Pacifism

Before I enter into my constructive case, I'd like to point out a flaw in PRO's definition of "violence. " I am not an advocate of violence, or at least not as my opponent construes it. Retaliatory force is not intended to "violate, damage, or abuse" any more than is necessary to defend oneself from attack or to justly punish as befits the law. My opponent's claims are all of a similar nature, so I will group them together as Contention 1. Contentions 2- 5 will be used for the negative constructive. 1. ) Most of PRO's arguments rest on the fact that violence is not needed in certain situations, which is certainly true. Negotiation should always be tried first. Wherever it can be avoided, violence should be avoided. We can agree to that much. In these instances, there *is no* substantive difference between pacifism and libertarian non-aggression. What I intend to focus on are situations where negotiation fails and force *is* called for. If even one of these cases exists, it is sufficient to refute my opponent's point. 1b. - Violence may sometimes cause more violence, but not when administered fairly and judiciously. I'll expand on this in C2. Even if the net total of violence increases, you ignore the point that aggressors *ought* to be punished. If "violence" is carried out justly, there is no reason to lament the results. 1c. - Being compassionate to a mugger is unlikely to invoke a sympathetic response. Most people actually *do* choose to hand over whatever it is the robber wants for the simple reason that your wallet is not worth dying for. I have yet to hear of an instance where the mugger experiences a sudden change of heart and refuses to take the money. I also seriously doubt that a woman showing compassion to her rapist would achieve the desired result. 1d. - Even if our brains *are* hard wired for altruism, this has nothing to do with pacifism. One could be an egoist pacifist, just as one could be altruistic proponent of the non-aggression principle. This argument is completely irrelevant to the debate. Additionally, while pacifism may bring happiness to my opponent, it is important to realize that he is a free rider on the positive efforts of non-pacifists to stem violence and create a better society. Finally, none of the articles he cites establish any link between pacifism and happiness. They establish links between friendliness, trust, altruism, compassion, etc. and happiness, but again, this is irrelevant to the discussion. 2. ) It's a well established fact that gun ownership rights are proven to decrease crime. [1] Women carrying pepper spray are obviously significantly less likely to be raped. In these instances, the use of force *does not* lead to escalation. On the contrary, not only does this *prevent* violence from taking place, it creates a positive externality by deterring would-be aggressors in the future. 2b. - The iterated prisoner's dilemma illustrates this perfectly (if you're unfamiliar with this, see here: . http://plato.stanford.edu...) Players who unconditionally cooperate generally do poorly. The tit-for-tat (TFT) method, which combines initial cooperation with a negative response to defection is proven to be the most effective strategy. [2] If *both* players adopt TFT, they will achieve the optimum result -- the same score that two players who unconditionally cooperate get, again highlighting my point that in situations where the use of force isn't called for, there is no difference between non-aggression and pacifism. The success of TFT is attributable to four properties: it is *nice,* meaning that is never the first to defect; it is *retaliatory* which makes it difficult to exploit; it is *forgiving* in that in that it is willing to cooperate even against defectors, assuming that the defection didn't occur in the immediately preceding round; finally, it is *clear,* other players can readily predict its behavior so as to enable mutually beneficial interaction. Beyond mere hypothetical game theory scenarios, these four properties can be applies to real interpersonal relationships. 3. ) In instances of rape, women are taught to yell loudly and try to run. If running isn't an option, fighting back is the best alternative. Pleading, stalling, reasoning, and crying are empirically proven to be ineffective. [3] Even if we assume that the potential rapist is a rational agent (doubtful) he is not necessarily in a rational state of mind. In 45% of all rape cases, the attacker is under the influence of drugs or alcohol. [4] Such persons are clearly not capable of or interested in peaceful negotiation. 4. ) Individuals have a positive moral duty toward one another. If you see a thug brutally beating and raping a woman, is the right thing to do really to stand by and do nothing? Suppose you try at first to negotiate and he is not interested. What then? Do you still stand idly by? Is it really more unjust to stop the aggressor than to allow him to have his way with an innocent victim? Even if one is a *true* egoist, unlike my opponent, it is not difficult to argue that one still ought to come to her aid, provided you have the means to do so. 5. ) Pacifism is inherently self contradictory. The philosopher Jan Narveson argues that pacifism is rooted in the view that everyone has certain rights. What it means to say that one has a "right" is that he is justified in preventing any infractions of that right. But pacifists surrender their ability to defend against infractions, thus creating a paradox and rendering the fundamental premise of pacifism meaningless. [5] 5b. - Inaction leads to a total net increase in violence, thus negating the primary goal in pacifism. I explained this more in depth in C2. Edmunde Burke wrote in 1770 that "when bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle. "[6] This is exactly what would happen if pacifism were widely adopted. The "good" sort of person would acquiesce while criminals commit atrocities. This would lead to a tremendous proliferation of crime. == Conclusion == Again, in situations where there has been no initial act of violence or where retaliation would be unjust or unwise, pacifism and libertarian non-aggression are functionally identical. The odds of being mugged or raped aren't as slim as my opponent would like to believe. In 2002, there were 1.4 million violent crimes. [7] Moreover, the fact that a *single* instance exists where the use of retaliatory force is both justified and practical is sufficient to negate the resolution. -- References -- 1. . http://www.justfacts.com... 2. . http://plato.stanford.edu... 3. . http://www.womenshooters.com... 4. "Violence against Women. " Bureau of Justice Statistics, U. S. Dept. of Justice. (1994). 5. Narveson, Jan. "Pacifism: A Philosophical Analysis. " Ethics, LXXV: 4, pp. 259-271. (January 1965). 6. Burke, Edmunde. "Thoughts on the cause of the present discontents. " p. 106. (1770). 7. . http://www.libraryindex.com...