2007-06-07 10:45:01 · 16 answers · asked by djnicko66 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
It is most certainly NOT hypocritical. Come on, I mean if someone was about to shoot someone else, would you shoot that person who is about to commit murder? I know I would! So consider that fact. It wouldn't be hypicritical for me to shoot that person, he is about to murder someone, and I am using force to protect that person's right to live.
I hope that you would make the same choice that I would make instead of not protecting someone by using force whn you need to because you think your being hypocritical.
Talk to a Cop and see what he/she thinks about your question.
2007-06-08 16:04:37 · answer #1 · answered by Offizier J.E. 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So, if you saw a person beating a baby or small 2 or 3-year old child to death, you'd justify a refusal to use force to stop the person as morally correct if you're a pacifist? Or would you try to stop them? Either way, you just blew the hypocritical argument, because either you have a high moral and ethical standard, or you are simply a spineless chump. There are some attitudes expected in society that compel us to try to save the truly helpless, and if you refuse to lift a finger, you are right to be pilloried for your lack of compassion. At some point in people's lives, something like this might come along, and it will define the person for everyone to see. Life is full of risks, and sometimes you have to voluntarily assume the risks. I hope you fall on the side of saving the baby....
- The Gremlin Guy -
2007-06-07 13:22:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if you are a strict pacifist. Otherwise, it is not. Just recently, my husband beat on someone he saw hitting a woman in a public place, and I think he did the right thing. So long as there are aggressive people in the world, there will be an unfortunate need to protect the weak and innocent from being preyed upon. This is a simple thing in one on one situations, but becomes more ethically problematic when amplified from individuals to whole peoples. Take Iraq; was there a consensus that the Iraqi people needed protection from Saddam? While it is true that they have been delivered from Saddam, who undoubtedly preyed upon many of them, have we delivered them up to something even worse? Was the relative price of the suffering averted worth the price of the suffering caused? What if the man my husband hit went home and beat his wife to a pulp because he blamed her for his getting hit? I do know that that didn't happen, but would it have been my husbands fault if it had? Force can have its place, but it has to be applied more sparingly than it is, IMHO.
2007-06-07 11:05:24 · answer #3 · answered by Bartmooby 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why would that be hypocritical? Consider the greater harm that may result if you are never willing to use force.
If you are not wiling to use force, you cede control of the world to bad people who are always willing to use force. Many times, only the threat (or actual use) of force is necessary to hold those with baser instincts at bay.
2007-06-07 10:47:29 · answer #4 · answered by BR 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No
If someone was to break into your home and was going to shoot your family in front of you.
You have a gun and you pull the trigger you would stop the guy.
How can you compare the two.
One is out to just murder your family
You are protecting them.
How is that even hypocritical?
2007-06-07 13:39:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be hypocritical if you said do not be mean to people and you went around being mean. It is not if you say do not hurt any one and them you are faced with someone hurting you or a freind that did nothing to bring it on and you have to step up to stop it. If you step in to stop it and help your freind that is called doing the right thing.
2007-06-07 10:54:06 · answer #6 · answered by rani 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, not always. It is sometimes the only way. But what concerns me is that we don't often think about whether there is another way. It's a knee-jerk reaction to say we will always have war because we have always had it. Some people have used other means. Look at what Gandhi did in India. We need to be more creative in our thinking.
2007-06-09 07:40:40 · answer #7 · answered by Pascha 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on who gets to decide WHAT the people need to be protected from.
2007-06-08 12:52:35 · answer #8 · answered by Happy Camper 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, since when did the US military or Cops claim to be pacifists. Their main purpose is ultimately to protect people.
2007-06-07 10:57:22 · answer #9 · answered by bravozulu 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
So, if you are on the recipients end of a severe mugging on the street and if I walk by and see it happening, would you want to have me remain a pacifist and let the mugger continue to beat on you, or jump in and defend you?
2007-06-07 16:05:01 · answer #10 · answered by dannyo66 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋