![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
One thing I think is very emblematic of how I see pacifism represented in popular culture is that it is very often depicted as a personal choice rather than an ethical framework. I don't think this is an accident but one of the many ways in which the attempt is made to undermine this framework, as it is fundamentally incompatible with the hypermilitaristic framework in which our current world operates.
Inclusion in Pacifism
Oct. 26th, 2023 07:19 pmI feel like when I say I'm a pacifist, I unfortunately also find it necessary to add that my pacifism explicitly includes leftists.
Because I think there's a segment of conservatives who are 'pacifist' in a way that explicitly does not.
Legal Does Not Mean Non-Violent
Jun. 9th, 2023 10:48 pmIt's interesting that most people consider murder, assault, and other violence to be wrong, but as soon as the violence is *state-sanctioned* violence it seems like a lot of those people no longer parse it as violence at all. I mention this because I consider myself a pacifist and some people who call themselves pacifist (or make attempts to appeal to pacifist sensibilities) seem to have this implicit bias towards state violence as being more defensive, just, or necessary than violence committed by individuals or non-state organizations. Of course, this isn't limited to people invoking pacifism--any others who prioritize obedience to the law and the state almost certainly also hold this same implicit bias. And I just want to say, that sure is an assumption of the highest order that I don't think actually has any basis in reality.
Thoughts on Pacifism
Aug. 27th, 2022 02:50 amFor me ethics needs to be deeply grounded in the situational context that someone is in. I think for example that it isn't really any more pacifistic to allow oneself to be killed by another to prevent perpetrating violence on the attacker than it is to kill the attacker. Either way, someone is being killed, and to me, pacifism needs to recognize the undesireability of violence, and seek to avoid either perpetrating or allowing it as a tactic. And it's certainly not more pacifistic to advocate that sort of approach for others. Pacifists shouldn't be advocating for death, whether it be the death of non-pacifists or the death of pacifists.
In our world, harm is in many ways unavoidable, the only questions are how much or when or to whom. Ultimately, I think of pacifism as an aspirational ethics of seeking to prevent harm whenever possible. So while there may in fact be tactical advantages in certain contexts to taking harm upon oneself rather than inflicting it, I can't recognize either approach as truly pacifist. And in the case of someone advocating such behavior to a third party, such a thing is not even non-violent.
In our world, harm is in many ways unavoidable, the only questions are how much or when or to whom. Ultimately, I think of pacifism as an aspirational ethics of seeking to prevent harm whenever possible. So while there may in fact be tactical advantages in certain contexts to taking harm upon oneself rather than inflicting it, I can't recognize either approach as truly pacifist. And in the case of someone advocating such behavior to a third party, such a thing is not even non-violent.
So after doing some thinking on it, I've really started to think that maybe I am a pacifist after all. So I guess there goes my 'I'm not a pacifist but' line.
I came to this conclusion after realizing that I don't in general consider it necessary to have to consider a position possible to universally apply to consider it a goal that should reasonably always be aspired to. Also because I think it's quite compatible to hold pacifist beliefs and still be opposed to passivity (which is not the same thing) and other behaviors that I may take issue with in certain pacifist efforts.
I've been strongly anti-war for as long as I can remember and I've also come to feel more and more strongly that individual violence actually solves much less than people think it does, and often just serves to make a situation worse.
All this being said, I think it's definitely possible to read things into this that I explicitly did not say, so I'll just say that I think some of those assumptions would very much be wrong.
I came to this conclusion after realizing that I don't in general consider it necessary to have to consider a position possible to universally apply to consider it a goal that should reasonably always be aspired to. Also because I think it's quite compatible to hold pacifist beliefs and still be opposed to passivity (which is not the same thing) and other behaviors that I may take issue with in certain pacifist efforts.
I've been strongly anti-war for as long as I can remember and I've also come to feel more and more strongly that individual violence actually solves much less than people think it does, and often just serves to make a situation worse.
All this being said, I think it's definitely possible to read things into this that I explicitly did not say, so I'll just say that I think some of those assumptions would very much be wrong.
Me: I am not a pacifist.
Someone: The U.S. military...
Me: I'm a pacifist.
Ramble-tags: Not to say that this doesn't apply to other militaries, because it absolutely does, it just doesn't apply to all of them to an equal degree, I don't really go for blanket statements like 'both sides are equally bad', even though I will never think war is good, I think that at its best it can only ever be a necessary evil, still context is important, because the U.S. military is especially bad because of the context in which it acts, not as some inherent trait of the people who make it up, the problem isn't 'oh, these people are just especially bad and we just need different people in this same system', no the problem is the system itself, though do not take that to mean that I think 'they were just following orders' is a good defense of an individual's behavior, but finding excuses for the unthinkable is also part of the system, and that's not solely reserved to the people who are actually in the military, even when war is justified, it will never be just, and wars for resource extraction under the guise of 'bringing democracy' will never be just
Someone: The U.S. military...
Me: I'm a pacifist.
Ramble-tags: Not to say that this doesn't apply to other militaries, because it absolutely does, it just doesn't apply to all of them to an equal degree, I don't really go for blanket statements like 'both sides are equally bad', even though I will never think war is good, I think that at its best it can only ever be a necessary evil, still context is important, because the U.S. military is especially bad because of the context in which it acts, not as some inherent trait of the people who make it up, the problem isn't 'oh, these people are just especially bad and we just need different people in this same system', no the problem is the system itself, though do not take that to mean that I think 'they were just following orders' is a good defense of an individual's behavior, but finding excuses for the unthinkable is also part of the system, and that's not solely reserved to the people who are actually in the military, even when war is justified, it will never be just, and wars for resource extraction under the guise of 'bringing democracy' will never be just
Anti-War vs. Pacifism
Mar. 2nd, 2019 06:54 pmI'm very anti-war (especially in regards to my own country) but I am not a pacifist and I think it's important to distinguish between those two philosophies.
