Pacifism

=== RESPONSES === //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.// By what standard "ought" someone to be punished? This mentality stems from the contorted view that we have free-will. We do not. Every action we make is inspired by a thought, every thought is inspired by chemical reactions, all of which were inspired by our biology and our environment. Neither our biology nor our environment is given to us by any fault of our own. If it's true that certain things would be irrational for an individual to do, including the initiation of force, then it is true that those who do it are merely a victim themselves of these uncontrolled factors. In old times women used to be punished for having been raped, since they have lost their purity. You must obviously see the shame in that. But I see the same shame in punishing anyone. //Being compassionate to a mugger is unlikely to invoke a sympathetic response.// Have you ever heard of it being tried? We don't see it working because people aren't trying it. Imagine if some thug was only met with compassion when he was brutal, would it not invoke changing thoughts? Would this person even be so brutal if they had grown up in a more compassionate atmosphere? //I have yet to hear of an instance where the mugger experiences a sudden change of heart and refuses to take the money.// Have you heard of an instance in which a mugger was only met with kindness? //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.// Violence does not create a better society. It crafts an anti-social personality into society. Most people who go to jail return right back to their old ways once they get out; they have been taught nothing except that violence is power. //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.// Pacifism is a form of compassion. To love your neighbor strongly implies that you not kill them. //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.// I'll get to that in the extension of my arguments. //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.// Someone does not need to be a rational person to be convinced not to harm you. In-fact, quite the opposite, it may be easier to do with someone that has a lower intelligence. The number one rule you've got to know about human beings is that we are easily manipulatable. Look at religion, look at every other social dogma. Our minds our like balls of clay. If one is unable to stop someone from harming them through negotiation that doesn't prove Pacifism has failed, it only proves that their ability to negotiate has failed. People are much easier to control than you think. This may be my biggest reason I'm Pacifist; violence is unnecessary when people can be controlled just fine without it. I'd put some external material here to back this up but I'm running out of time to post my argument, maybe next round. //Individuals have a positive moral duty toward one another.// Ha. I have no duty to anyone but myself. My compassion is for MY rational self-interest. //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?// Can a problem only be solved by creating one? There is always another way. It's a matter of one's ability. You make criticize me for saying that Pacifism hasn't failed if I am unable to negotiate. But now it's time for you to be entertained with a hypothetical. Suppose you do use violence to try and stop this person..but then you discover you are too weak to do so. Does this disprove your non-aggression way? Of course not. It only disproves you had the ability to carry it out. //Even if one is a *true* egoist, unlike my opponent,// That's uncalled for and untrue. Just leave things to what we're arguing about here instead of attacking me, please. //Pacifism is inherently self contradictory.// Pacifism is contradictory? You would have it that the more violence there is then the more violence we need. I've never seen anything more self-defeating. //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]// Incorrect. The biggest slander reported over and over again about Pacifism is that you're surrendering your ability to defend yourself. Violence is not the only way to defend yourself. //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.// I'll get into this in the extension of my arguments. === CONTINUATION OF ARGUMENTS === 5. Non-harmful force. If one's ability at reaching a different mindset for the aggressor is inadequate then there is a another option. It is possible to use force without using violence. Indeed, this is how I would plan to rehabilitate criminals, keeping them in a facility where they can be helped instead of being further harmed. There are various ways to do this such as certain kinds of martial arts or any other means of non-harmful incapacitation including sleep-darts. 6. Social conditioning. I contend that a society which highly values Pacifism would be much more adept at producing non-aggressive individuals than one which doesn't. Like I've described, violent individual are themselves victims. They are victims of poor social conditioning. Society is reinforcing it's crime by protecting the institution of violence; it just keeps making more violent people. Your way may be of temporary comfort to an individual but it is not preventing the problem from arising in the first place, only attempting to counter it after it appears. === NOTE === I wasn't able to address everything because I ran out of both room and time.