I’ve had a quick swipe at pacifism so I’d like to discuss it more. I think the concept of pacifism (including pacifist religion) is harmful. Let’s quickly look at 2 pacifist religions:
Jainism
A minority religion in India (4.2 million) followers. They believe in the sacredness of all life. Jains are vegetarian, often wear a cloth over their mouth (to avoid inhaling insects) and sweep the path in front of themselves (to avoid stepping on insects). Sam Harris makes a great point — no matter what, there will never be any Jain suicide bombers. From that perspective it’s a definite plus. But not all’s peachy.
The highest calling for a Jain is to starve him/herself to death. It’s a special religious act called Santhara. It’s not done frequently nor taken lightly. Still, it’s no coincidence that a pacifist religion would be ok with violence to oneself. Much like VHEMT who advocate voluntary extinction of humans for the sake of “Mother Earth”, Jainism’s ultimate goal is to do no violence to a plant. There are 25+ types of fasts in Jainism: it’s literally an obsession. Even without suicidal tendencies, pacifism is a straitjacket. If you’re worried about swallowing insects you’re not free to act. You can never achieve much — doing anything remarkable always requires you to at times forget about the 600,000 species of beetle you might step on.
Quakers
Quakers are the pacifist wing of Christian denominations. They’re probably the least dogmatic of pre-20th-century denominations, not believing the Bible to be the complete inerrant word of God (quite a mean feat in the 17thC when they originated). Quakers have been closely associated with the women’s rights, civil rights and anti-slavery movements.
All great but still, dogmatic pacifism has disadvantages. Quakers obviously didn’t fight in the US War of Independence. If the US lost, it’s hard to say for sure if the world would be worse off (now or then). But there are reasons to believe it would have been terrible. Since the American revolution helped propel democracy, people would have been stuck under despots for longer if the US lost.
From Goodbye to All That: (A pacifist during WWI responding to the chairman of the military tribunal’s question: what would you do if you saw a German soldier trying to violate your sister?) I would try to get between them. This is not true for most people. Quaker views are less extreme than Jainism but they can lead to just as much harm. They suppress the natural instinct most people have to fight for their loved ones if need be.
So What’s Wrong With Pacifism?
- Pacifist 1: “it would be great if everyone practiced it”. As pointed out by the Reason Driven Podcast even if everyone practiced Rush-Lumbaughism (I add Osamaism & Ann-Coulterism) the world would be great. There’d be no disagreement. So you don’t need pacifism: almost any value system would be good if universal. The whole problem is that the world is so full of disagreements.
- Pacifist 2: “pacifism is an effective principle of dealing with those who disagree”. It worked a few times but not in the general case. As long as there are people who are unpacifist AND won’t shirk from massacring pacifists (and there’s plenty of such people), the strategy loses. For pacifism to work already requires a level of enlightenment in society: how good would an American Indian pacifist resistance have been against the West?
- Pacifist 3: “the act of killing a human being is so morally wrong [says Jesus/Krishna/The Benevolent Leader] that even if this human being will massacre thousands, you still have no right to do it”. Not wanting to swear too much, I leave the refutation as an exercise for the reader.
12 comments ↓
Wait, wha- what?
Can you explain Pacifist 3 a little more? Are you saying it’s ok to kill someone for a crime they are going to commit? Haven’t you learned anything from Terminator 2?
Of course I’d say it’s ok. We’re not talking about some hypothetical time travel or Minority Report situation but real life (ie. if we have a good feeling someone is about to commit a crime it’s because of their past actions or because they’re in the middle of the action).
We do it all the time in hostage situations when the police rescue team shoot to kill if they think the perpetrator’s about to kill someone; they don’t wait for the action.
Similarly I’d say if I’m given a gun and teleported to the bedroom of say the leader of the Burmese junta I’d probably shoot him — and it won’t be because of past actions.
But what I was talking about was that the idea that it’s always wrong to kill anyone no matter the circumstances (you can think of other circumstances if you like) is ridiculous
Oh yeah, in self-defense or if there is absolutely no other choice then for sure, but not if you have other options, like to put him in jail or “do something to his voicebox”.
Ok, clarified, thanks.
Yep, I think it would be far more ironic to travel back in time and do something to Hitler’s voicebox than to kill him!
So far everything man made is unable to co-exist with the rest of the world. Yet however extreme Jainism is it at least doesnt screw nature like everything else does.
David — while I agree Jainism tends to have a lower impact on the environment than other “lifestyles” it still has a very large impact because it requires farming. And it’s mass engagement in farming that’s causing much (most?) of the environmental problems — this does not depend on religion but on the technologies we use and the economic systems.
Although if a lot of people are starving to death it does give the fields a bit of a break, and a much needed chance to reinvigorate…
I’m a pacifist and that’s not really how it works for most of us
if you are in life threatening danger EX: a gun pointed at your head your allowed to take action but if your about to in a senseless fight you would walk away and if get stricken on you may only do that back not go all crazy on them. EX: a punch to the face you can punch them back but NOT a punch then a kick in the leg and while there on the ground stomp on there face that is stupid and you could have solved that fight with a punch in the gut so they lose there breath and not permanent damage. BTW thoughts jainist are crazy. ntw
I’m not really sure if it’s right that your view follows what “most” pacifists believe — but if it does then some of these religions go way beyond this.
Also what you’re describing seems standard for most people who don’t call themselves pacifists. If the principle is not to do more violence than is necessary then who would disagree? In which case I don’t see the advantage of the label pacifist.
good points michael, i agree pacifism is ignorant to the extreme but senseless wars that can be resolved in other means are just as ignorant
look u lot i got hard hwk im in yr 9 i dont know what to do can u b serious and give me some answers the question is ‘it takes more courage to be a pacifist than to fight’ what do you think;….. u got to help me i been sittin here for 1 half an hour
[...] the Jainist, Quakers, Amish, Mennonite, really be free to be pacifists if there isn’t someone willing to die for their right to make that choice? I think the concept [...]
[...] the Jainist, Quakers, Amish, Mennonite, really be free to be pacifists if there isn’t someone willing to die for their right to make that choice? I think the concept [...]
Leave a Comment