Pacifism

Unfortunately, in his haste my opponent has left many of my contentions unanswered. While I applaud his earnest desire to win, he has resorted to desperate tactics and has put forth several fallacious arguments. My opponent has introduced two new contentions which I will include as 1E and 1F. 1.) PRO has not bothered to respond to this. It is crucial to point out that many - if not all of the advantages - he claims for pacifism are equally present in a system in a system of libertarian non-aggression. 1b. - PRO's determinism defence assumes either a retributive or restorative stance on justice and is totally irrelevent to consequentialist deterrence theories. Moreover, even in the restorative view which I espouse, PRO's argument still fails. Rather than going into a lengthy and unnecessary digression on free will (which I think does exist), I'll simply sidestep the problem by showing how it is irrelevant to the question of moral responsibility. PRO holds an antiquated view that a person is morally responsible for what he has done if and only if he could have done otherwise. This is known as the Principle of Alternate Possibilities, or PAP.[1] Harry Frankfurt tears this notion down using a thought experiment. Suppose John has decided to shoot Bob. A third agent, Phil, has discovered John's plan and also wants John to shoot Bob. Phil would *prefer* that John shoot Bob on his own, however, worried that John might get cold feet and fail to go through with it, Phil arranges things so that, if John shows any signs that he will *not* shoot Bob, Phil will be able to manipulate him in such a way as to guarantee that John *will* carry out the shooting. As the events play out, John actually does follow through with his plan and shoots Bob on his own.[2] Although Phil never intervened and John shot Bob of his own accord, no alternate possibility actually existed. Nonetheless, we would still assign John full moral responsibility for his act. 1c. - I thought I expressed myself quite clearly. Most people *do* hand over their wallet to the mugger. Fighting back is often not worth the risk. 1d. - This hardly even merits a response. One need not be a pacifist to be compassionate or to refrain from killing his neighbors. In instances where failure to resist could result in significant physical harm (or death), it seems quite clear that pacifism would not be conducive to happiness or general wellbeing. PRO's objection to my claim that he is a free rider on the positive efforts of non-pacifists is unfounded and circular as he has not addressed any of the objections I raised in C2 and C2b. 1e. - I stated clearly in the first round that I do not advocate the use of force any more than is necessary to defend oneself or others from attack and to justly punish. This is a desperate attempt by my opponent to salvage his case. All he has succeeded in doing, however, is contradicting himself by admitting that in some circumstances, the minimal use of force might be necessary. 1f. - My opponent argues that a pacifist society would be better at producing non-aggressive individuals. I strongly attacked this in C2, C2b, C3, and C5b. I have argued in several places that where force is not called for, pacifism and non-aggression are indistinguishable. PRO's argument is again circular in that he pre-supposes pacifism to be an effective way of dealing with crime. 2 & 2b.) This is really the cornerstone of my case and PRO has not even touched it. I'll wait for him to respond in the latter rounds, but should he fail to do so, that would essentially constitute a forfeiture of the entire debate. 3.) It's telling that my opponent has offered no real response to my empirical claims. PRO's counterexamples are completely irrelevant. The instances he shows of people being easily manipulated - religion and social dogma - generally require years of conditioning to do. Imagine trying to convert a firm atheist to orthodox Christianity in the space of a minute. Now imagine trying to convince an angry alcoholic who's just lost his job that it's not in his rational self interest to rape and kill you. PRO's counterexample of person trying and failing to defend himself is not at all analogous. Had I instigated the debate and accepted the burden of proof for the resolution "All problems can be solved through violence," then it would be applicable. PRO's claim that a failure of negotiation is not failure of pacifism is incredibly weak. My view is pragmatic: if one lacks the sufficient ability to negotiate his way out of an ugly situation, then it is not wise for him to attempt to do so while other options are available at his disposal. As things stand, my opponent must affirm that there are never any circumstances, even if negotiation fails, where it is necessary to use force. 4.) Red herring. PRO has stated several times that compassion *IS* in his self interest. Whatever reasons we have to act compassionately are irrelevant provided we arrive at the same conclusion. This point remains wholly unrefuted. 5 & 5b.) Again, PRO's defense is circular. I have shown several examples where the use of force is necessary to defend oneself. Until he responds to these, his point is moot. Pacifism remains self-defeating and self-contradictory. == CONCLUSION == PRO's objections are weak at best, fallacious and irrelevant at worst. The bulk of my case he has not even addressed, let alone refuted. The resolution is negated. -- References -- 1. http://www.informationphilosopher.com... 2. http://plato.stanford.edu...