Pacifism; Brave or Naive

If you could kill one murderer to save 20 innocent victims, would you? The first thing you feel is yes, no doubt. But think about it. Now, instead of one murderer, there are 2. Does humanity as a whole benefit more from a justifier or a pacifist? Gandhi showed all of humanity how strong peace can be. By refusing to fight back you expose the enemy's true brutality. The more of us who refuse to fight, the more the fighters are isolated, and outcast. If you live a life dedicated to peace (selflessness), you will touch many lives in a good way. If you FIGHT for peace you will touch some lives in a good way (especially your own since it is mainly done out of a form of selfishness), and just as many, if not more, in a bad way. You have to look at the big picture, humanity as a whole. Though you may lose some people close to you by refusing to fight, you save generations from the same fate....

Pacifism, in relation to the first scenario, is abstractly killing those 20 innocent victims (by not chosing to kill the murderer) to save the billions that encompass the generations that benefit from the peace you preserve.

Thoughts? Arguments?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are defining pacifisim as not believing in or using any form of fighting, but really it is not believing in or using violence.
Technically Gandhi did fight and he caused major upheavels. He just used non-violent ways which were radically different and attracted world interest.
I think you need to define you're terms a little better. You seem to want people to think about non-violent ways of dealing with problems, not giving up on fighting all together.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think the point is, regardless of the lives you save, you still kill, and with that, you step over a line. Even if you can justify your actions. Depends on your ethical values I guess, and in today's society, killing isn't that big a deal.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If I get the chance to kill, and I know that if I don't kill him twenty people will die, then without question I would do it.

Technically I save nineteen lives

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Twenty minus one equals nineteen! Yay!

 

There's always another way

If only you could save the 20 people in some other way.

 

Besides, how do you know who you're saving? It could be a group of 20 paedophiles abhout to get shot.

 

Pacifism: Brave or Naive? Sometimes, i.e.,

• sometimes one
• sometimed the other
• sometimes both
• sometimes neither

The question seems faulty.

 

pacifism in ww2. pacifism in vietnam. are they the same?
context is everything

 

Which Is Spicy

At the very least, one should not be the aggressor.

 

Of course I meant you can still fight, just through non-violent ways.

But now you keep the standard alive. Now more people believe killing is ok. Those who refuse to kill and instead fight through non-violent ways set an example of themselves. People will follow if enough of us show that pacifism can work. Gandhi alone changed the way the world looked at pacifism... If only more of us had that kind of courage... If it comes down to it, wouldn't it be better that those 20 innocent people die, but pacifism becomes stronger, so that in the future way more than just 20 lives are saved...

 

You have the right to die for a cause.
You do not have the right to kill for a cause....


All the things that matter about humanity; love, honor, dignity, loyalty, etc... Can not be touched by the blade of a sword or bullet of a gun.


Just some more thoughts on the topic.

 

If we are going to continue to use the murderer analogy then it comes down to who's life is worth more, A murderers, or innocent peoples.How can letting innocent people die and having murderers unstopped lead to a peacful world?
By letting murderers run loose aren't we creating more havoc for ourselves? Should we let it get to a stage we're we are over run?

 

Pacifism is just weakness. Another one of Christian slave morality. You need to kill - you kill. Why ask stupid question, how will you touch humanity? Humanity will continue killing, regardless of you.
Remember we are all going to die anyway...

 

if the only other option was to kill the murderer about to kill 20 people, then i would. Only, if every other option was invalid, knocking the weapon out of his hand, Knocking him out, or even talking him out of it. I only use violenece as a last resort. Humanity may continue to kill, but I'd be wise enough to rise above such behaviour unless it was absolutely necassary.

 

I would argue all life is equal...

So becoming a murderer yourself is a better solution?

You may be right, how could I know? But I think humanity has what it takes to get past this "war and killing" thing. But it would take many generations, you'd have to look at the BIG picture to get it's pay-off...

 

I think that being a truly devoted pacifist, although misguided, is a very brave and difficult thing to be.

If you had the oppurtunity to kill one person in order to save 20, the easiest and most natural thing to do is to kill that person. To do otherwise would leave you forever feeling guilty and being ridiculed for allowing those twenty deaths. If a pacifist in that position knowing the consequences, still stuck to their ideals, it would be an extremely brave thing to do.

 

Killing that murderer would almost be selfish. 'You' can't stand to see 20 innocent killed. 'You' don't want the guilt or ridicule... But like I said... Pacifism, I think, can slowly change society... But the initiators would never see the pay off... So to others, of course it would look stupid. You have to look at the really big picture...

 

OK, a madman has 30 nukes strategically placed around the globe. He is going to detonate them in very densely populated areas within a matter of minutes. The only way to stop him is to kill him. So, what do you do. AND THE ONLY WAY TO STOP HIM IS TO KILL HIM, dont give me this "reasoning" bullshit.

See, no matter the numbers of people that will die, the least amount of deaths is the optimal amount.

 

notme220 - Your last three replies have been among the wisest thoughts I think I've ever read on the internet.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Maybe killing him would be the best thing to do, but I could never bring myself to do it. And it's not because I'm weak, it's because I see the true value of human life. And as much as I don't want those billions of people to get nuked I could never bring MYSELF to end a single life. I cannot kill a fellow man for faults we all have...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm humbled!