How can people be so certain that pacifism wouldn't work?

Question

Firstly, pacifism doesn't equal doing nothing. There are a great many things you can do without killing people. And also - we have never given pacifism a full chance - in bad international situations people resort to war, whether sooner or later. People may get killed if a country took a pacifist stance, yes, but would it be any more than would be killed in a war? And even if a country was taken over, if the victim country did not use force, why would the aggressor have to do so? If laws/government then attempted to oppress the people of the victim country - could people not just DISAGREE with the laws? Not obey them? Even the stupidest government would realise eventually that people won't go along with their plans. I think in the long term, pacifism would cause a lot less deaths.

I guess maybe it relies on people being ok with death. And the assumption that agressors would realise the futility of their fight. Which they might not. I do have a lot of faith in humankind, though. Thanks folks.

Answer 1

gandhi gave it a chance, but I dont think it can work unless you are a jedi.

Answer 2

This is a good question. Just like the "Why do we have wars?" question I saw yesterday. Of course people answered "Human Nature".

However, I don't think the answer is "Human nature" - I think it's just "Nature". In "Nature", pacifists simply disappear. I guess I am a true Darwinian in that I believe "aggressive, lethal, warlike" characteristics are simple necessary (similarly "lustfulness").

This doesn't prevent me from thinking pacifism is noble (just as chastity is), but there is a conflict - as I also think it is noble to endure. When pacifism is confronted with a tyrant - I do not have faith in the pacifists' future. Would I have been a pacifist Jew during Hitler? Would you?

I also believe the "end justifies the means", so yes, Gandhi and MLK *are* great heroes in the truest sense of that word. But, I also believe FDR was a true hero (especially in his war against tyrants). They all share one thing in common: their strategy worked.

In the end it is a question of power. If you have the power to defend yourself, you would be a fool to take the pacifist route against an aggressor. However, if you don't have this power, then pacifism becomes an option - it has other advantages (mainly sympathy from others who might then lend a hand).

We (people, society) have an eternal love affair with making things Black and White (simple: Good or Evil). Pacifism is good, war is bad. But I believe *that* is the real problem - nothing is Black or White (at least not until the history books come out, and guess who gets to write those ;).

Answer 3

The problem with pacifism is that it only takes one person to break out of it, and this person could wipe out entire societies just because the society in question would refuse to fight back. Who would enforce the law? You wouldn't be able to have a police force that uses any form of violence. Such a force would have no power if a single person had a knife and was willing to use it.

Answer 4

Don't kid yourself.

Let us give specifics to your generalities.
We will say that the Muslims waged war on our soil, and we tried to be pacifists, the only way we could keep war from happening would be to give into the Sharia law.

Well you could do that without losing any lives in war.
Now, let us assume that Sharia law is in effect.
Does anyone know what would happen to them if one of the Sharia laws were violated by anyone.
They would be put to death.

Oh, you would have to profess the name of Allah to live from the very beginning. And don't forget to add (pbuh) because that would dishonor Allah.

grace2u

Answer 5

This is a fantastic question...and one that I've asked myself many times at various stages of my life. The younger me agreed.

I had seen Arun Ghandi....that Ghandi's Grandson....speak at my college about pacifism. He pointed out that in Denmark, they peacefully stood in front of tanks, and the tanks backed off. He of course spoke about MLK and his grandfather.

His main point was that it took generations to convince people that it was a goal to die for king and country. Or ideals. Wouldn't it be just as noble to die for peace?

He also said it was harder to die for peace. At least fighting, you might win. You are moving. You have adrenalline.

I found it moving.

In my older days....I watched the world around me....I watched as Gorbachev decided it wasn't worth Civil War, and allowed the wall to fall.

I unfortunately have come to the conclusion that while it works in isolated situations, it doesn't work often enough. In denmark...that tactic worked once...but had it happened everywhere...Hitler would have ran them all over.

There are people in society...like the Taliban...that are cancer cells. And the only way to remove the cancer is with a scalpel. There is simply no reasoning with them. They only understand violence and death.

Answer 6

Not me, I am a pacifist. I agree, no one has ever really given it a chance to work or put half the effort behind it as they do their military might.
23

Answer 7

If someone raped a little girl or my cat I would kick their ***. I believe that sometimes it only takes violence to get people to wake up. Not that I exactly enjoy it, but I think its important.

Its like spanking your children. It just has to be done sometimes.

Answer 8

I'm all for pacifism.
The only problem is, our enemies aren't, and we really should have the right to defend our homes and families against violent and brutal death, don't you think?

Answer 9

You be a pacifist. I will instead be aware, vigilant, and will do whatever it takes to resist evil. Don't blame me if evil gets you.

Answer 10

Damn straight. Suppose they gave a war and nobody came.