How's this for a text box on pacifism in a philosophy textbook?
__________
A pacifist is someone who believes violence is wrong in every situation, that non-violence is an absolute. However, even in this instance, the pacifist has chosen one value over another. In certain circumstances, he or she considers non-violence a higher ethical priority than helping or saving the lives of others.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Nonsense!
Let's do a typical philosophy thought experiment. A woman is bound and sitting in a chair gagged. Another man stands over her with a gun to her head, about to shoot her to death (lets say it's a sure shot to the spine at the base of the neck). The man with a gun has an implant in his brain that will kill him instantly if you push a button in front of you. In other words, pushing the button will save a life.
So your value--not to kill--is in direct conflict with your value to save a life. Which is the greater value. The pacifist says that the value of non-violence is greater than the priority to save a life.
I can't see any way out of this conclusion. In some cases, pacifism considers non-violence a higher priority than saving life or helping others.
Of course, Ken the first thing you do is what everyone does: you give the worst case exceptional scenario. But there is quite a difference between building an ethic which must take into account the ambiguous exceptional situation and basing or dismissing an ethic because of the exception. You are doing the latter.
John Howard Yoder identified no less than 27 different kinds or accounts of pacifism. So let's be careful about the overly-simplistic analysis.
As Stanley Hauerwas has said, non-pacifists don't understand that pacifism does not necessarily exclude (in certain circumstances) a punch in the nose.
Allan, do you mean pacifism is an ethical priority, a default position one might say, but a non-absolute? If so, I think most Christians would agree, but most Christians would not identify themselves as pacifists as the word is normally understood. Where does the distinction lie?
Thanks for cautioning on the wording Allan. I'll be careful. The purpose of this textbox was to show that it is inevitable that we prioritize our values, that one cannot be an absolutist on every issue, indeed, that we cannot be absolutists on very many issues at all. So I was only discussing an absolutist pacifist position, not the issue of peace in general.
By the way, to point out this prioritization, I am not saying that position is wrong, only that it prioritizes non-violence above saving life.
Ken,
I do not like the language of absolutism. It too often clouds moral reflection. So, therefore, John M., I do not want to characterize pacifism within your framework.
I also don't like it because it reduces ethics to competing principles and rules. While moral reflection involves conflict of values, the emphasis should not be placed there. Questions of virtue and character must take priority.
By the way, pacifists have long pointed out that there is more than one way to resist evil short of violence. Indeed, as Yoder pointed out years ago, those who argue against non-violence based on ineffectiveness themselves fall short of their own argument. After all, in war violence fails 50% of the time.
The main reason I do not like the quote you post is that it assumes that pacifists believe there is little worth dying for. Quite the contrary; but they are convinced that there is little worth killing over.
Virtue based ethics is the last section of the chapter. ;-)
I deleted the textbox. It was just an illustration of the necessity to prioritize values--not a place for nuance.
Ken - you were necessarily going for succinctness, so forgive me picking over each word, but "The pacifist says that the value of non-violence is greater than the priority to save a life" still does not match up your scenario. By not killing the would-be murderer, you are still saving the life of the man. In either scenario, one winds up dead, and the other alive. The pacifist seems to just be saying that he will not choose who will die by murdering someone himself.
You could say that he is choosing by not making a choice, but then we'd have to stretch blame all over the place... you'd have to blame most of the rich & powerful Christians for their neglect in evangelizing the world, letting their African brothers and sisters die for lack of clean water, etc, every time they pay for a movie ticket instead of donate to these life-and-death causes.
Forgive me if I'm overlooking a philosophical argument that has long been covered in PHIL101. Blame me, not Prof Horst :)
Perhaps saving the life of an innocent man would be more precise? There are wrongs done by omission (e.g., Kitty Genovese) and wrongs done by commission. The wrong I targeted in the scenario is the duty to save the innocent when it is within your power. I am saying that when the stereotypical pacifist draws up a list of moral priorities, this duty comes below the duty not to take a life.
Served as a combat medic with the 101st in Viet Nam. As a new christian I struggled with the whole notion of pacifism. Airborne medics were not pacifists and we carried 45s or M-16s. The duty to protect those around me won that struggle for me.
Since the military days, I gave up hunting and I do not own a fire arm. I learned that respecting egos keeps me/us out of most violent situations.
Protecting family and the weak are instinctive for most people. If called upon, I do think I would have the grace to lay my life down for Christ. However, I would also risk my life protecting those who I felt needing protection from random violence...I couldn't live with myself doing anything less.
Al Thompson
Served as a combat medic with the 101st in Viet Nam. As a new christian I struggled with the whole notion of pacifism. Airborne medics were not pacifists and we carried 45s or M-16s. The duty to protect those around me won that struggle for me.
Since the military days, I gave up hunting and I do not own a fire arm. I learned that respecting egos keeps me/us out of most violent situations.
Protecting family and the weak are instinctive for most people. If called upon, I do think I would have the grace to lay my life down for Christ. However, I would also risk my life protecting those who I felt needing protection from random violence...I couldn't live with myself doing anything less.
Post a Comment