02-27-2003, 03:21 PM
Hi,
If, as I understand it, you take pacifist to mean an utterly uncompromising attitude against war in all circumstances, then I will continue to scorn it as an unrealistic and dangerous (for others, mostly) viewpoint. And I reiterate that the attitude has failed in its purpose whenever it has been tried, even before the term itself was coined. Indeed, it often made the situation worse. As with most extremes, it is wrong.
If, OTOH, by "pacifist" you mean a person who desires peace, works for peace, seeks peaceful solutions, but is willing to fight when the situation warrants it, then that is but a rational person. However, I do not get the impression that that is what you mean.
A person who says "war is *never* necessary" is a fool. An evolutionary misfit who, were it not for the protection of society, would have been bred out of the gene pool. To fight for survival is basic, for without survival, there is no procreation. Those that are, are the descendent's of those that survived.
A person who says "war is evil" tells the self evident truth. But if that person goes on to draw the conclusions "thus it should never be allowed to happen" then that person is living in a black and white world. There are many evils, some greater, some lesser. "Two wrongs don't make a right" is simplistic thinking. Sometimes a second wrong is necessary to correct the evil of a greater wrong. Thus, The Allies fighting the Axis was a necessary evil to prevent the greater evil of the Axis taking over the world. The Cold War was an evil necessary to prevent the greater evil of world communism.
A rational person realizes both that war is a great evil that should be avoided and that war is sometimes necessary to stop or prevent a greater evil. A rational person weighs the cost of war against the misery that not going to war is bringing or will bring. And a rational person decides on the basis of the lesser evil when no greater good presents itself. A rational person knows when it is time to shoot his dog. And a brave person does it when it's necessary.
I can discuss the issue of Iraq with a rational person. As one who's seen first hand some of the ugliness of war, I am strongly opposed to it in all but the most dire circumstances. I've gone from opposing the war with Iraq to admitting the necessity of it over the past few weeks. The evidence that is coming out of Iraq, both as given by Powell and as given by the inspectors show a country led by a ruthless man with great ambition that is developing both weapons and delivery systems. That, to me, is a clear enough danger that it is the responsibility of the world to address.
I can see other opinions. Opinions that the inspection process should be given more time. Opinions that additional or stronger sanctions should be used. Opinions that intelligence agencies should focus on overthrowing Saddam, or even assassinating him. All those opinions I can respect and discuss.
But "there should be no war because there never should be war" is not an opinion. It is a pious fraud. It is a viewpoint based on prejudice. It is a simplistic and unrealistic attitude, contrary to history, contrary to observation and contrary to logic. It is, in short, a form of fundamentalist religion. There is nothing left to discuss, since the attitude is absolute.
But if someone didn't want you (or anyone) to fight in the first place, and you went ahead and did it anyway, I can't see what they owe you.
Depends on who I fought and why. You could be right. Or you could be wrong. They might owe me their lives or their freedoms. Pacifists can be enslaved, they can be killed. As a matter of fact in a ruthless world they are natural slaves, for if they won't fight for their freedom they only have it at the behest of those who will.
--Pete
If, as I understand it, you take pacifist to mean an utterly uncompromising attitude against war in all circumstances, then I will continue to scorn it as an unrealistic and dangerous (for others, mostly) viewpoint. And I reiterate that the attitude has failed in its purpose whenever it has been tried, even before the term itself was coined. Indeed, it often made the situation worse. As with most extremes, it is wrong.
If, OTOH, by "pacifist" you mean a person who desires peace, works for peace, seeks peaceful solutions, but is willing to fight when the situation warrants it, then that is but a rational person. However, I do not get the impression that that is what you mean.
A person who says "war is *never* necessary" is a fool. An evolutionary misfit who, were it not for the protection of society, would have been bred out of the gene pool. To fight for survival is basic, for without survival, there is no procreation. Those that are, are the descendent's of those that survived.
A person who says "war is evil" tells the self evident truth. But if that person goes on to draw the conclusions "thus it should never be allowed to happen" then that person is living in a black and white world. There are many evils, some greater, some lesser. "Two wrongs don't make a right" is simplistic thinking. Sometimes a second wrong is necessary to correct the evil of a greater wrong. Thus, The Allies fighting the Axis was a necessary evil to prevent the greater evil of the Axis taking over the world. The Cold War was an evil necessary to prevent the greater evil of world communism.
A rational person realizes both that war is a great evil that should be avoided and that war is sometimes necessary to stop or prevent a greater evil. A rational person weighs the cost of war against the misery that not going to war is bringing or will bring. And a rational person decides on the basis of the lesser evil when no greater good presents itself. A rational person knows when it is time to shoot his dog. And a brave person does it when it's necessary.
I can discuss the issue of Iraq with a rational person. As one who's seen first hand some of the ugliness of war, I am strongly opposed to it in all but the most dire circumstances. I've gone from opposing the war with Iraq to admitting the necessity of it over the past few weeks. The evidence that is coming out of Iraq, both as given by Powell and as given by the inspectors show a country led by a ruthless man with great ambition that is developing both weapons and delivery systems. That, to me, is a clear enough danger that it is the responsibility of the world to address.
I can see other opinions. Opinions that the inspection process should be given more time. Opinions that additional or stronger sanctions should be used. Opinions that intelligence agencies should focus on overthrowing Saddam, or even assassinating him. All those opinions I can respect and discuss.
But "there should be no war because there never should be war" is not an opinion. It is a pious fraud. It is a viewpoint based on prejudice. It is a simplistic and unrealistic attitude, contrary to history, contrary to observation and contrary to logic. It is, in short, a form of fundamentalist religion. There is nothing left to discuss, since the attitude is absolute.
But if someone didn't want you (or anyone) to fight in the first place, and you went ahead and did it anyway, I can't see what they owe you.
Depends on who I fought and why. You could be right. Or you could be wrong. They might owe me their lives or their freedoms. Pacifists can be enslaved, they can be killed. As a matter of fact in a ruthless world they are natural slaves, for if they won't fight for their freedom they only have it at the behest of those who will.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?