Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The Bearded One · 05-17-2005, 09:17 PM

In order to move a practical discussion to a more philosophical plane, I quote from my own thread ("How pacifistic are you?") in MD:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bearded One

While I am not a complete pacifist (I would fight to defend myself or one who is defenseless), I do understand the idea of total pacifism. The theory goes that violence does not truly achieve anything. Nothing worth having can be taken by violence, and therefor nothing is so valuable that you need to defend it with violence. That is, physical things are not as valuable as who you are.

If you respond to violence (or worse yet, intimidation) with violence, you become less of a person; you lose a part of yourself.

An example from my own life: I was following a friend's moving truck to help with his house moving. I didn't know where he was going and was dependant on following the truck to get there. As I was merging onto the highway, another car sideswiped me, knocking my sideview mirror off, but doing no other damage to my car or his.

I pulled over to exchange insurance info (since the accident was minor), but the other driver was fuming, red-faced mad. I couldn't really understand why, since no one was hurt and the total damage to both cars was probably less than $50. Still, mad he was, so I let him yell at me for about two minutes without responding. Then we exchanged the info and each drove away.

Looking back on that incident, I just don't see what getting angry would have accomplished. I was upset that the accident happened, and I was upset that I had a hard time finding my friend to help him move, but my upset-ness was mostly just sadness and disappointment. I just don't understand road rage.

-- The Bearded One

My thread from MD contained a poll which listed six choices as to when an individual would engage in violence. Still, those six options were descriptions that I came up with within mere moments. Surely there could be some logical way of delineating when violence is justified and when it is not.

As can be seen from the above quote, my own feelings range quite close to what I call "self-defence pacifism". I know there are a few people who practice total pacifism -- refusing to use violence even to defend themselves. Could it be argued that they are "right"?

-- The Bearded One

fast · 05-18-2005, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bearded One

As can be seen from the above quote, my own feelings range quite close to what I call "self-defense pacifism". I know there are a few people who practice total pacifism -- refusing to use violence even to defend themselves. Could it be argued that they are "right"?

A sound and rational argument can be made ranging the entire spectrum from complete pacifism to outright preemptive strike, yet I'd presume the moral majority to be in line with the idea that violence is justified when it becomes necessary. I sometimes question (in certain contexts) if waiting for necessity unreasonably undermines potential for survival.

The Bearded One · 05-18-2005, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fast

A sound and rational argument can be made ranging the entire spectrum from complete pacifism to outright preemptive strike, yet I'd presume the moral majority to be in line with the idea that violence is justified when it becomes necessary. I sometimes question (in certain contexts) if waiting for necessity unreasonably undermines potential for survival.

Perhaps I'm overly optimistic, but it seems to me that preemptive strikes remove the aggressor's moral authority and encourage more violence.

1. A is engaged in a non-violent confrontation with B (C is observing).

2. A believes that B will escalate the confrontation into a violent one.

3. A preemptively initiates violence upon B.

4. C now knows that A is capable of and willing to use violence to achieve their ends.

5. C preemptively initiates violence upon A, claiming "preemptive self-defence".

6. And the cycle of violence continues unabated.

Perhaps my analysis is in error, but it seems that A's initiation of violence in (3) was immoral. Even if A can defeat C, this just makes A look like the schoolyard bully who advocates that "might makes right".

-- The Bearded One

fast · 05-18-2005, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bearded One

1. A is engaged in a non-violent confrontation with B (C is observing).

2. A believes that B will escalate the confrontation into a violent one.

3. A preemptively initiates violence upon B.

4. C now knows that A is capable of and willing to use violence to achieve their ends.

2: If A's belief is grounded in reason, then 3 is not immoral.
4: C is then mistaken by A's intent for action.

The Bearded One · 05-18-2005, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fast

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bearded One

4. C now knows that A is capable of and willing to use violence to achieve their ends.

2: If A's belief is grounded in reason, then 3 is not immoral.
4: C is then mistaken by A's intent for action.

Very likely C is mistaken, but isn't there a good chance that A was mistaken as well? We're not dealing with a world of perfect information here. We're living in a world of secret U2 spy planes and covert shipments of nukes to Cuba and bluffing and posturing on both international and personal levels.

If there is any chance that A could be mistaken (and there's always a chance), then the preemptive strike is immoral.

-- The Bearded One

fast · 05-18-2005, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bearded One

isn't there a good chance that A was mistaken as well?

Yes

Quote:

If there is any chance that A could be mistaken (and there's always a chance), then the preemptive strike is immoral.

I'm not so sure this conclusion is correct, whether we determine the morality by intent or action.

If the intent is honorable, then your conclusion fails.
If the action demonstrates the belief correct, then your conclusion fails.

I'll save my remaining ad nauseum and keep it simple.

James T · 05-18-2005, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fast

I'm not so sure this conclusion is correct, whether we determine the morality by intent or action.

or outcome.

fast · 05-18-2005, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James T

or outcome.

Yeah, you're correct. I might even have conflated action with outcome in there somehow.

James T · 05-18-2005, 04:50 PM

It's odd really, violence is such an integral part of nature, evolution and our life in general that I find it strange to consider removing it. To make removing this somehow a moral requirement ... makes me feel uncomfortable about the basis that would be used to define what morals should be.

DougP · 05-18-2005, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James T

It's odd really, violence is such an integral part of nature, evolution and our life in general that I find it strange to consider removing it. To make removing this somehow a moral requirement ... makes me feel uncomfortable about the basis that would be used to define what morals should be.

What basis though?

I am still not convince something necessary is moral myself. Even more specifically to the argument, isnt whether or not violence is necessary completely subjective anyway, so it would make no different if you said I think violence is ok now because i subjectively determined it to be necessary, or I think violence is ok because I just plain old subjectively think it is.

-Doug

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-18-2005, 04:50 PM	#9
James T Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: NewØZealand Posts: 4,599	It's odd really, violence is such an integral part of nature, evolution and our life in general that I find it strange to consider removing it. To make removing this somehow a moral requirement ... makes me feel uncomfortable about the basis that would be used to define what morals should be.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.