Pacifism is Morally Indefensible (page 2)

Anony Mous

I'm not a pacifist, on the other hand I wouldn't advocate global involvement in conflict in order to force any particular political persuasion on a population.

Declaring evil, in any of its forms is always relative as much evil the Japanese or Nazis were, the US wasn't doing much better at any point in time.

In my opinion, local conflicts are best resolved locally, having a 'world power' involved has always turned out bad historically because they do not share the same values, background and history of the locals. Conflict is sometimes necessary and is never an absolute, people should defend themselves against oppressors but for a third party to declare a moral superior in these situations is foolish.

Wasanelder Once

The reality is, If I choose not to fight I will likely not suffer the loss of my life or those of my children. World war 2 was on another continent as you'll recall. All wars are economic, don't kid yourself. Nothing involving war/governments is ever black and white.

"Of course war should always be a last resort but there are occasions that it has to be done. The Third Reich had to be stopped by deadly force."

Not so clear cut. "General Motors was far more important to the Nazi war machine than Switzerland," said Bradford Snell, who has spent two decades researching a history of the world's largest automaker. "Switzerland was just a repository of looted funds. GM was an integral part of the German war effort. The Nazis could have invaded Poland and Russia without Switzerland. They could not have done so without GM."

Maybe if the U.S. had less greed the war wouldn't have been so large? People wouldn't have to die for Democracy?

Brokeback Watchtower

First off one would have to define "morally" as we know their there is no absolutes or any universal moral code to agree on. It may be against your morals but not against mine.

lastmanstanding

Sitting in one’s comfy chair posting about such big things is easy.

Those who actually went to war and got their butts shot off have a different opinion. My grandad is in that group having been severely wounded at Paschendaele 100 years ago last November 30. He would tell you a thing or two about warfare.

As was already pointed out, war is about financial greed. There are a few rich oligarchs running Earth and they initiate wars to get richer. They use soldiers like pawns. Nothing more.

The vets who returned from Nam have a voice, and their voice is more credible than someone who has experienced nothing.

For every “patriot” on this side, there is a “patriot” on the other side coming to patriotically kill your family the same way. Aren’t we glad that guy isn’t a coward.

GLTirebiter

When Douglas Murray said on Question Time that he was elated at Osama bin Laden's death, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown said 'that makes you as bad as him'

Though gloating over his death is not justified, "Is as bad as him" is hyperbole.

Bin Laden's death was a appropriate use of military force to abate evil. A moral choice is a reasoned response, neither giving in to blood lust nor insisting on a do-nothing stance.

venus

JW's strong adherence to shunning itself shows they are not pacifists.

War is divine when it is done for right cause--just like cutting the flesh is good when a surgeon does it for removal of cancerous formation whereas cutting the flesh for its own sake is bad.

waton

Wasanelder once: "--They could not have done so without GM."

or NCR, the National Cash Register company which produced detonator mechanism for the german artillery, particularly the 88. or IBM for the Bismarck fire control, or holocaust planning (in)fame.

Wars are often not what they seem to be. abstention may be wiser than we think. but personal defense is essential.

cofty

as much evil the Japanese or Nazis were, the US wasn't doing much better at any point in time - Anony Mous

This is an appallingly inaccurate statement. It makes me wonder if you have ever read any history at all. Or perhaps you limit your reading to the self-loathing Noam Chomsky?

In my opinion, local conflicts are best resolved locally,

There is on such option when Fascists are rampaging through the world raping, murdering and imposing oppressive regimes.

having a 'world power' involved has always turned out bad historically because they do not share the same values, background and history of the locals.

Every community on earth shares the value of not wanting to be the victims of genocide. Anybody who would stand by and watch a mass shooting or a rape if they had the tools and skills to stop it is a moral reprobate. Whether it is on a small scale crime or a national war the principle is the same. Refusing to take lives in order to save the lives of others is reprehensible.

If I choose not to fight I will likely not suffer the loss of my life or those of my children. World war 2 was on another continent as you'll recall - Wasanelder

No it wasn't on a different continent unless you think this thread is about the USA. It isn't.

First off one would have to define "morally" as we know their there is no absolutes or any universal moral code to agree on. It may be against your morals but not against mine - Brokeback

How about Do unto others ...?

Being prepared to use whatever force is necessary - including deadly force - at personal risk in order to stop a far greater evil is a moral good.

Lastmanstanding - You sound as if you think I am glorifying war.

Just to be clear this is not about the rights or wrongs of WWII or any other war. It is about the moral cowardice of the Watchtower organisation who hide behind neutrality refusing to be part of armed conflict while expecting others to do the fighting on their behalf. Whether that involves a war or a policeman dealing with armed terrorists it is reprehensible.

stillin

Unfortunately, the propaganda machines get working on both sides of a war. The moral rightness is pounded into each side. The churches get involved. Who wants to fight for the side that is morally wrong?

LoveUniHateExams

Declaring evil, in any of its forms is always relative as much evil the Japanese or Nazis were, the US wasn't doing much better at any point in time - yes, this is an example of the kneejerk attempts at moral equivalence I mentioned previously.

The Japanese used to behead POWs; Nazi government policy was kill Jews; US government policy was racial segregation.

All bad but clearly not at the same level of badness. Failure to see this must be a pathology in some people ...

Pacifism is Morally Indefensible

Share this