Can pacifism be viewed as immoral?

Question

There are people who think it is always wrong for life to be taken, that violence is always wrong regardless of the circumstances. these fluffy ideals are all nice and good, But what if in refusing to kill someone, you are indirectly condemning others to death? Murderers sentenced to life in prison escape and kill those that put them away for revenge. Hostage-takers pop a few hostages to get their point across while the politically correct, PR-obsessed locals try to 'negotiate' with the guy and refuse to snipe him when they have a clear shot. Pacifists attempt to appease Nazi Germany as it ravages across Europe, murdering countless millions of innocent people. Western isolationists do nothing as genocide sweeps through Rwanda.

I am here to tell you pacifists that your philosophy is ineffective, weak, cowardly, hopelessly naive, hypocritical and above all else murders. The problem with pacifism is that it believes in the goodness of man. The goodness of mankind does not exist.

Answer 1

I think you make some good points. However, one of your hypothetical scenarios is quite rare; I would challenge you to consider how many people actually escape from a prison (serving a life sentence) and attack someone who they believe is responsible for their incarceration. My guess is relatively few; consider the escapees intent: get out, and minimize any chance of having to go back to prison. Secondly, wouldn't you want police to use lethal force only as a last resort. Again, look at real life; the police and especially SWAT team personnel are experts at assessing the hostage takers intent to harm. They will usually employ deadly force the first chance they get if they feel the hostage taker is serious about harming someone (which is appropriate, of course). So I do agree with you in that it is (unfortunately) necessary to take life in order to protect life sometimes, like you mentioned regarding the Nazi's or any group committing genocide. However, does "necessary" really equal "justice"? Plato and Socrates would say no (-see Plato's Republic)- taking life never equals the true meaning of "justice" but, at times it may be required or necessary. If this sounds like some "way-out there" nonsense, consider that the U.S. is the only Western industrialized country to use the death penalty, and ironically, it is still by far the most violent of these countries. Also consider, is not killing someone who may be innocent the ultimate injustice?

Answer 2

Pacifism is intellectually “irresponsible” (2:89), because pacifists can’t imagine running things. Orwell writes this in 1940, in “The Lion and the Unicorn,” and expands it in a 1941 letter to the Reverend Iorwerth Jones, clarifying certain points in that work:

Government cannot be conducted on “pure” pacifist lines, because any government which refused in all circumstances to use force could be overthrown by anyone, even any individual, who was willing to use force. Pacifism refuses to face the problem of government and pacifists think always as people who will never be in a position of control, which is why I call them irresponsible. (2:111)

Worse still: to the extent that pacifists do make sharp moral distinctions, they direct their critiques more against democracies than against totalitarianisms. In other words, pacifists are pro-Nazi not just objectively but also subjectively. Thus in 1942 Orwell writes, “with the out-and-out, turn-the-other-cheek pacifists you come upon the much stranger phenomenon of people who have started by renouncing violence ending by championing Hitler”

Two of Orwell’s charges remain, both bearing on the relations pacifists might have with the nations they live in: the charge that pacifists can’t govern, can’t even imagine governing, and the charge that they can’t feel patriotism.

Answer 3

Consciencess objectors for the Viet Nam war were considered cowards, traitors, commiies, and were put into prison. I think that being a pacifist is not wanting war, or creating war, but to ignore someone being taken away I believe is immorral.
It goes something like this,
They took all the Jews away today, but I did not speak up because I am not a jew.
They came and took all the teachers away today, but I did not speak up because I am not a teacher.
They came and took all the children away today, but I did not speak up because I am not a child.
They came for me today, and there was no one left to speak..That's a loose quote, but the idea i, stick up for what you believe in, you will know in your gut and your heart if it is immoral. If you need to ask when put on the actual spot, you already know the answer. You aleady know that the goodness of man is not consistent, and counting on people to do what is right is dangerous, as people change, cower, and turn on others like rabid dogs. Being a pacificist should be a natural thing, but we cannot be Doves with so many carnivors around. 2 legged animals are the most dangerous, while we may want to trust people, can you name ONE person in the world that another has not betrayed, hurt, or lied to? Just look at who we vote for, and what they turn into once they are elected. We are screwed because we cannot be honest about what we want, what we will do for it, and who we are willing to blame. We are not a very nice species. At least animals let you know where you stand. They don't know how to lie, but they do know how to mis-trust, wev taught them that. So if you let someone beat a dog to death, then call yourself a pass-a-fish, you are a coward, and you better start worrying about Karma

Answer 4

If you are the guy getting killed for standing next to a pacifist then you might think that as you are dying. On the other hand, if you are the pacifist standing next to a person being shot because you did nothing than all you will feel is loss.

Answer 5

Judging pacifism is pointless. To refuse to act upon your truth in any situation because of a vow or belief or opinion is to betray your truth.
It seems that there is never a time when the understanding of how another became so lost as to hurt others is not useful. But it seems that some become so lost that forgiveness is not enough. They are literally asking to be stopped. How do you respond when you encounter such a situation? This is up to you, and to act spontaneously upon your truth in the situation is to know your true self. This may be to destroy the other. You only truly know your truth on this in the moment it arises for real, the moment of truth. And such a situation will only arise for you if you wish to know this truth about yourself.
Only this personal truth exists, no good and no bad.

Answer 6

Pacifism is as extreme as overt hostility. Any stance that does not address the need of a situation is immoral. To be developed enough to accurately see the need, knowing when to kill and when not to, that's the tough part.

But goodness does exist, or humanity would have died out long ago. Utter evil is self consuming, as no cooperation, even with oneself, is possible.

Answer 7

Yes, it is immoral to feed your body to a tiger because you believe the life in the tiger is sacred and should not be taken by you or others deliberately. It is not only immoral, it is stupid and dumb and irrational. A source of killing should be eliminated - that is the real concept of life-preserving pacifist (to use the term loosely).

A killer has to be killed to prevent "it" from killing more - as simple as that.

Answer 8

A pacifist is a person who refuses to START violence in the face of name calling and aggression, and resorts to violence only when all other measures have been exhausted.

Answer 9

Pacifism, can sometimes be immoral, just like loving wars. And not millions, but tens of millions of innocent people were butchered by the Nazis during WW2.

Answer 10

It is fashionable in our day and age to assume that pacifism is a doctrine of superior ethics and morality, and that pacifists are people of superior wisdom, ethics, and morality. The fact is that the practice of pacifism in the real world creates moral and ethical dilemmas that make the pacifist position a morally indefensible stand.
The first problem with pacifism is the obvious fact that pacifism involves hypocrisy. In order to survive in our world, the pacifist must live in societies that to at least some degree rely upon violence. Most pacifists live in free societies that were created in the past through the use of military force and are defended today by military forces, societies that only exist today because people in the past were willing to use military force to defeat and destroy their enemies, societies that only continue to exist today because governments are willing to use military force to destroy or deter present day foes, societies in which law and order is only maintained through the use of force by law enforcement officers. The pacifist can only survive in a society in which others are willing to fight and die to protect his right to be a pacifist. There is no more telling revelation of the impracticality of pacifism than this simple statement. The so-called morally superior pacifist can only practice his or her "superior morality" by letting others sacrifice themselves for him or her. This makes the pacifist a sort of moral parasite: he or she can only exist in a free society in which the majority is willing to kill and die for their freedom. Yet the pacifist refuses to do so, making the pacifists morality a sick and hollow joke.
The second problem with pacifism is that, when faced with the threat of violence from evil people, the pacifist has only two totally immoral courses of action. The first is appeasement, that is to give in to the evil doers, to cooperate and collaborate with them on some level and help them spread their evil. To appease evil is to facilitate the evil doer, a course of action which makes the pacifist at least partially responsible for the evil doers actions. The second course of action the pacifist can take is to simply commit suicide or let the evil doer kill him. This sacrifice usually proves nothing; the evil doer goes right on committing his crimes after the pacifist is dead. In the meantime the pacifist has facilitated another evil action: murder. Worse, the pacifist proves that violence is effective and a legitimate method of effecting change by giving the evil doer a concrete example of the effectiveness of violence.
The third moral problem with pacifism is the willingness on the part of pacifists to bring about circumstances that result in the deaths of others. Many pacifists go beyond refusing to commit violent acts themselves by attempting to deprive others of the means or right to use force to protect themselves, for example, attempts to disarm or demobilize military forces, or restrain their use. Since this would lead to the deaths of innocents at the hands of the evil doers, by imposing his or her values on others the pacifist becomes responsible for the very thing he or she tried to prevent: violent deaths.
Pacifism, then, is not a doctrine of morality and ethics. It is an ideology of hypocrisy and weakness that tends to facilitate evil and violence, thus destroying the very thing that the pacifist is trying to create: peace.