Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 3:15 am Does the extreme of pacifism ultimately foster violence by allowing it to occur unrestrained, while dually the extreme of warmongering fosters peace by preying upon it?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 3:15 am Furthermore should both extremes be avoided where peace and violence is determined by necessity with necessity being determined by the process of minimalism where need determined action and need is revealed naturally by the meditative reduction of want and further allows a simplistic perspective of a "time and place for everything under the sun"?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 3:15 am Does the extreme of pacifism ultimately foster violence by allowing it to occur unrestrained, while dually the extreme of warmongering fosters peace by requiring it as prey?

Furthermore should both extremes be avoided where peace and violence is determined by necessity with necessity being determined by the process of minimalism where need determined action and need is revealed naturally by the meditative reduction of want and further allows a simplistic perspective of a "time and place for everything under the sun"?

Pacifism is the opposition or resistance to war, militarism (including conscription and mandatory military service) or violence.

Pacifism covers a spectrum of views, including the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved.

Pacifism may be based on moral principles (a deontological view) or pragmatism (a consequentialist view). Principled pacifism holds that at some point along the spectrum from war to interpersonal physical violence, such violence becomes morally wrong. Pragmatic pacifism holds that the costs of war and interpersonal violence are so substantial that better ways of resolving disputes must be found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined is a 2011 book by Steven Pinker, in which the author argues that
violence in the world has declined both in the long run and in the short run and suggests explanations as to why this has occurred.[1] The book uses data documenting declining violence across time and geography.
This paints a picture of massive declines in the violence of all forms, from war, to improved treatment of children.
He highlights the role of nation-state monopolies on force, of commerce (making other people become more valuable alive than dead), of increased literacy and communication (promoting empathy), as well as a rise in a rational problem-solving orientation as possible causes of this decline in violence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bette ... Our_Nature

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 3:01 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 3:15 am Does the extreme of pacifism ultimately foster violence by allowing it to occur unrestrained, while dually the extreme of warmongering fosters peace by requiring it as prey?

Furthermore should both extremes be avoided where peace and violence is determined by necessity with necessity being determined by the process of minimalism where need determined action and need is revealed naturally by the meditative reduction of want and further allows a simplistic perspective of a "time and place for everything under the sun"?

I don't see how "pacifism' by definition and practice could lead to violence at all.

Pacifism is the opposition or resistance to war, militarism (including conscription and mandatory military service) or violence.

Pacifism covers a spectrum of views, including the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved.

Pacifism may be based on moral principles (a deontological view) or pragmatism (a consequentialist view). Principled pacifism holds that at some point along the spectrum from war to interpersonal physical violence, such violence becomes morally wrong. Pragmatic pacifism holds that the costs of war and interpersonal violence are so substantial that better ways of resolving disputes must be found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism

As such by definition, "pacifism" will not lead to violence in anyway.

Why there are still wars and violence at present is because of the evolved psychological state of the majority [being more animal than being more human] and the inefficient approaches in meeting the 'pacifist' objectives.

Nevertheless there is already a positive trend within humanity towards pacifism, i.e. as claimed by Pinker in his:

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined is a 2011 book by Steven Pinker, in which the author argues that
violence in the world has declined both in the long run and in the short run and suggests explanations as to why this has occurred.[1] The book uses data documenting declining violence across time and geography.
This paints a picture of massive declines in the violence of all forms, from war, to improved treatment of children.
He highlights the role of nation-state monopolies on force, of commerce (making other people become more valuable alive than dead), of increased literacy and communication (promoting empathy), as well as a rise in a rational problem-solving orientation as possible causes of this decline in violence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bette ... Our_Nature

As such we should not reject the drive toward pacifism but humanity must find ways to expedite the positive trend toward as near as possible to the ideal goals of pacifism.
I am optimistic of this given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge [especially with AI] and AI technologies.

On the other hand humanity must reject evil [terror, violence, wars, etc.] absolutely and strive via Morality-proper to expedite managing the suppression of evil that is inherent and avoidable [from an evolutionary default] in all humans.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 4:20 am A pacifist has to allow a violent man to be violent.

The violent man needs the pacifist so the violent man can survive.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 4:34 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 4:20 am A pacifist has to allow a violent man to be violent.

The violent man needs the pacifist so the violent man can survive.

Where is your supporting argument and reference for that?

With good reasons under circumstances, a pacifist may not prevent a violent man to be violent but a pacifist will strive to prevent a violent man from being violent if given a chance.
As shown above, pacifism will strive to ensure humans are not violent if not at the present, then in the future.

You are confusing pacifism with moral relativism where a moral relativist has to respect and tolerate the moral views of others even when their 'morality' is evil-laden.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 5:55 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 4:34 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 4:20 am A pacifist has to allow a violent man to be violent.

The violent man needs the pacifist so the violent man can survive.

Where is your supporting argument and reference for that?

With good reasons under circumstances, a pacifist may not prevent a violent man to be violent but a pacifist will strive to prevent a violent man from being violent if given a chance.
As shown above, pacifism will strive to ensure humans are not violent if not at the present, then in the future.

You are confusing pacifism with moral relativism where a moral relativist has to respect and tolerate the moral views of others even when their 'morality' is evil-laden.

A pacifist cannot use force, as a graduate with a criminal justice degree and having an internship with the sheriff's department and county corrections I can tell you quite a few stories about how simple dialogue does not stop those committed to violence.

Pacifism can be argued as a form of moral relativism as there is no enforcement of a moral code in any manner that can be deemed strict when what is strict is necessary.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 7:57 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 5:55 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 4:34 am
Where is your supporting argument and reference for that?

With good reasons under circumstances, a pacifist may not prevent a violent man to be violent but a pacifist will strive to prevent a violent man from being violent if given a chance.
As shown above, pacifism will strive to ensure humans are not violent if not at the present, then in the future.

You are confusing pacifism with moral relativism where a moral relativist has to respect and tolerate the moral views of others even when their 'morality' is evil-laden.

A pacifist cannot use force, as a graduate with a criminal justice degree and having an internship with the sheriff's department and county corrections I can tell you quite a few stories about how simple dialogue does not stop those committed to violence.

Pacifism can be argued as a form of moral relativism as there is no enforcement of a moral code in any manner that can be deemed strict when what is strict is necessary.

Pacifism by definition will not use force at all and cannot be of moral relativism

Pacifists can use various non-violent deterrence to prevent violence at the present and in the future.

However, for the longer future, pacifists will develop varies strategies to prevent violent evil acts at the root cause level within future generations, e.g. education, self-developments programs.
This will also include FOOLPROOF [no side effects] rewiring of the brain of future generations such that psychopathy and other evil tendencies are eliminated at source [root cause].

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 3:00 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 7:57 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 5:55 am

A pacifist cannot use force, as a graduate with a criminal justice degree and having an internship with the sheriff's department and county corrections I can tell you quite a few stories about how simple dialogue does not stop those committed to violence.

Pacifism can be argued as a form of moral relativism as there is no enforcement of a moral code in any manner that can be deemed strict when what is strict is necessary.

Pacifism by definition will not use force at all and cannot be of moral relativism

Pacifists can use various non-violent deterrence to prevent violence at the present and in the future.

However, for the longer future, pacifists will develop varies strategies to prevent violent evil acts at the root cause level within future generations, e.g. education, self-developments programs.
This will also include FOOLPROOF [no side effects] rewiring of the brain of future generations such that psychopathy and other evil tendencies are eliminated at source [root cause].

Yeah...pacifism does not work in real life, I know from experience that reason does not always work. Often times it allows violence to happen.

Good and evil are subjective interpretations, the pacifist and the warmongering think they are good and the other is evil.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 6:19 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 3:00 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 7:57 am
Pacifism by definition will not use force at all and cannot be of moral relativism

Pacifists can use various non-violent deterrence to prevent violence at the present and in the future.

However, for the longer future, pacifists will develop varies strategies to prevent violent evil acts at the root cause level within future generations, e.g. education, self-developments programs.
This will also include FOOLPROOF [no side effects] rewiring of the brain of future generations such that psychopathy and other evil tendencies are eliminated at source [root cause].

Yeah...pacifism does not work in real life, I know from experience that reason does not always work. Often times it allows violence to happen.

Good and evil are subjective interpretations, the pacifist and the warmongering think they are good and the other is evil.

I believe we are talking pass each other.

You do not take into account a continuum of pacifism but merely focus on the extreme most of pacifism which is absolute indifference to violence, i.e. even indifferent to the danger of violence and evil when facing death from a threatening murderer or WMD.

In my case, my perspective of pacifism is considered within a continuum from low to extreme pacifism. My perspective to pacifism is the sort of pro-active pacifism where pacifists will use all strategies to oppose and prevent violence without using violence and relying on morality-proper.

Your case of dogmatic absolute-indifferent-pacifism should be relegated and classified as a psychological and mental disease as condoning such an ideology as an universal in principle could exterminate the human species.

In general, I always promote the Middle-Way, as such avoiding extremes in practical life to optimize well-being and flourishing of the individual[s] and therefrom humanity.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 4:16 pm Okay, then we'll need a Middle-Way FSK. And please don't make it sound like one of those articles in Psychology Today where the page is divided into sections called 'well being', 'stress management', 'tolerance', and 'building solid relationships'... each with a numbered corresponding very short, very ambiguous, very broad set of instructions (as if the complexities of tolerance and solid relationships could be concluded in a few simple statements).

I hate reading FSKs like that. I feel like Derrida every time i try to read one of those articles.

If you're gonna go for it, it's gotta be a whole fuckin book like one of Kant's Critiques or I'm just gonna treat it like a Psychology Today article, VA.