Is Pacifism Good Or Bad?

Let's not confuse loving peace to pacifism. Every reasonable citizen is peace loving.
Pacifism claims it is wrong to kill or use violence no matter what.
So is it wrong to use violence to stop someone shooting children?
Is it wrong to use force to stop murderous terrorists?
Answer:   There have been great things accomplished through Pacifism. Ghandi was able to liberate India from British control by NOT fighting back, but not following the rules. He told them to take the beatings and not fight back. Martin Luther King was able to jump-start and accomplish much regarding the Civil Rights movement by NOT fighting.

There is a lot to be said from Pacifism, however, not every case applies. These murderous terrorists you are alluding too are bad people, but our current policy towards them is absolutely wrong. Would you strap on a bomb if you were occupied and saw 100,000 innocent civilians die in the past 4 years? Go to youtube, watch some of the videos shot by our troops...shooting up civilians and laughing about it. It will make you understand perhaps why they act as they do. Then there is Abu Ghraib, where the commander of the prison admitted that 90% of the detained and tortured turned out to be innocent. This is NOT collateral damage here, we are breeding the terrorists that we are trying to eliminate by our actions.
Pacifism is not good. Humans, by nature, are made to fight. Look at nature. Almost all animals fight for dominance. To be pacifist is unnatural. Now, I love peace, but sometimes, violence is needed. Look at Hitler, and WWII. Pacifism would have us speaking german, and goose-stepping. Violence, in the form of WWII, stopped the evil that was the Nazis.
Well, it depends upon your moral philosophy.
Kant, and his categorical imperative, would say that if violence is wrong, using violence, even if another is an aggressor or "more wrong" is still wrong. There are also similar Buddhist ideas. The idea is that you do not somehow become "right" just because someone else is trying to do something hurtful to you. "Turn the other cheek" and take it. You'll be right, even if you're dead.
(Then, there'd be people who say that isn't not violence that's wrong, it's taking away someone's life or property, or endangering innocent children. Thus, the ends (protecting oneself) justify the means (killing the aggressor)).

Now, a utilitarian might say something like "greatest good for greatest numbers" -- violence may be wrong in general, but if it prevents rogue people from doing a whole society harm, then we can employ it in a utilitarian manner (i.e. proportionally to the harm encountered).

The problem with the first Kantian approach is that, eventually, you'll get wiped out (unless you can just logically convince people to stop committing violence) because there's nothing to stop the aggressor. Thus, your "peace" ideas will be destroyed by those who employ violence as a means of social control. Once again, you and your society are dead, so how good is your philosophy?

(To "boyfriend" above: WWII maybe, but it was the violence and oppression of the Germans by the Allies following WWI that caused the economic hardships in Germany that allowed such a despot with horrible views to come to power in the first place.)
I will fight anyone for my right to be a pacifist.


The Answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:


More Questions and Answers: