your thinking? Which scriptures would you accept? What if the one god scriptures also chaged a few rules?

                After another old copy is found, based on “natural law”, what then?

                In short, what is the basis of your trust in the scriptures? And what could challenge it?

      • Ken B says:

        Incidentally Keshav, refusing to fight back is not pacifism; condemning those who do is. I find it grotesque to argue that those Jews who rose up in Treblinka should be blamed for it. But that, in a nutshell, is Bob’s demand.

        • Anonymous says:

          You may find it grotesque, but I do indeed condemn the actions of people who fight back when being attacked.

          • Keshav Srinivasan says:

            Sorry for the double post.

        • Keshav Srinivasan says:

          You may find it grotesque, but I do indeed condemn the actions of people who fight back when being attacked.

          • Ken B says:

            Where their children being attacked, and do you condemn them for defending their children? I take it you do.

            However the point is moot, as all you present as a reason is an appeal to authority of scripture. That is not a rational argument.

          • Ken B says:

            Is this statement even true though? You won’t condemn government executioners who subdue a resisting prisoner?

            • Keshav Srinivasan says:

              If they subdue him to prevent him from escaping execution, that might be justified. But if they were just subduing him to protect their own lives and safety, that would be a different matter.

  2. mickey says:

    Based only on that footage I don’t think Ralphie responded appropriately. It isn’t that I’m against violence always but he took it too far.

  3. David R. Henderson says:

    Bob, I would like to understand your pacifism. The bully did it and Ralphie had had enough. What do you think was wrong with Ralphie beating the crap out of him?

    • Bob Murphy says:

      David,

      I’m not saying I think Ralphie is a bad kid. I’m saying as a general rule I’d respect someone who declines to fight an a-hole on an airplane, or who keeps his cool when kids throw a noose around his neck even though many of the Internet tough guys would say, “Oh dude, you should have smuggled a knife into school and stabbed someone. Nobody would ever mess with you after that. And they initiated aggression so it’s all good.”

      And have you watched Rob Roy yet? There’s an amazing scene in there where he demonstrates how it’s cooler to not fight the bully. (He’s not a pacifist, don’t get me wrong.)

  4. Ken B says:

    So, can anyone here give a defence of radical pacifism not based on revealed religion? I agree if your premises include “thor is always right” and “thor says pacifism is right” you have a valid syllogism. But you don’t have a compelling argument. Can anyone do better?

    • Major_Freedom says:

      There is a small, but positive, probability that non-pacifists will tire themselves out?

    • Keshav Srinivasan says:

      Well, what premises are you willing to grant? What moral principles do you accept axiomatically?

Leave a Reply to Keshav Srinivasan

Cancel Reply