Joseph Campbell quote ... he might not be everyone's cup of tea.

You yourself are participating in evil, or you are not alive. Whatever you do is evil to someone. This is one of the ironies of creation.

Don't know about that. I can think of a number of things which most people would think as unambiguously good, and the opposition to which would be unambiguously bad. The old classic of saving the life of a child drowning in a pond for example. Who does that do evil to?

If the child were Jewish, perhaps ... then there is famous faux advert ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP2DK4pEYS4

You shoulda popped a smiley on that.

THWOTH wrote:Don't know about that. I can think of a number of things which most people would think as unambiguously good, and the opposition to which would be unambiguously bad. The old classic of saving the life of a child drowning in a pond for example. Who does that do evil to?

The crayfish for stealing their feed?


Hey, it's a hypothetical child, so it's funny.

If you go to far with these hypotheticals then everything one does causes evil and the only non-evil thing to do is erase oneself from existence.

Maybe this is where religion comes in: if I just follow these divinely ordained guidelines, I'm a good person and I'm safe.

Pragmatically I think it is best to accept some degree of "things and people being less than perfect", like the concept of dukkha in Buddhism. Not fly into some revolutionary rage and destroy what we have because it isn't perfect. And find pragmatic arrangements that enable us to live together as best as we can.

I'm wondering if pacifism enables evil, because it necessarily yeilds to those who use force to achieve their ends.

I think in very specific circumstances an absolutist practice of pacifism could enable evil, but in the vast majority of circumstances not so. Most importantly, pacifism doesn't imply yielding to force - it just refuses to wield it back. Civil disobedience is an example of this, and if widespread enough, it can topple force-monopolizing entities. In most circumstances, I don't think it can be logically connected to enabling evil - it's just more or less effective in countering it.

If a commitment to pacifism (which one might characterise as strict non-violence) isn't absolute then is it still pacifism?

Maybe not a commitment, a promise, or agreement. But what happens when we replace a commitment with a person? Is a person a pacifist if they do not always behave as a pacifist? It would be unusual if they couldn't still be considered one. Reasonable people do describe each other using labels that don't always apply.

I guess you could be committed to pacifism while insisting on the right to remain human...

THWOTH wrote:If a commitment to pacifism (which one might characterise as strict non-violence) isn't absolute then is it still pacifism?

There's a wide spectrum of views within the concept of pacifism.

For example, pacifism that entails seeking out every option other than violence, never considering violence first as a solution to any problem. But that doesn't mean the person is then committed to letting themselves be killed without defending themselves. I think that would be a caricature of pacifism - only the most absolute version of a range of positions within the concept.

Pacifism could just mean opposition to war, and have no specific position on other forms of violence.


ETA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism#Definition

Pacifism covers a spectrum of views, including the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war, opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism), rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals, the obliteration of force, and opposition to violence under any circumstance, even defence of self and others. Historians of pacifism Peter Brock and Thomas Paul Socknat define pacifism "in the sense generally accepted in English-speaking areas" as "an unconditional rejection of all forms of warfare".[4] Philosopher Jenny Teichman defines the main form of pacifism as "anti-warism", the rejection of all forms of warfare.[5] Teichman's beliefs have been summarized by Brian Orend as "... A pacifist rejects war and believes there are no moral grounds which can justify resorting to war. War, for the pacifist, is always wrong." In a sense the philosophy is based on the idea that the ends do not justify the means.[6] The word pacific denotes conciliatory.[7]

I'd subscribe to...

the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved
rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals, the obliteration of force
an unconditional rejection of all forms of warfare


But not to...

the abolition of the institutions of the military and war
opposition to violence under any circumstance, even defence of self and others


And I'd want to unpack this before I could agree or disagree with it...

opposition to any organization of society through governmental force

sean_w wrote:Maybe not a commitment, a promise, or agreement. But what happens when we replace a commitment with a person? Is a person a pacifist if they do not always behave as a pacifist? It would be unusual if they couldn't still be considered one. Reasonable people do describe each other using labels that don't always apply.

I guess you could be committed to pacifism while insisting on the right to remain human...

If there's any one single meaning that properly defines pacifism, it's being 'against war' specifically, not 'against violence'.

It's why I've called myself a pacifist in the past, but it doesn't mean I couldn't be induced to bopping someone on the nose if they were really insistent on fucking with me or mine.

I don't want to fight, I don't want violence, I don't like situations that are defined by violence - but I am not going to let myself or my loved ones be hurt by someone insistent on using violence to exploit us in some way without fighting back.

I am against war, but I am still not absolutist in this regard - just as above, I think war is wrong on the part of the aggressor, not of the defender. Ukraine, for example, has every right to protect themselves from Russia, while Russia has fuck all justification for starting a war - it's nothing more than sophisticated than extreme bullying.

Quakers: "True pacifism is not inaction; it is non-violent resistance to injustice."

Permitting a violent response to violence isn't pacifism. It's more like citing one's self-declared peaceful credentials as justification for one's own boundaries on the use of force. "This pacifist is gonna kick your butt if you start fucking with me."

As I said earlier, if pacifism isn't strict non-violence then it isn't really pacifism. Where it is strict non-violence it necessarily yeilds to those who use force to achieve their ends. Therefore pacifism enables evil.

I disagree - I don't think prescriptivism is ever rational as it just unjustifiably elevates one idea over others, ignoring the facts of how that language is actually used by most people. Plenty of people who consider themselves pacifists don't concur that they have to passively watch their families harmed or murdered to remain a pacifist.

If you're really going to insist on a single definition, then the only 'true' definition of pacifism is opposition to war to resolve disputes.

In actuality, pacifism ranges from strict, ideological, or absolutist pacifism - i.e. like the ahimsa of Jainism, meaning doing no violence at all, even to animals... to advocacy of peaceful policies between nations or groups. All of them are pacifism, but not all of them entail absolutist rejection of violence.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacificism

Pacificism is the general term for ethical opposition to violence or war unless force is deemed necessary. Together with pacifism, it is born from the Western tradition or attitude that calls for peace.[citation needed] The former involves the unconditional refusal to support violence or absolute pacifism, but pacificism views the prevention of violence as its duty but recognizes the controlled use of force to achieve such objective.[1] According to Martin Caedel, pacifism and pacificism are driven by a certain political position or ideology such as liberalism, socialism or feminism.[2]

Ceadel has categorized pacificism among positions about war and peace, ordering it among the other categories:[3]

Militarism (normalized)
Crusading (interventionism)
Defensivism (prevention)
Pacificism (prevention and abolition)
Pacifism (rejection)

Pacifism ranges between total pacifism, which usually states that killing, violence or war is unconditionally wrong in all cases, and defensivism, which accepts all defensive acts as morally just.[4] Pacificism states that war may ever be considered only as a firm "last resort" and condemns both aggression and militarism. In the 1940s, the two terms were not conceptually distinguished, and pacificism was considered merely an archaic spelling.[5]

The term pacificism was first used in 1910 by William James.[6] The distinct theory was later developed by A. J. P. Taylor in The Trouble-Makers (1957)[7] and was subsequently defined by Ceadel in his 1987 book, Thinking About Peace and War.[8][9] It was also discussed in detail in Richard Norman's book, Ethics, Killing and War. The concept came to mean "the advocacy of a peaceful policy."[10]

The largest national peace association in history, the British League of Nations Union, was pacificist rather than pacifist in orientation.[11] Historically, the majority of peace activists have been pacificists rather than strict pacifists.[12]

THWOTH wrote:Quakers: "True pacifism is not inaction; it is non-violent resistance to injustice."

...


Therefore pacifism enables evil.

Snipping the intermediary part, you can see that your post is in self-contradiction.

Non-violent resistance doesn't necessarily imply enabling evil, it's just more or less effective in countering it than violent means.

We can definitely contrive hypothetical scenarios of spherical evils in a pacifist vacuum where pacifism does enable evil, but these scenarios would be abstracted away from the range of possible means of non-violently countering evil.

Spearthrower wrote:

THWOTH wrote:Quakers: "True pacifism is not inaction; it is non-violent resistance to injustice."

...


Therefore pacifism enables evil.

Snipping the intermediary part, you can see that your post is in self-contradiction.

Non-violent resistance doesn't necessarily imply enabling evil, it's just more or less effective in countering it than violent means.

We can definitely contrive hypothetical scenarios of spherical evils in a pacifist vacuum where pacifism does enable evil, but these scenarios would be abstracted away from the range of possible means of non-violently countering evil.

I think you're just highlighting the problem rather than debunking my logic.

How does one non-violently resist a tank shell? By disagreeing with it on principle? By setting a good example that shames and embarrasses other tank shells?

If, like the Quakers, pacifism is a committment to the non-violent resistance of injustice, then those who would act violently and unjustly only have to continue to act; to use the force they've already committed to using. It strikes me that the only thing being 'resisted' here are one's natural responses in the face of a present danger.

Accepting it's plethora of common applications, I guess 'pacifism' just isn't a very useful or informative term. If it doesn't mean strict non-violence then it doesn't mean very much at all. If it means some specifically qualified and permissable use of force then it's essentially no different to any other justification for the use of force.

THWOTH wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

THWOTH wrote:Quakers: "True pacifism is not inaction; it is non-violent resistance to injustice."

...


Therefore pacifism enables evil.

Snipping the intermediary part, you can see that your post is in self-contradiction.

Non-violent resistance doesn't necessarily imply enabling evil, it's just more or less effective in countering it than violent means.

We can definitely contrive hypothetical scenarios of spherical evils in a pacifist vacuum where pacifism does enable evil, but these scenarios would be abstracted away from the range of possible means of non-violently countering evil.

I think you're just highlighting the problem rather than debunking my logic.

It's not a problem of logic - it's rather one of specificity in my opinion.

I noted this from the first reply:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2797976

I think in very specific circumstances an absolutist practice of pacifism could enable evil, but in the vast majority of circumstances not so.

If you define 'pacifist' to mean will never engage in violence in any circumstances, then in particular contrived scenarios, such a person could be said to be enabling evil through inaction or through failure to resist evil.

But as I've also mentioned, I don't think that this is a valid definition of pacifism - I think it's a very restricted sense, which then makes such hypotheticals both restricted and contrived. So yes, under restricted and contrived scenarios, you could argue that pacifism enables evil.

THWOTH wrote:How does one non-violently resist a tank shell? By disagreeing with it on principle? By setting a good example that shames and embarrasses other tank shells?

One doesn't? Are you rebutting the Quaker's definition of pacifism?

THWOTH wrote:If, like the Quakers, pacifism is a committment to the non-violent resistance of injustice, then those who would act violently and unjustly only have to continue to act; to use the force they've already committed to using. It strikes me that the only thing being 'resisted' here are one's natural responses in the face of a present danger.

While I don't agree with the Quaker's form of pacifism, I think it's easy to see what their argument would be. It's not the tank shell they're disagreeing with or hoping to change, but the human being operating the device that fires the shell. They'd argue that it's easier for the human beings in an oppressive violence-using force to justify internally justify the continued use of violence when they also experience violence in return. When faced with passive resistance of the turn-the-other-cheek variety, their humanity and morality will rebel against their own deeds, hopefully thereby ending the cycle of violence.

I don't think it's particularly pragmatic or realistic, but under restrictive and contrived scenarios, I am sure we could muster a few hypothetical scenarios in which this could work.

THWOTH wrote:Accepting it's plethora of common applications, I guess 'pacifism' just isn't a very useful or informative term. If it doesn't mean strict non-violence then it doesn't mean very much at all.

It means being opposed to war and violence as a means of resolution.

THWOTH wrote: If it means some specifically qualified and permissable use of force then it's essentially no different to any other justification for the use of force.

Not any one that advocates employing war or violence as a means of resolution.

Not quite seeing why this is so hard to acknowledge.

Spearthrower wrote:

THWOTH wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

THWOTH wrote:Quakers: "True pacifism is not inaction; it is non-violent resistance to injustice."

...


Therefore pacifism enables evil.

Snipping the intermediary part, you can see that your post is in self-contradiction.

Non-violent resistance doesn't necessarily imply enabling evil, it's just more or less effective in countering it than violent means.

We can definitely contrive hypothetical scenarios of spherical evils in a pacifist vacuum where pacifism does enable evil, but these scenarios would be abstracted away from the range of possible means of non-violently countering evil.

I think you're just highlighting the problem rather than debunking my logic.

It's not a problem of logic - it's rather one of specificity in my opinion.

I noted this from the first reply:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2797976

I think in very specific circumstances an absolutist practice of pacifism could enable evil, but in the vast majority of circumstances not so.

THWOTH wrote:How does one non-violently resist a tank shell? By disagreeing with it on principle? By setting a good example that shames and embarrasses other tank shells?

THWOTH wrote:If, like the Quakers, pacifism is a committment to the non-violent resistance of injustice, then those who would act violently and unjustly only have to continue to act; to use the force they've already committed to using. It strikes me that the only thing being 'resisted' here are one's natural responses in the face of a present danger.

THWOTH wrote:Accepting it's plethora of common applications, I guess 'pacifism' just isn't a very useful or informative term. If it doesn't mean strict non-violence then it doesn't mean very much at all.

THWOTH wrote: If it means some specifically qualified and permissable use of force then it's essentially no different to any other justification for the use of force.

Not any one that advocates employing war or violence as a means of resolution.

Not quite seeing why this is so hard to acknowledge.

You made Quaker pacifism sound like boss-level passive aggression!

But on the last point, where 'if pacifism means some specifically qualified and permissable use of force then it's essentially no different to any other justification for the use of force': defensive force does not preclude advocating war or violence as a means of resolution. Pacifism that allows defensive force in response to aggression can easily justify war and violence as a means of resolution - particularly when war and violence is framed as advocating for peace: the just war, the war of liberation, etc etc. 'Pacifism' implies a claim about the limit of forceful action, or a statement about the the bounds of permissible action. When contrasted to it's opposite--claims or statements that place no limits or bounds on forceful action--then who but the psychopath isn't a pacifist? So, despite the different levels of permissible force people are inclined to enfold within their moral outlook, and then stitch the label 'pacifist' on to, as a staked claim to non-violence it's incoherent unless it's applied strictly or, as you put it, absolutely - which I think stands despite being implored to not take 'pacifism' literally.

I don't share either your prescriptivism or binarism, so for me, someone who is opposed to war as a solution is a pacifist, and I wouldn't hold them to letting themselves or their loved ones be stabbed to death as indication of the purity of their position.