Questa conversazione è attualmente segnalata come "addormentata"—l'ultimo messaggio è più vecchio di 90 giorni. Puoi rianimarla postando una risposta.
1richardbsmith
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/letting-them-die-parents-refuse-medical-help-fo...
What is the role of churches to challenge what might be considered as bad theology. Or perhaps the public or even private debate of theological positions.
TN recently voted to make the Bible the state book. Fortunately, in my opinion, that was vetoed by the governor. I don't think I heard much in the way of church discussion about the good or bad of that.
Homosexual rights, women priests, divorce, social positions, recently questions of religious freedom to deny other rights.
Should theological positions be engaged across churches? even across religions?
Not so much whose God? or how to understand the divinity of Christ?
Rather theological positions that call for social action - like withholding medical treatment, in the name of Christ.
What is the role of churches to challenge what might be considered as bad theology. Or perhaps the public or even private debate of theological positions.
TN recently voted to make the Bible the state book. Fortunately, in my opinion, that was vetoed by the governor. I don't think I heard much in the way of church discussion about the good or bad of that.
Homosexual rights, women priests, divorce, social positions, recently questions of religious freedom to deny other rights.
Should theological positions be engaged across churches? even across religions?
Not so much whose God? or how to understand the divinity of Christ?
Rather theological positions that call for social action - like withholding medical treatment, in the name of Christ.
2John5918
I've just been at a conference in Rome exploring the Catholic position on the use of violence to resolve conflicts, ie whether in this day and age war can ever be justified and if so how. The conference made recommendations to the pope. The World Council of Churches has also been developing a position, and there was a WCC representative there. Is this the sort of thing you're thinking of? There is a body of teaching known as Catholic Social Thought which examines a lot of these social issues and which is constantly developing. There's a thread on it on the LT Catholic Tradition group.
3southernbooklady
>2 John5918: There's a thread on it on the LT Catholic Tradition group.
I've been reading that thread, although I don't participate in the group since I'm not Catholic. But the discussions on when violence is justified are interesting, if a little distressing. Much seems to hinge on when, exactly, something can be called a "war" -- as opposed to "military action." It's an argument that has echoes in US policy -- "police action" "peacekeeping mission" -- euphamisms for military actions that everyone calls "war" albeit unofficially.
I've been reading that thread, although I don't participate in the group since I'm not Catholic. But the discussions on when violence is justified are interesting, if a little distressing. Much seems to hinge on when, exactly, something can be called a "war" -- as opposed to "military action." It's an argument that has echoes in US policy -- "police action" "peacekeeping mission" -- euphamisms for military actions that everyone calls "war" albeit unofficially.
4hf22
>3 southernbooklady:
Always feel welcome to participate! And yes the definitional argument is bit circular.
Always feel welcome to participate! And yes the definitional argument is bit circular.
5richardbsmith
JTF,
You have several Catholic threads. I have never joined any of those groups. I wish the Anglicans here could have a group take off.
I may take a peak at some of those groups.
The World Council of Churches is not what I am thinking about. At least I don't think it is.be That sounds like a beaurocracy in overload.
I wish that a churches theological position, especially on social issues, might be challenged. Environment, climate, any number of things.
Churches, like my Anglican Communion and the ECUSA, often put out position statements. I don't think I have seen a particular church challenge another church's position publically. Peer reviewed theological positions, perhaps.
You have several Catholic threads. I have never joined any of those groups. I wish the Anglicans here could have a group take off.
I may take a peak at some of those groups.
The World Council of Churches is not what I am thinking about. At least I don't think it is.be That sounds like a beaurocracy in overload.
I wish that a churches theological position, especially on social issues, might be challenged. Environment, climate, any number of things.
Churches, like my Anglican Communion and the ECUSA, often put out position statements. I don't think I have seen a particular church challenge another church's position publically. Peer reviewed theological positions, perhaps.
6southernbooklady
>4 hf22: And yes the definitional argument is bit circular.
It seems vital to the question under discussion, though: when is violence justified? And at what point does violence become a "war."?
The back and forth reminded me of the kind of arguments that happen in the abortion debate over when a fetus becomes a moral person.
It seems vital to the question under discussion, though: when is violence justified? And at what point does violence become a "war."?
The back and forth reminded me of the kind of arguments that happen in the abortion debate over when a fetus becomes a moral person.
7hf22
>6 southernbooklady:
Definitions are useful when defined up front - Without trying to shoehorn conclusions into them.
So it is valid and important to distinguish between say military actions to meet specific humanitarian objectives, and those which seek to say change regimes etc.
But equally it can be circular. Like no war is just, so any military action which is acceptable can't be a war. That kind of thinking tends to obscure rather than clarify the substance.
Definitions are useful when defined up front - Without trying to shoehorn conclusions into them.
So it is valid and important to distinguish between say military actions to meet specific humanitarian objectives, and those which seek to say change regimes etc.
But equally it can be circular. Like no war is just, so any military action which is acceptable can't be a war. That kind of thinking tends to obscure rather than clarify the substance.
8John5918
>3 southernbooklady:
Thanks, Nicki. I think the starting point, the default position, is that violence should never be justified, not even as a response to violence, for reasons both of principle and practice. However difficult edge cases do arise, which is where we start to tie ourselves in knots trying to find ways of defining when violence might be an unwelcome but acceptable exception to the nonviolent rule. Complicated discussions then arise on how to define this without undermining the basic principle of nonviolence. This is known as the just war theory, and is fairly similar both within Christianity and in the broader sphere. In fact it is already quite difficult to satisfy the criteria of a "just war", which include not only that there is a just cause (usually the easiest criterion to satisfy) but also that there must be a legitimate authority, proportionality of response, the good achieved must be greater than the harm done, there must be a reasonable chance of success, and it must be a last resort after all other means have been tried. Many within the Christian peace movement feel that while these criteria are already pretty robust if applied stringently, the discourse needs to be reframed away from the concept of "just war" to one focusing more on the idea of a "just peace". In our modern world war and violence are still seen as a normal way of dealing with conflicts, and our societies are still very militarised; we need to change that narrative so that, while recognising that there might be edge cases where violence could reluctantly be accepted, they are minimised.
We also need to recognise that nonviolence is not inaction or passivity, and that there are tried and tested nonviolent methods which few people are aware of. They do work and have worked, and could work on an even greater scale if just a fraction of the vast human and financial resources currently ploughed into the military were diverted to nonviolent campaigns. In the other thread I refer to Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan which challenges some of the lazy assumptions about nonviolence. Nonviolent responses can work even in some of the difficult edge cases where people tend to assume that violence is the only effective option.
There is also an increasing recognition that in the modern world with modern weapons it is almost impossible to satisfy the criteria of a just war, which is why it is important to distinguish different types of violence. The policewoman shooting a murderer who is threatening the public is violence on a totally different scale than a full scale war which kills hundreds of thousands, destroys infrastructure and lays the foundations for decades of future violence.
Thanks, Nicki. I think the starting point, the default position, is that violence should never be justified, not even as a response to violence, for reasons both of principle and practice. However difficult edge cases do arise, which is where we start to tie ourselves in knots trying to find ways of defining when violence might be an unwelcome but acceptable exception to the nonviolent rule. Complicated discussions then arise on how to define this without undermining the basic principle of nonviolence. This is known as the just war theory, and is fairly similar both within Christianity and in the broader sphere. In fact it is already quite difficult to satisfy the criteria of a "just war", which include not only that there is a just cause (usually the easiest criterion to satisfy) but also that there must be a legitimate authority, proportionality of response, the good achieved must be greater than the harm done, there must be a reasonable chance of success, and it must be a last resort after all other means have been tried. Many within the Christian peace movement feel that while these criteria are already pretty robust if applied stringently, the discourse needs to be reframed away from the concept of "just war" to one focusing more on the idea of a "just peace". In our modern world war and violence are still seen as a normal way of dealing with conflicts, and our societies are still very militarised; we need to change that narrative so that, while recognising that there might be edge cases where violence could reluctantly be accepted, they are minimised.
We also need to recognise that nonviolence is not inaction or passivity, and that there are tried and tested nonviolent methods which few people are aware of. They do work and have worked, and could work on an even greater scale if just a fraction of the vast human and financial resources currently ploughed into the military were diverted to nonviolent campaigns. In the other thread I refer to Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan which challenges some of the lazy assumptions about nonviolence. Nonviolent responses can work even in some of the difficult edge cases where people tend to assume that violence is the only effective option.
There is also an increasing recognition that in the modern world with modern weapons it is almost impossible to satisfy the criteria of a just war, which is why it is important to distinguish different types of violence. The policewoman shooting a murderer who is threatening the public is violence on a totally different scale than a full scale war which kills hundreds of thousands, destroys infrastructure and lays the foundations for decades of future violence.
9zangasta
>2 John5918: Rather than see religion discuss an option it has had to relinquish, ie the use of violence to further its aims, I'd want to see it discussing in full public view ugly practices like the persistent, unashamed protection of child rapists. Or the condoning, nay, approbation, of the abuse by "mothers" of the poor and defenceless in the form of "sainthood".
I think that >1 richardbsmith: and >5 richardbsmith: bring up an excellent suggestion.
I think that >1 richardbsmith: and >5 richardbsmith: bring up an excellent suggestion.
10southernbooklady
>8 John5918: I think the starting point, the default position, is that violence should never be justified, not even as a response to violence, for reasons both of principle and practice. However difficult edge cases do arise, which is where we start to tie ourselves in knots trying to find ways of defining when violence might be an unwelcome but acceptable exception to the nonviolent rule. Complicated discussions then arise on how to define this without undermining the basic principle of nonviolence.
Indeed, one could argue that even the concept of a "just war" is an absurdity, an oxymoron.
In fact it is already quite difficult to satisfy the criteria of a "just war", which include not only that there is a just cause (usually the easiest criterion to satisfy) but also that there must be a legitimate authority, proportionality of response, the good achieved must be greater than the harm done, there must be a reasonable chance of success, and it must be a last resort after all other means have been tried.
Of all these criteria, the only one that seems to matter is "the good achieved must be greater than the harm done" -- this is the rationale behind the argument, for example, that it is better to bomb a city in order to end a war, than not bomb a city and let the war drag on interminably. It is an "ends justify the means" argument that is behind every violent act -- from dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to assassinating Osama Bin Laden. It doesn't make sense to me, really, because I find it hard to condone the sacrifice of real lives for the sake of future hypothetical lives. I wonder if it might make more sense, if we are truly seeking to end violent conflict, to think of "war" not in terms of militarized conflict (Wiki defines "war" as "a state of armed conflict between societies"), but in terms of how widespread the impact of the conflict is on civilian and noncombatant populations.
All the other criteria for a just war seem unimportant or even irrelevant -- after all, every act of violence is already justified in the mind of the aggressor -- everyone thinks their cause is just -- even ISIS, and ISIS is insane. And no one starts a war planning to lose, so success is always a possible, achievable, outcome in their minds. And as for "last resort" -- well, all that really means is that you have reached the point where you have given up on the people you have decided to fight. In effect, you have determined that they are no longer as human as you are, and thus can be killed without outrage to your sense of justice.
Ultimately, violence as a method of conflict resolution seems doomed to me. It perpetuates a scenario where there are winners and losers, rather than the possibility of winners and winners. And by tying "justice" to the battle flag, it pressures us to think in terms of punishment, rather than peace. The difference between "justice" and "revenge" is often a matter of where you are standing.
Indeed, one could argue that even the concept of a "just war" is an absurdity, an oxymoron.
In fact it is already quite difficult to satisfy the criteria of a "just war", which include not only that there is a just cause (usually the easiest criterion to satisfy) but also that there must be a legitimate authority, proportionality of response, the good achieved must be greater than the harm done, there must be a reasonable chance of success, and it must be a last resort after all other means have been tried.
Of all these criteria, the only one that seems to matter is "the good achieved must be greater than the harm done" -- this is the rationale behind the argument, for example, that it is better to bomb a city in order to end a war, than not bomb a city and let the war drag on interminably. It is an "ends justify the means" argument that is behind every violent act -- from dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to assassinating Osama Bin Laden. It doesn't make sense to me, really, because I find it hard to condone the sacrifice of real lives for the sake of future hypothetical lives. I wonder if it might make more sense, if we are truly seeking to end violent conflict, to think of "war" not in terms of militarized conflict (Wiki defines "war" as "a state of armed conflict between societies"), but in terms of how widespread the impact of the conflict is on civilian and noncombatant populations.
All the other criteria for a just war seem unimportant or even irrelevant -- after all, every act of violence is already justified in the mind of the aggressor -- everyone thinks their cause is just -- even ISIS, and ISIS is insane. And no one starts a war planning to lose, so success is always a possible, achievable, outcome in their minds. And as for "last resort" -- well, all that really means is that you have reached the point where you have given up on the people you have decided to fight. In effect, you have determined that they are no longer as human as you are, and thus can be killed without outrage to your sense of justice.
Ultimately, violence as a method of conflict resolution seems doomed to me. It perpetuates a scenario where there are winners and losers, rather than the possibility of winners and winners. And by tying "justice" to the battle flag, it pressures us to think in terms of punishment, rather than peace. The difference between "justice" and "revenge" is often a matter of where you are standing.
11John5918
>10 southernbooklady: the concept of a "just war" is an absurdity, an oxymoron
Precisely. That's why it is important to reframe the narrative, living as we do in a society which seems to accept war not only as just but as normal. When the just war concept was first framed many centuries ago its intent was to prevent and limit wars rather than to justify them, but clearly we are now at a point where the concept needs to evolve to reflect the current situation.
I find it hard to condone the sacrifice of real lives for the sake of future hypothetical lives
Many within the Christian peace movement would agree with you.
in terms of how widespread the impact of the conflict is on civilian and noncombatant populations
That, I think, would be covered by the proportionality criterion. I suspect most of those who have lived through modern conflicts would agree that this criterion can never be satisfied, so there can be no just war. One of the most moving interventions in the recent conference in Rome was from a young Iraqi nun who listed all the conflicts which that country has suffered in the last thirty-odd years and the suffering of the people on the ground, and stated unequivocally that their experience was that there was no justice in war.
All the other criteria for a just war seem unimportant or even irrelevant
Maybe, but the point is to take them all together as a whole.
"last resort"
A very important criterion, I believe. A good recent example was the premature US-led attack on Iraq on the pretext of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction at a time when the UN team under Hans Blix still believed they had more verification work to do, and when Thabo Mbeki was still negotiating with Saddam Hussein. As Pope John Paul II said at the time, the point of "last resort" had not been reached and all other options had not yet been exhausted. Or the Falkland/Malvinas conflict, when Thatcher allowed the Belgrano to be sunk, thus reaching a point of no return in the conflict, even though Reagan of all people was offering to act as a mediator to resolve the conflict.
you have reached the point where you have given up on the people you have decided to fight. In effect, you have determined that they are no longer as human as you are
Again, from the Christian perspective, this is very important. We are called to love our enemies, not to dehumanise and kill them.
Precisely. That's why it is important to reframe the narrative, living as we do in a society which seems to accept war not only as just but as normal. When the just war concept was first framed many centuries ago its intent was to prevent and limit wars rather than to justify them, but clearly we are now at a point where the concept needs to evolve to reflect the current situation.
I find it hard to condone the sacrifice of real lives for the sake of future hypothetical lives
Many within the Christian peace movement would agree with you.
in terms of how widespread the impact of the conflict is on civilian and noncombatant populations
That, I think, would be covered by the proportionality criterion. I suspect most of those who have lived through modern conflicts would agree that this criterion can never be satisfied, so there can be no just war. One of the most moving interventions in the recent conference in Rome was from a young Iraqi nun who listed all the conflicts which that country has suffered in the last thirty-odd years and the suffering of the people on the ground, and stated unequivocally that their experience was that there was no justice in war.
All the other criteria for a just war seem unimportant or even irrelevant
Maybe, but the point is to take them all together as a whole.
"last resort"
A very important criterion, I believe. A good recent example was the premature US-led attack on Iraq on the pretext of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction at a time when the UN team under Hans Blix still believed they had more verification work to do, and when Thabo Mbeki was still negotiating with Saddam Hussein. As Pope John Paul II said at the time, the point of "last resort" had not been reached and all other options had not yet been exhausted. Or the Falkland/Malvinas conflict, when Thatcher allowed the Belgrano to be sunk, thus reaching a point of no return in the conflict, even though Reagan of all people was offering to act as a mediator to resolve the conflict.
you have reached the point where you have given up on the people you have decided to fight. In effect, you have determined that they are no longer as human as you are
Again, from the Christian perspective, this is very important. We are called to love our enemies, not to dehumanise and kill them.
12hf22
>10 southernbooklady:
To clarify, are you positing an absolute pacifism? And how does your view apply to concrete situations, like say the U.S bombing and Kurdish ground troops in support of the evacuation of Yazidis from Mt. Sinjar? Also how do you reconcile "ISIS is insane" and "you have determined that they are no longer as human as you are", in relation to how to prevent violence from actors like ISIS?
Thanks.
To clarify, are you positing an absolute pacifism? And how does your view apply to concrete situations, like say the U.S bombing and Kurdish ground troops in support of the evacuation of Yazidis from Mt. Sinjar? Also how do you reconcile "ISIS is insane" and "you have determined that they are no longer as human as you are", in relation to how to prevent violence from actors like ISIS?
Thanks.
13John5918
>10 southernbooklady:
Maria Stephan, whose book I have cited in >8 John5918:, has written a couple of good articles on nonviolent resistance to ISIS, but I haven't been able to find them free online.
Resisting ISIS in Sojourners, April 2015
Civil resistance vs ISIS in Journal of Resistance Studies, Number 2 - Volume 1 - 2015
Maria Stephan, whose book I have cited in >8 John5918:, has written a couple of good articles on nonviolent resistance to ISIS, but I haven't been able to find them free online.
Resisting ISIS in Sojourners, April 2015
Civil resistance vs ISIS in Journal of Resistance Studies, Number 2 - Volume 1 - 2015
14John5918
>12 hf22: how do you reconcile "ISIS is insane" and "you have determined that they are no longer as human as you are"
Insane people are as human as I am.
Insane people are as human as I am.
16hf22
>14 John5918:
Precisely my point. ISIS being as mad as a cut snake, while still being comprised of those who are all too human, suggests a recourse to violence against aggressors does not need to be based on any dehumanizing tendency.
Also, as an aside, struggling not to make the obvious rejoined and reverse that comparison. It would be more amusing in person though - the effect is lost in the written word.
Precisely my point. ISIS being as mad as a cut snake, while still being comprised of those who are all too human, suggests a recourse to violence against aggressors does not need to be based on any dehumanizing tendency.
Also, as an aside, struggling not to make the obvious rejoined and reverse that comparison. It would be more amusing in person though - the effect is lost in the written word.
17southernbooklady
>12 hf22:
To clarify, are you positing an absolute pacifism? And how does your view apply to concrete situations, like say the U.S bombing and Kurdish ground troops in support of the evacuation of Yazidis from Mt. Sinjar? Also how do you reconcile "ISIS is insane" and "you have determined that they are no longer as human as you are", in relation to how to prevent violence from actors like ISIS?
To answer your second question first, I don't see that there is a contradiction, if that is what you are implying? Insanity -- which I guess in this case might be defined as the ability to dehumanize other human beings -- is a state a human being can reach. It also appears to be a state that is highly contagious. But I don't think you "cure" such a disease by killing the people who have it.
As for positing an absolute pacifism, I think that might be the wrong question. I would say that I, personally, am a pacifist. I think I've said before that after 9/11, I felt like I was the only person in the entire United States of America that was against attacking Afghanistan.
But the human species is hard-wired to defend family and tribe against perceived threats. We are aggressive and prone to violence in that sense -- as inclined to fight as to flight. Lord knows I have plenty of violent impulses when reading about, for example, the human trafficking and sexual slavery ISIS has adopted (Although my inclinations when confronted with the realities of human trafficking are not limited to ISIS). But I don't confuse instinct with morality, and I prefer nonviolent responses to violent ones. And I find myself highly skeptical when told that the only answer to a violent situation is to drop a bomb on it.
I realize that makes me sound naive, and I assure you I am not. I realized quite a long time ago that my personal convictions meant I should steer clear of careers or situations where I might be called on to green light military operations, or even to fire a gun at someone. But I feel justified in pleading for nonviolence nonetheless. As justified as others no doubt feel in calling for air strikes of Iranian villages that might have ISIS leaders in them.
To clarify, are you positing an absolute pacifism? And how does your view apply to concrete situations, like say the U.S bombing and Kurdish ground troops in support of the evacuation of Yazidis from Mt. Sinjar? Also how do you reconcile "ISIS is insane" and "you have determined that they are no longer as human as you are", in relation to how to prevent violence from actors like ISIS?
To answer your second question first, I don't see that there is a contradiction, if that is what you are implying? Insanity -- which I guess in this case might be defined as the ability to dehumanize other human beings -- is a state a human being can reach. It also appears to be a state that is highly contagious. But I don't think you "cure" such a disease by killing the people who have it.
As for positing an absolute pacifism, I think that might be the wrong question. I would say that I, personally, am a pacifist. I think I've said before that after 9/11, I felt like I was the only person in the entire United States of America that was against attacking Afghanistan.
But the human species is hard-wired to defend family and tribe against perceived threats. We are aggressive and prone to violence in that sense -- as inclined to fight as to flight. Lord knows I have plenty of violent impulses when reading about, for example, the human trafficking and sexual slavery ISIS has adopted (Although my inclinations when confronted with the realities of human trafficking are not limited to ISIS). But I don't confuse instinct with morality, and I prefer nonviolent responses to violent ones. And I find myself highly skeptical when told that the only answer to a violent situation is to drop a bomb on it.
I realize that makes me sound naive, and I assure you I am not. I realized quite a long time ago that my personal convictions meant I should steer clear of careers or situations where I might be called on to green light military operations, or even to fire a gun at someone. But I feel justified in pleading for nonviolence nonetheless. As justified as others no doubt feel in calling for air strikes of Iranian villages that might have ISIS leaders in them.
18richardbsmith
In my pre-Christian days I was in a Navy school. One of my fellow students asked if an officer could communicate Christian values to the men (no women on ships then) in his division.
The instructor replied (I think incorrectly although tellingly) that if we were being trained to kill and if someone might reconcile killing with Christian values, then he supposed it OK.
I had not thought of that exchange for some time, until this discussion.
The instructor replied (I think incorrectly although tellingly) that if we were being trained to kill and if someone might reconcile killing with Christian values, then he supposed it OK.
I had not thought of that exchange for some time, until this discussion.
19paradoxosalpha
>18 richardbsmith:
Do you think he was asking if it were permitted, or if it were possible?
These days I would cynically suspect that such a question would not really be about "communicating values" as an officer, but rather about abusing the authority of the office to proselytize.
Do you think he was asking if it were permitted, or if it were possible?
These days I would cynically suspect that such a question would not really be about "communicating values" as an officer, but rather about abusing the authority of the office to proselytize.
20richardbsmith
>19 paradoxosalpha:
I agree with you. That is the reason I think the instructor was wrong. At the time, I was not a Christian. The question floored me. And the answer as well.
I would have thought hell no you cannot. And I think my opinion today is about the same.
To the discussion here. The idea of killing, justified or otherwise, is difficult to reconcile with Christ.
Some one once said, "Vengeance is mine." I forget who that was.
Yet I know preachers who have a gun at the pulpit.
Just in case.
I agree with you. That is the reason I think the instructor was wrong. At the time, I was not a Christian. The question floored me. And the answer as well.
I would have thought hell no you cannot. And I think my opinion today is about the same.
To the discussion here. The idea of killing, justified or otherwise, is difficult to reconcile with Christ.
Some one once said, "Vengeance is mine." I forget who that was.
Yet I know preachers who have a gun at the pulpit.
Just in case.
21hf22
>17 southernbooklady:
I don't see that there is a contradiction, if that is what you are implying? Insanity -- which I guess in this case might be defined as the ability to dehumanize other human beings -- is a state a human being can reach. It also appears to be a state that is highly contagious. But I don't think you "cure" such a disease by killing the people who have it.
The contradiction is between asserting that violence can only be used as a last resort if you have “given up on the people you have decided to fight … you have determined that they are no longer as human as you are”, with the fact other parties can be insane. Because in dealing with single minded insanity your options are very few, other than some form of coercion, such that violence can become a last resort without dehumanising.
And I find myself highly skeptical when told that the only answer to a violent situation is to drop a bomb on it … I realize that makes me sound naive, and I assure you I am not.
I don’t find that to be naïve. I rather find it to be an avoidance of moral responsibility, of the type classically dealt with Rudyard Kipling and George Orwell#. Deciding to avoid hard moral decisions, and then feeling free to criticize those with the moral courage to face them whatever they choose, does not keep our conscience clear in my view. Even though the temptation is very understandable, there is no credit in a moral superiority built on letting others blacken their conscience in substitution for us.
# “But because he identifies himself with the official class, he does possess one thing which "enlightened" people seldom or never possess, and that is a sense of responsibility ... A humanitarian is always a hypocrite, and Kipling's understanding of this is perhaps the central secret of his power to create telling phrases. It would be difficult to hit off the one-eyed pacifism of the English in fewer words than in the phrase, "making mock of uniforms that guard you while you sleep."” (http://gaslight.mtroyal.ca/Orwell-B.htm)
I don't see that there is a contradiction, if that is what you are implying? Insanity -- which I guess in this case might be defined as the ability to dehumanize other human beings -- is a state a human being can reach. It also appears to be a state that is highly contagious. But I don't think you "cure" such a disease by killing the people who have it.
The contradiction is between asserting that violence can only be used as a last resort if you have “given up on the people you have decided to fight … you have determined that they are no longer as human as you are”, with the fact other parties can be insane. Because in dealing with single minded insanity your options are very few, other than some form of coercion, such that violence can become a last resort without dehumanising.
And I find myself highly skeptical when told that the only answer to a violent situation is to drop a bomb on it … I realize that makes me sound naive, and I assure you I am not.
I don’t find that to be naïve. I rather find it to be an avoidance of moral responsibility, of the type classically dealt with Rudyard Kipling and George Orwell#. Deciding to avoid hard moral decisions, and then feeling free to criticize those with the moral courage to face them whatever they choose, does not keep our conscience clear in my view. Even though the temptation is very understandable, there is no credit in a moral superiority built on letting others blacken their conscience in substitution for us.
# “But because he identifies himself with the official class, he does possess one thing which "enlightened" people seldom or never possess, and that is a sense of responsibility ... A humanitarian is always a hypocrite, and Kipling's understanding of this is perhaps the central secret of his power to create telling phrases. It would be difficult to hit off the one-eyed pacifism of the English in fewer words than in the phrase, "making mock of uniforms that guard you while you sleep."” (http://gaslight.mtroyal.ca/Orwell-B.htm)
22John5918
>21 hf22: a humanitarian is always a hypocrite
That statement is hard to justify given the tens of thousands of humanitarians laying their lives on the line on a daily basis. If one wants to make accusations of hypocrisy, it's probably easier to justify doing so against the many voices demanding from their perches far from the front lines of war that others should kill and be killed. Seems to me that it is these armchair pundits that Orwell is poking fun at, not the true humanitarians. As I responded in another thread to your question why the pacifists are not putting their bodies on the line in non-violent resistance, the simple answer is that they are, and most of the participants at the recent Rome conference have done so and in many cases are still doing so. Their support for non-violent action is about as far from hypocrisy as you can get.
That statement is hard to justify given the tens of thousands of humanitarians laying their lives on the line on a daily basis. If one wants to make accusations of hypocrisy, it's probably easier to justify doing so against the many voices demanding from their perches far from the front lines of war that others should kill and be killed. Seems to me that it is these armchair pundits that Orwell is poking fun at, not the true humanitarians. As I responded in another thread to your question why the pacifists are not putting their bodies on the line in non-violent resistance, the simple answer is that they are, and most of the participants at the recent Rome conference have done so and in many cases are still doing so. Their support for non-violent action is about as far from hypocrisy as you can get.
23hf22
>22 John5918:
It is just hyperbole for the sake of a good line. Nor is it my line, as I don't have the wordsmithing talent of Orwell.
Further I don't recall suggesting pacifists have to put their bodies on the line. It may have been in one of the linked articles, but it is not my view.
The lack of responsibility I have identified is a moral one. The desire to avoid hard cases. The desire to require the impossible of those who do have the moral courage to face the hard cases.
Any view with these flaws is morally useless. You have to face up to the no win situations. The Kobayashi Maru scenario. Which sucks of course, but such is life.
It is just hyperbole for the sake of a good line. Nor is it my line, as I don't have the wordsmithing talent of Orwell.
Further I don't recall suggesting pacifists have to put their bodies on the line. It may have been in one of the linked articles, but it is not my view.
The lack of responsibility I have identified is a moral one. The desire to avoid hard cases. The desire to require the impossible of those who do have the moral courage to face the hard cases.
Any view with these flaws is morally useless. You have to face up to the no win situations. The Kobayashi Maru scenario. Which sucks of course, but such is life.
24southernbooklady
>21 hf22: I don’t find that to be naïve. I rather find it to be an avoidance of moral responsibility
Honestly, I don't find a commitment to nonviolence to be an avoidance of moral responsibility at all, but rather an up front acknowledgement that there is always, always a moral cost to using violence.
Finding ways to rationalize away the moral costs of violence -- creating, in effect, an ever-increasing series of situations and scenarios where it is okay or even obligatory to kill without any moral compunctions -- that would be avoidance of moral responsibility. That is the over-riding sense I get from the notion of a "just war."
Honestly, I don't find a commitment to nonviolence to be an avoidance of moral responsibility at all, but rather an up front acknowledgement that there is always, always a moral cost to using violence.
Finding ways to rationalize away the moral costs of violence -- creating, in effect, an ever-increasing series of situations and scenarios where it is okay or even obligatory to kill without any moral compunctions -- that would be avoidance of moral responsibility. That is the over-riding sense I get from the notion of a "just war."
25librorumamans
>20 richardbsmith: Some one once said, "Vengeance is mine." I forget who that was.
Since I happen to be reading Anna Karenina just now, I'll get that:
It's Tolstoy's epigraph to AK from Romans 12:19, which derives from Deut. 32:35. (With acknowledgment to Pevear and Volokhonsky.)
Since I happen to be reading Anna Karenina just now, I'll get that:
It's Tolstoy's epigraph to AK from Romans 12:19, which derives from Deut. 32:35. (With acknowledgment to Pevear and Volokhonsky.)
26prosfilaes
>24 southernbooklady: Honestly, I don't find a commitment to nonviolence to be an avoidance of moral responsibility at all, but rather an up front acknowledgement that there is always, always a moral cost to using violence.
There's also a moral cost to not using violence in many cases, as you're standing aside while innocents get hurt. Being willing to stand by while a toddler gets raped and murdered by someone you could easily stop with force has its own moral costs, and if you aren't willing to do that, then you've given up your absolute stance for moral outrage.
Orwell said "making mock of uniforms that guard you while you sleep", and pacifists do seem to be clustered in places where a strong military and police have made rejecting violence an easy choice. If a shotgun and the willingness to use it may save your child from being kidnapped and raped or made into a solider, then it's a much harder choice. If people who want Lebensraum and consider you subhuman are looking to conquer your nation, you might find it a much harder choice.
For me, pacifism is not a universal option. Countries that don't have big armies ally with ones that do, or get destroyed. If there's not enough people willing to use violence to make criminal activity costly, then criminals willing to use violence will prosper. (This is not an endorsement of the US penal system, but at some point, someone is going to have to use violence against the people shaking down shop owners, or shop owners will have to deal with the fact that anyone willing to use violence will take what they want from them.) A world where good people absolutely refused to use violence is not one I want to live in; it sounds pretty dystopian.
Finding ways to rationalize away the moral costs of violence -- creating, in effect, an ever-increasing series of situations and scenarios where it is okay or even obligatory to kill without any moral compunctions -- that would be avoidance of moral responsibility.
Finding ways to rationalize away the moral costs of not getting involved -- creating, in a effect, an ever-increasing series of situations and scenarios where it is okay or even obligatory to stand aside and watch as others are getting hurt without any moral responsibility -- that would be avoidance of moral responsibility.
There's also a moral cost to not using violence in many cases, as you're standing aside while innocents get hurt. Being willing to stand by while a toddler gets raped and murdered by someone you could easily stop with force has its own moral costs, and if you aren't willing to do that, then you've given up your absolute stance for moral outrage.
Orwell said "making mock of uniforms that guard you while you sleep", and pacifists do seem to be clustered in places where a strong military and police have made rejecting violence an easy choice. If a shotgun and the willingness to use it may save your child from being kidnapped and raped or made into a solider, then it's a much harder choice. If people who want Lebensraum and consider you subhuman are looking to conquer your nation, you might find it a much harder choice.
For me, pacifism is not a universal option. Countries that don't have big armies ally with ones that do, or get destroyed. If there's not enough people willing to use violence to make criminal activity costly, then criminals willing to use violence will prosper. (This is not an endorsement of the US penal system, but at some point, someone is going to have to use violence against the people shaking down shop owners, or shop owners will have to deal with the fact that anyone willing to use violence will take what they want from them.) A world where good people absolutely refused to use violence is not one I want to live in; it sounds pretty dystopian.
Finding ways to rationalize away the moral costs of violence -- creating, in effect, an ever-increasing series of situations and scenarios where it is okay or even obligatory to kill without any moral compunctions -- that would be avoidance of moral responsibility.
Finding ways to rationalize away the moral costs of not getting involved -- creating, in a effect, an ever-increasing series of situations and scenarios where it is okay or even obligatory to stand aside and watch as others are getting hurt without any moral responsibility -- that would be avoidance of moral responsibility.
27prosfilaes
>20 richardbsmith: Some one once said, "Vengeance is mine."
If one accepts the Bible on its face, the person who committed (or claim to have committed, or is described as committing) at least three distinct acts of genocide, in the Flood, in Egypt, and of the Caananites, and we can add another count for the Babylonian exile, since his prophets claimed that as his work as well. I'm a little more comfortable leaving vengeance in human hands.
If one accepts the Bible on its face, the person who committed (or claim to have committed, or is described as committing) at least three distinct acts of genocide, in the Flood, in Egypt, and of the Caananites, and we can add another count for the Babylonian exile, since his prophets claimed that as his work as well. I'm a little more comfortable leaving vengeance in human hands.
28richardbsmith
That is a good argument, taking the Bible at a literal level.
Except we know the Flood never happened. And Eve did not talk to a snake.
We are left with you being comfortable, knowing that vengeance is in human hands.
Except we know the Flood never happened. And Eve did not talk to a snake.
We are left with you being comfortable, knowing that vengeance is in human hands.
29prosfilaes
>28 richardbsmith: That is a good argument, taking the Bible at a literal level.
It's not taking the Bible at a literal level. Someone who has metaphorically murdered almost everyone on Earth or someone who alleges that they have murdered almost everyone on Earth is still a scary SOB. If you take the Bible as a witness to God, its testimony is still scary and unpleasant taken at any level.
It's not taking the Bible at a literal level. Someone who has metaphorically murdered almost everyone on Earth or someone who alleges that they have murdered almost everyone on Earth is still a scary SOB. If you take the Bible as a witness to God, its testimony is still scary and unpleasant taken at any level.
30southernbooklady
>26 prosfilaes: There's also a moral cost to not using violence in many cases, as you're standing aside while innocents get hurt.
Ah, but here you are equating nonviolence with inaction or non involvement. As John points out above, that is hardly the case. In fact, in the United States we have an excellent example in front of us -- the Civil Rights Movement derived its moral force from nonviolent action.
Ah, but here you are equating nonviolence with inaction or non involvement. As John points out above, that is hardly the case. In fact, in the United States we have an excellent example in front of us -- the Civil Rights Movement derived its moral force from nonviolent action.
31prosfilaes
>30 southernbooklady: you are equating nonviolence with inaction or non involvement.
I am saying that sometimes your options are violence or inaction. Someone who has decided to rape a toddler isn't interested in listening to your persuasion.
the Civil Rights Movement derived its moral force from nonviolent action.
I'm not sure what you mean by "derived its moral force". The Civil Rights Movement was only nonviolent in a relative sense. The Little Rock High School was integrated by armed men of the National Guard. Brown v. Board of Education and other Supreme Court rulings only mattered because unlike Worcester v. Georgia, the Executive Branch was willing to back up the Supreme Court with force.
Nonviolent action is great in its place. But it only works against people whose moral conscience can be shocked by it. Had the Confederacy won the Civil War, likely the entire Civil Rights Movement in the south would have been aborted by summary executions and imprisonments.
Again, we're talking about absolutes here. The Civil Rights Movement depended on evoking enough outrage that Federal force would be involved. The Civil Rights Movement depended on the fact that certain levels of violence from the South could provoke a violent response from the North. Every time we mention a Supreme Court case, that was something that directed with the implication of Federal violence, that the National Guard would be sent in if the state decided to ignore it.
I am saying that sometimes your options are violence or inaction. Someone who has decided to rape a toddler isn't interested in listening to your persuasion.
the Civil Rights Movement derived its moral force from nonviolent action.
I'm not sure what you mean by "derived its moral force". The Civil Rights Movement was only nonviolent in a relative sense. The Little Rock High School was integrated by armed men of the National Guard. Brown v. Board of Education and other Supreme Court rulings only mattered because unlike Worcester v. Georgia, the Executive Branch was willing to back up the Supreme Court with force.
Nonviolent action is great in its place. But it only works against people whose moral conscience can be shocked by it. Had the Confederacy won the Civil War, likely the entire Civil Rights Movement in the south would have been aborted by summary executions and imprisonments.
Again, we're talking about absolutes here. The Civil Rights Movement depended on evoking enough outrage that Federal force would be involved. The Civil Rights Movement depended on the fact that certain levels of violence from the South could provoke a violent response from the North. Every time we mention a Supreme Court case, that was something that directed with the implication of Federal violence, that the National Guard would be sent in if the state decided to ignore it.
32richardbsmith
If you and I are discussing the Bible really, then you and I are discussing the writings of man. A compilation of many different people, at many different times and purposes.
And the good news for you is that those myths were written for and by men, and the places where vengeance was actually taken, it was taken by men.
No Flood, then no divine Flood vengeance for an evil world.
You can take your comfort in that it is humanity that claims vengeance. The scripture referencing vengeance being the Lord's, is more likely just a call for humanity not to take vengeance.
And again you may take your comfort in humanity's vengeance.
And the good news for you is that those myths were written for and by men, and the places where vengeance was actually taken, it was taken by men.
No Flood, then no divine Flood vengeance for an evil world.
You can take your comfort in that it is humanity that claims vengeance. The scripture referencing vengeance being the Lord's, is more likely just a call for humanity not to take vengeance.
And again you may take your comfort in humanity's vengeance.
33hf22
>24 southernbooklady:
prosfilaes has provided the appropriate response, which I endorse.
However I would note the concept of "Just War", in the Catholic and other traditions, explicitly recognises the moral cost of violence. Which is why for example, one of criteria is the good achieved must be greater than the harm done. And why a Church Father such as St. Basil of Caesarea could say of even just wars:
Our fathers did not consider killings committed in the course of wars to be classifiable as murders at all, on the score, it seems to me, of allowing a pardon to men fighting in defense of sobriety and piety. Perhaps, though, it might be advisable to refuse them communion for three years, on the ground that their hands are not clean.
That is, even a just war has a moral cost, which should weigh heavily on our conscience even when required of us#. In a fallen world even the moral choice cannot always be perfect.
# The Church does not presently require soldiers to refrain from Communion, but that rather relates to the fact its discipline no longer makes a penance of so refraining for any matter, and thus I think the principle is still a valid expression of Catholic (and Orthodox) teaching.
prosfilaes has provided the appropriate response, which I endorse.
However I would note the concept of "Just War", in the Catholic and other traditions, explicitly recognises the moral cost of violence. Which is why for example, one of criteria is the good achieved must be greater than the harm done. And why a Church Father such as St. Basil of Caesarea could say of even just wars:
Our fathers did not consider killings committed in the course of wars to be classifiable as murders at all, on the score, it seems to me, of allowing a pardon to men fighting in defense of sobriety and piety. Perhaps, though, it might be advisable to refuse them communion for three years, on the ground that their hands are not clean.
That is, even a just war has a moral cost, which should weigh heavily on our conscience even when required of us#. In a fallen world even the moral choice cannot always be perfect.
# The Church does not presently require soldiers to refrain from Communion, but that rather relates to the fact its discipline no longer makes a penance of so refraining for any matter, and thus I think the principle is still a valid expression of Catholic (and Orthodox) teaching.
34John5918
>26 prosfilaes: pacifists do seem to be clustered in places where a strong military and police have made rejecting violence an easy choice
Not sure exactly what you mean by this. There are strong clusters of pacifists in war zones (strong military) and police states (strong police) where the excesses of state violence and a non-state violent response indeed make it easy to reject violence as a solution to violence.
your child from being... made into a soldier
I'll never forget a young Palestinian mother explaining to me three or four years ago that she is motivated into nonviolent resistance to create a society where her 13-year old son would not be radicalised into violence.
it is okay or even obligatory to stand aside and watch as others are getting hurt
Just to reiterate that nonviolence is not passivity, inaction or standing aside. It is making a choice about which actions one takes.
>31 prosfilaes: Nonviolent action is great in its place. But it only works against people whose moral conscience can be shocked by it.
Evidence has shown this assumption to be false. Read Chenoweth and Stephan, referenced above. Nonviolent action works when it creates conditions where the cost to the state (or other perpetrator) is greater than the benefit of continued violence, regardless of conscience.
Not sure exactly what you mean by this. There are strong clusters of pacifists in war zones (strong military) and police states (strong police) where the excesses of state violence and a non-state violent response indeed make it easy to reject violence as a solution to violence.
your child from being... made into a soldier
I'll never forget a young Palestinian mother explaining to me three or four years ago that she is motivated into nonviolent resistance to create a society where her 13-year old son would not be radicalised into violence.
it is okay or even obligatory to stand aside and watch as others are getting hurt
Just to reiterate that nonviolence is not passivity, inaction or standing aside. It is making a choice about which actions one takes.
>31 prosfilaes: Nonviolent action is great in its place. But it only works against people whose moral conscience can be shocked by it.
Evidence has shown this assumption to be false. Read Chenoweth and Stephan, referenced above. Nonviolent action works when it creates conditions where the cost to the state (or other perpetrator) is greater than the benefit of continued violence, regardless of conscience.
35John5918
Might also be worth adding that for all but the most absolutist pacifists, there is a difference between war and between using limited violence for self-defence, so emotional appeals about shooting someone to save your toddler are not really very relevant to the arguments of most peace activists. I'm not sure what I myself would do in that case, although since I don't have a gun it is a moot point. So far all my personal encounters with heavily armed attackers have been resolved nonviolently, but obviously everybody's experience is different. But in cases of violence on the scale of war rather than limited cases of individual self-defence, then peace activists would tend to argue that war can never be justified for both practical and principled reasons.
36prosfilaes
>34 John5918: Just to reiterate that nonviolence is not passivity, inaction or standing aside. It is making a choice about which actions one takes.
It is rejecting certain options of actions to take, options that can be immediately effective where no other option is.
Evidence has shown this assumption to be false.
Instead of citing a large book, you could cite one or more examples.
Nonviolent action works when it creates conditions where the cost to the state (or other perpetrator) is greater than the benefit of continued violence, regardless of conscience.
Oo-kay? I'd say that's only true in the theoretical situation of rational actors with perfect knowledge, but that's not my real problem with it. What costs? You've got to have a huge revolution before a sufficiently-nasty state can't literally murder every single protester. In the case of genocide, that was the goal in the first place, so the perpetrator came ready for it. The costs are usually that more force or continued force will produce backlash, either internally or externally.
In the much repeated case of the US Civil Rights Movement, to quote Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_campaign#Images_of_the_day
"A battle-hardened Huntley-Brinkley reporter later said that no military action he had witnessed had ever frightened or disturbed him as much as what he saw in Birmingham.76 Two out-of-town photographers in Birmingham that day were Charles Moore, who had previously worked with the Montgomery Advertiser and was now working for Life magazine, and Bill Hudson, with the Associated Press. Moore was a Marine combat photographer who was "jarred" and "sickened" by the use of children and what the Birmingham police and fire departments did to them.76 Moore was hit in the ankle by a brick meant for the police. He took several photos that were printed in Life. The first photo Moore shot that day showed three teenagers being hit by a water jet from a high-pressure firehose. It was titled "They Fight a Fire That Won't Go Out". A shorter version of the caption was later used as the title for Fred Shuttlesworth's biography. The Life photo became an "era-defining picture" and was compared to the photo of Marines raising the U.S. flag on Iwo Jima.76 Moore suspected that the film he shot "was likely to obliterate in the national psyche any notion of a 'good southerner'."76 Hudson remarked later that his only priorities that day were "making pictures and staying alive" and "not getting bit by a dog."76
The article goes on about how the campaign had little effect on the city, but galvanized a nation. That goes straight against your claim; the "costs" in that situation is that Birmingham and Alabama upset the conscience of the rest of the nation and much of the rest of the world.
>35 John5918: Might also be worth adding that for all but the most absolutist pacifists, there is a difference between war and between using limited violence for self-defence,
I was arguing with someone who has expressed absolute pacifism.
shooting someone to save your toddler
I didn't say shooting; I was thinking about a teenager, not 100 pounds soaking wet. They could be stopped by most any of us, if we were willing to abandon pacifism for saving a toddler's life, with all the moral cost that it involved.
But in cases of violence on the scale of war rather than limited cases of individual self-defence, then peace activists would tend to argue that war can never be justified for both practical and principled reasons.
I'm less impressed with a philosophical position that's carefully avoids applying to anything that might directly affect a believer. In any case, I stand by my statement; a state that can not defend itself, be it the Cherokee or Poland, is running a chance of outsiders coming in and destroying them. Why is Christianity the religion of the Americas? Because the Christians were ready and willing to slaughter or forcibly convert the original peoples of the Americas. All the nonviolence engaged in by the Cherokee did nothing to save them.
It is rejecting certain options of actions to take, options that can be immediately effective where no other option is.
Evidence has shown this assumption to be false.
Instead of citing a large book, you could cite one or more examples.
Nonviolent action works when it creates conditions where the cost to the state (or other perpetrator) is greater than the benefit of continued violence, regardless of conscience.
Oo-kay? I'd say that's only true in the theoretical situation of rational actors with perfect knowledge, but that's not my real problem with it. What costs? You've got to have a huge revolution before a sufficiently-nasty state can't literally murder every single protester. In the case of genocide, that was the goal in the first place, so the perpetrator came ready for it. The costs are usually that more force or continued force will produce backlash, either internally or externally.
In the much repeated case of the US Civil Rights Movement, to quote Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_campaign#Images_of_the_day
"A battle-hardened Huntley-Brinkley reporter later said that no military action he had witnessed had ever frightened or disturbed him as much as what he saw in Birmingham.76 Two out-of-town photographers in Birmingham that day were Charles Moore, who had previously worked with the Montgomery Advertiser and was now working for Life magazine, and Bill Hudson, with the Associated Press. Moore was a Marine combat photographer who was "jarred" and "sickened" by the use of children and what the Birmingham police and fire departments did to them.76 Moore was hit in the ankle by a brick meant for the police. He took several photos that were printed in Life. The first photo Moore shot that day showed three teenagers being hit by a water jet from a high-pressure firehose. It was titled "They Fight a Fire That Won't Go Out". A shorter version of the caption was later used as the title for Fred Shuttlesworth's biography. The Life photo became an "era-defining picture" and was compared to the photo of Marines raising the U.S. flag on Iwo Jima.76 Moore suspected that the film he shot "was likely to obliterate in the national psyche any notion of a 'good southerner'."76 Hudson remarked later that his only priorities that day were "making pictures and staying alive" and "not getting bit by a dog."76
The article goes on about how the campaign had little effect on the city, but galvanized a nation. That goes straight against your claim; the "costs" in that situation is that Birmingham and Alabama upset the conscience of the rest of the nation and much of the rest of the world.
>35 John5918: Might also be worth adding that for all but the most absolutist pacifists, there is a difference between war and between using limited violence for self-defence,
I was arguing with someone who has expressed absolute pacifism.
shooting someone to save your toddler
I didn't say shooting; I was thinking about a teenager, not 100 pounds soaking wet. They could be stopped by most any of us, if we were willing to abandon pacifism for saving a toddler's life, with all the moral cost that it involved.
But in cases of violence on the scale of war rather than limited cases of individual self-defence, then peace activists would tend to argue that war can never be justified for both practical and principled reasons.
I'm less impressed with a philosophical position that's carefully avoids applying to anything that might directly affect a believer. In any case, I stand by my statement; a state that can not defend itself, be it the Cherokee or Poland, is running a chance of outsiders coming in and destroying them. Why is Christianity the religion of the Americas? Because the Christians were ready and willing to slaughter or forcibly convert the original peoples of the Americas. All the nonviolence engaged in by the Cherokee did nothing to save them.
37hf22
>34 John5918:, >35 John5918:
Just to address the most egregious non-sequiturs which are undermining your rhetoric, because you are harming what is actually a reasonable view.
nonviolence is not passivity, inaction or standing aside.
Limiting yourself to what in some circumstances are going to be ineffective methods, when you have an effective method on the shelf, is to be at fault for unacceptable outcomes. Actively doing pointless things in preference to useful things is no better than passivity - In fact it is usually worse.
Evidence has shown this assumption to be false.
Misusing evidence that non-violence works better in many cases, to assert it works better in all cases, makes it hard for anyone to buy what the evidence does show. Non-violence is better in many cases where violence is applied, indeed most when you consider the population of violent conflicts at any given time, that can be clearly shown. But it does not follow there are not hard cases, when time runs out, where violence is the only option available.
for all but the most absolutist pacifists
Your actual position does not seem to be absolutist pacifism. But your rhetoric tends to the absolutist view, which means the response you get is always going to start with the moral unacceptability of that view. If however you just acknowledge the exceptions upfront, rather than chasing good lines like "no war is just", the strength of your actual view will have a better chance to shine through.
But in cases of violence on the scale of war rather than limited cases of individual self-defence, then peace activists would tend to argue that war can never be justified for both practical and principled reasons.
Scale is not a decisive in principle argument. Because the harm which can be prevented by force scales up as well.
So for example scale tells in the Cold War example, because with the example of Jesus in view, we can be confident !freedom! is not worth a global scale extinction of the human race. However scale can go the other way - If say a group was willing and able to conduct a mass genocide by large scale nuclear bombardment.
Nonviolent action works when it creates conditions where the cost to the state (or other perpetrator) is greater than the benefit of continued violence
Coercion by means other than direct use of force can carry its own cost in human suffering. Economic sanctions for example are non-violent, but can cause say starvation which leaves people just as dead (even where that is not the intent).
Just to address the most egregious non-sequiturs which are undermining your rhetoric, because you are harming what is actually a reasonable view.
nonviolence is not passivity, inaction or standing aside.
Limiting yourself to what in some circumstances are going to be ineffective methods, when you have an effective method on the shelf, is to be at fault for unacceptable outcomes. Actively doing pointless things in preference to useful things is no better than passivity - In fact it is usually worse.
Evidence has shown this assumption to be false.
Misusing evidence that non-violence works better in many cases, to assert it works better in all cases, makes it hard for anyone to buy what the evidence does show. Non-violence is better in many cases where violence is applied, indeed most when you consider the population of violent conflicts at any given time, that can be clearly shown. But it does not follow there are not hard cases, when time runs out, where violence is the only option available.
for all but the most absolutist pacifists
Your actual position does not seem to be absolutist pacifism. But your rhetoric tends to the absolutist view, which means the response you get is always going to start with the moral unacceptability of that view. If however you just acknowledge the exceptions upfront, rather than chasing good lines like "no war is just", the strength of your actual view will have a better chance to shine through.
But in cases of violence on the scale of war rather than limited cases of individual self-defence, then peace activists would tend to argue that war can never be justified for both practical and principled reasons.
Scale is not a decisive in principle argument. Because the harm which can be prevented by force scales up as well.
So for example scale tells in the Cold War example, because with the example of Jesus in view, we can be confident !freedom! is not worth a global scale extinction of the human race. However scale can go the other way - If say a group was willing and able to conduct a mass genocide by large scale nuclear bombardment.
Nonviolent action works when it creates conditions where the cost to the state (or other perpetrator) is greater than the benefit of continued violence
Coercion by means other than direct use of force can carry its own cost in human suffering. Economic sanctions for example are non-violent, but can cause say starvation which leaves people just as dead (even where that is not the intent).
38John5918
>36 prosfilaes: It is rejecting certain options of actions to take, options that can be immediately effective where no other option is.
You are making assumptions about what actions can be effective and whether or not there are other options. See the next paragraph for some examination of those assumptions.
Instead of citing a large book, you could cite one or more examples.
My apologies. It's not such a large book! But I don't think it's about individual examples so much as trends. The authors examined over 300 conflicts between 1900 and 2006 and found that in 56% of cases nonviolence succeeded compared to 20-something% for violence and about the same for failure of either method. Nonviolent campaigns were thus twice as successful as violent ones. They avoided taking "soft" conflicts and chose authoritarian regimes, foreign occupation and secession conflicts (incidentally secession struggles were rarely successful using either violent or nonviolent means) and they made all the corrections that social scientists make when doing these sort of studies. They also found that a successful nonviolent struggle is more likely to lead to a relatively democratic and peaceful society than a successful violent struggle. So while it's obviously not claiming that every nonviolent struggle is successful, just as I presume nobody would claim that every violent struggle is successful, it demonstrates that in similar types of cases a nonviolent struggle is twice as likely to be successful and is also more likely to result in a better post-struggle society. It therefore challenges the assumption that nonviolence is not successful, or is only successful in certain "soft" struggles, or against conscience-stricken democratic regimes.
You are making assumptions about what actions can be effective and whether or not there are other options. See the next paragraph for some examination of those assumptions.
Instead of citing a large book, you could cite one or more examples.
My apologies. It's not such a large book! But I don't think it's about individual examples so much as trends. The authors examined over 300 conflicts between 1900 and 2006 and found that in 56% of cases nonviolence succeeded compared to 20-something% for violence and about the same for failure of either method. Nonviolent campaigns were thus twice as successful as violent ones. They avoided taking "soft" conflicts and chose authoritarian regimes, foreign occupation and secession conflicts (incidentally secession struggles were rarely successful using either violent or nonviolent means) and they made all the corrections that social scientists make when doing these sort of studies. They also found that a successful nonviolent struggle is more likely to lead to a relatively democratic and peaceful society than a successful violent struggle. So while it's obviously not claiming that every nonviolent struggle is successful, just as I presume nobody would claim that every violent struggle is successful, it demonstrates that in similar types of cases a nonviolent struggle is twice as likely to be successful and is also more likely to result in a better post-struggle society. It therefore challenges the assumption that nonviolence is not successful, or is only successful in certain "soft" struggles, or against conscience-stricken democratic regimes.
39southernbooklady
>31 prosfilaes: Someone who has decided to rape a toddler isn't interested in listening to your persuasion.
Neither is someone who has decided to fly a plane into a building, or send a team of assassins to take out a rebel leader.
Again, we're talking about absolutes here. The Civil Rights Movement depended on evoking enough outrage that Federal force would be involved.
Well, I am not talking absolutes in the sense that I am advocating for absolute pacifism, but I am pointing out that you can't escape the moral costs of using violence. You can't really absolve people of it. About the only case where we accept it without much qualm is in the defense of the innocent who are under threat of immediate harm. That toddler about to be raped that you seem to think is the ultimate argument for the legitimacy of violence. But an individual person defending a threatened child, and a country going to war against another country are two very different scenarios. For one thing, I'm sorry to say it, but countries don't go to war to protect the innocent. They go to war to protect their own interests. They may use the plight of the innocent as justification -- "save the Christians" plays better than "we need more oil" -- but if there isn't a real, tangible, material interest for the nation to go to war, it won't. So the concept of a "just war" being one wielded to alleviate the suffering of a beleaguered people is a smokescreen. War is always about land and resources.
I also have a less cynical view of the Civil Rights Movement in that I don't think the strategy was "let's get people so mad they'll send in the National Guard." I think it was much more basic -- "racial discrimination is wrong, we want people to see that it is wrong. Deeply wrong."
Then too, when thinking about the concept of a just war there seems to be a distinction between violence and coercion. At least, that's how it appeared in the discussion in the Catholic group thread. I'm not sure where that distinction falls, but for the Pope, at least, bombing seems to be on the wrong side of it. Armed peace-keeping forces are perhaps on not. It's hard for me to tell. That's why I wondered if a state of war isn't best understood in the amount of impact and suffering it causes noncombatants. Presumably a surgical strike to assassinate an ISIS leader or rescue a group of hostages would have limited impact, but a concerted effort to wipe out the ISIS army would -- that would involve killing lots of people, civilian casualties, bombing roads and bridges and interrupting or closing supply lines. Civilians left to fend for themselves under such conditions suffer terribly.
>33 hf22: one of criteria is the good achieved must be greater than the harm done.
Also known as "the ends justify the means." But the very fact that we have that phrase indicates we recognize, at least on some level, the moral quandary within it.
As for the suggestion that killing "in defense of sobriety and piety" is not murder, well, it depends on where you are standing, doesn't it? I'll be the person who was killed would think they were murdered. I'll bet their family thinks they were murdered.
>37 hf22: Limiting yourself to what in some circumstances are going to be ineffective methods, when you have an effective method on the shelf, is to be at fault for unacceptable outcomes
There is, of course, an entire argument to be had on what can be considered "effective." Killing everyone is certainly an effective way to stop them from committing further violence. Advocating violence as a preventive measure, though, scares me. I don't see how it could work as policy -- it just widens the number of people who become "threats" and they in turn widen the number of people they think are threats, and so on. It is a vicious circle that practically guarantees endless war.
And really, if the answer to threat and violence is kill those who perpetrate it, then every woman on the planet should shoot every man she can see.
Coercion by means other than direct use of force can carry its own cost in human suffering. Economic sanctions for example are non-violent, but can cause say starvation which leaves people just as dead (even where that is not the intent).
Yes, this is certainly true. All actions, even nonviolent ones, have repercussions. It would be great if countries put as many resources into their humanitarian aid programs as they put into their military.
Neither is someone who has decided to fly a plane into a building, or send a team of assassins to take out a rebel leader.
Again, we're talking about absolutes here. The Civil Rights Movement depended on evoking enough outrage that Federal force would be involved.
Well, I am not talking absolutes in the sense that I am advocating for absolute pacifism, but I am pointing out that you can't escape the moral costs of using violence. You can't really absolve people of it. About the only case where we accept it without much qualm is in the defense of the innocent who are under threat of immediate harm. That toddler about to be raped that you seem to think is the ultimate argument for the legitimacy of violence. But an individual person defending a threatened child, and a country going to war against another country are two very different scenarios. For one thing, I'm sorry to say it, but countries don't go to war to protect the innocent. They go to war to protect their own interests. They may use the plight of the innocent as justification -- "save the Christians" plays better than "we need more oil" -- but if there isn't a real, tangible, material interest for the nation to go to war, it won't. So the concept of a "just war" being one wielded to alleviate the suffering of a beleaguered people is a smokescreen. War is always about land and resources.
I also have a less cynical view of the Civil Rights Movement in that I don't think the strategy was "let's get people so mad they'll send in the National Guard." I think it was much more basic -- "racial discrimination is wrong, we want people to see that it is wrong. Deeply wrong."
Then too, when thinking about the concept of a just war there seems to be a distinction between violence and coercion. At least, that's how it appeared in the discussion in the Catholic group thread. I'm not sure where that distinction falls, but for the Pope, at least, bombing seems to be on the wrong side of it. Armed peace-keeping forces are perhaps on not. It's hard for me to tell. That's why I wondered if a state of war isn't best understood in the amount of impact and suffering it causes noncombatants. Presumably a surgical strike to assassinate an ISIS leader or rescue a group of hostages would have limited impact, but a concerted effort to wipe out the ISIS army would -- that would involve killing lots of people, civilian casualties, bombing roads and bridges and interrupting or closing supply lines. Civilians left to fend for themselves under such conditions suffer terribly.
>33 hf22: one of criteria is the good achieved must be greater than the harm done.
Also known as "the ends justify the means." But the very fact that we have that phrase indicates we recognize, at least on some level, the moral quandary within it.
As for the suggestion that killing "in defense of sobriety and piety" is not murder, well, it depends on where you are standing, doesn't it? I'll be the person who was killed would think they were murdered. I'll bet their family thinks they were murdered.
>37 hf22: Limiting yourself to what in some circumstances are going to be ineffective methods, when you have an effective method on the shelf, is to be at fault for unacceptable outcomes
There is, of course, an entire argument to be had on what can be considered "effective." Killing everyone is certainly an effective way to stop them from committing further violence. Advocating violence as a preventive measure, though, scares me. I don't see how it could work as policy -- it just widens the number of people who become "threats" and they in turn widen the number of people they think are threats, and so on. It is a vicious circle that practically guarantees endless war.
And really, if the answer to threat and violence is kill those who perpetrate it, then every woman on the planet should shoot every man she can see.
Coercion by means other than direct use of force can carry its own cost in human suffering. Economic sanctions for example are non-violent, but can cause say starvation which leaves people just as dead (even where that is not the intent).
Yes, this is certainly true. All actions, even nonviolent ones, have repercussions. It would be great if countries put as many resources into their humanitarian aid programs as they put into their military.
40prosfilaes
>39 southernbooklady: I am pointing out that you can't escape the moral costs of using violence.
You can't escape the moral costs of life. Everything the UK did in 1939 with respect to Nazi Germany was fraught with moral costs.
countries don't go to war to protect the innocent. ... So the concept of a "just war" being one wielded to alleviate the suffering of a beleaguered people is a smokescreen. War is always about land and resources.
If something is the right thing, then the motivation for doing it is irrelevant. And that's dismissive of the discussion as a whole; we can't discuss when a war is okay, or whether a specific war is reasonable, because you think that all wars are done for the wrong reasons.
I also have a less cynical view of the Civil Rights Movement in that I don't think the strategy was "let's get people so mad they'll send in the National Guard."
A strawman summary I don't endorse.
I think it was much more basic -- "racial discrimination is wrong, we want people to see that it is wrong. Deeply wrong."
So you think that the strategy was a failure to the extent that it was against Southerners, and a success to the extent it was irrelevant? Huh.
Moreover, the evidence stands against you. Suing all the way to the Supreme Court has nothing do with showing people that something is wrong. A serious suit has the intent of calling down the power of the state on those who would violate the law.
You can't escape the moral costs of life. Everything the UK did in 1939 with respect to Nazi Germany was fraught with moral costs.
countries don't go to war to protect the innocent. ... So the concept of a "just war" being one wielded to alleviate the suffering of a beleaguered people is a smokescreen. War is always about land and resources.
If something is the right thing, then the motivation for doing it is irrelevant. And that's dismissive of the discussion as a whole; we can't discuss when a war is okay, or whether a specific war is reasonable, because you think that all wars are done for the wrong reasons.
I also have a less cynical view of the Civil Rights Movement in that I don't think the strategy was "let's get people so mad they'll send in the National Guard."
A strawman summary I don't endorse.
I think it was much more basic -- "racial discrimination is wrong, we want people to see that it is wrong. Deeply wrong."
So you think that the strategy was a failure to the extent that it was against Southerners, and a success to the extent it was irrelevant? Huh.
Moreover, the evidence stands against you. Suing all the way to the Supreme Court has nothing do with showing people that something is wrong. A serious suit has the intent of calling down the power of the state on those who would violate the law.
41southernbooklady
>40 prosfilaes: If something is the right thing, then the motivation for doing it is irrelevant.
Fair enough. But then wouldn't moral motivations demand we intervene and start just wars on behalf of every endangered population? Regardless of national interest? Instead of attempting to justify going to war, wouldn't the pressure be how to justify NOT going to war?
A serious suit has the intent of calling down the power of the state on those who would violate the law.
That assumes that people only follow the law out of fear. It assumes they can't be convinced to change their minds.
Fair enough. But then wouldn't moral motivations demand we intervene and start just wars on behalf of every endangered population? Regardless of national interest? Instead of attempting to justify going to war, wouldn't the pressure be how to justify NOT going to war?
A serious suit has the intent of calling down the power of the state on those who would violate the law.
That assumes that people only follow the law out of fear. It assumes they can't be convinced to change their minds.
42hf22
>38 John5918:
Again, this only shows nonviolence is often more effective than violence. It does not show that nonviolence will always be sufficiently effective, or that violence will not be in those cases. Like say Sinjar.
The biggest lesson for a Christian might well be the type of things which don't really provide a just cause for violence. Jesus refused to lead a secessionist conflict, and the evidence also seems to back him up, for example.
Again, this only shows nonviolence is often more effective than violence. It does not show that nonviolence will always be sufficiently effective, or that violence will not be in those cases. Like say Sinjar.
The biggest lesson for a Christian might well be the type of things which don't really provide a just cause for violence. Jesus refused to lead a secessionist conflict, and the evidence also seems to back him up, for example.
43hf22
>39 southernbooklady:
Catholics look at it as a matter of double effect, rather than ends justifying means, because intention does matter in Catholic moral theory (See for example the discussion here http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jenniferfitz/2014/03/do-the-ends-justify-the-means/....
Further the Catholic tradition of just war does not ignore the moral cost of even morally required violence, as shown by my discussion of St. Basil above.
Finally just war does not allow just in case violence. The last resort criteria has a temporal aspect. If there is still time to give nonviolent means a chance, the last resort can't be used.
That indeed was one of the reasons the Pope gave against the 2nd Iraq War. The WMDs were not time critical, given no immediate threat of use existed, so the last resort test could not be satisfied.
Catholics look at it as a matter of double effect, rather than ends justifying means, because intention does matter in Catholic moral theory (See for example the discussion here http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jenniferfitz/2014/03/do-the-ends-justify-the-means/....
Further the Catholic tradition of just war does not ignore the moral cost of even morally required violence, as shown by my discussion of St. Basil above.
Finally just war does not allow just in case violence. The last resort criteria has a temporal aspect. If there is still time to give nonviolent means a chance, the last resort can't be used.
That indeed was one of the reasons the Pope gave against the 2nd Iraq War. The WMDs were not time critical, given no immediate threat of use existed, so the last resort test could not be satisfied.
44southernbooklady
>43 hf22: Finally just war does not allow just in case violence. The last resort criteria has a temporal aspect. If there is still time to give nonviolent means a chance, the last resort can't be used.
But who decides whether or not there is still time for nonviolent action? How do we know we are at a "last resort" situation? That seems to be the pertinent question in the discussion about whether or not we should be bombing ISIS.
And are the people usually in charge of implementing this just war really going to wait for last resort situations before they deploy? Or will they end the war by the most efficient (ei quick, least expensive, most effective) way possible even if it means a greater death toll? It seems to me that once you've decided that the violent option is the only option, the last resort option, you've let go of the steering wheel, so to speak, on the on the military machine, and your ability to conduct such a war as morally as possible is always going to be compromised by other, military priorities.
But who decides whether or not there is still time for nonviolent action? How do we know we are at a "last resort" situation? That seems to be the pertinent question in the discussion about whether or not we should be bombing ISIS.
And are the people usually in charge of implementing this just war really going to wait for last resort situations before they deploy? Or will they end the war by the most efficient (ei quick, least expensive, most effective) way possible even if it means a greater death toll? It seems to me that once you've decided that the violent option is the only option, the last resort option, you've let go of the steering wheel, so to speak, on the on the military machine, and your ability to conduct such a war as morally as possible is always going to be compromised by other, military priorities.
45hf22
>44 southernbooklady:
That people are going to be less than perfect in their ability to discern how to apply moral principles is no argument against having moral principles. Because otherwise they all need to go. It should also be noted Catholic teaching has principles for how a conflict may be waged justly, not just for when they may be commenced justly.
That people are going to be less than perfect in their ability to discern how to apply moral principles is no argument against having moral principles. Because otherwise they all need to go. It should also be noted Catholic teaching has principles for how a conflict may be waged justly, not just for when they may be commenced justly.
46John5918
>45 hf22: Catholic teaching has principles for how a conflict may be waged justly,
So do the Geneva Conventions, but those who wage modern war seem to have forgotten about these. Bombing in particular is highly problematic in terms of the laws of war as we know that even so-called "precision" munitions are anything but precise and cause a great deal of "collateral damage", ie the deaths of civilians and the destruction of civilian infrastructure. It has also been realised for a long time that aerial bombing alone rarely achieves anything substantive; it is usually merely the precursor to "boots on the ground". It's also fairly clear that bombing and other forms of military violence are a factor in rallying more recruits to the cause, leading to more violence. So while on the surface it may appear that bombing is the only option and/or the most effective option, deeper reflection often suggests otherwise.
So do the Geneva Conventions, but those who wage modern war seem to have forgotten about these. Bombing in particular is highly problematic in terms of the laws of war as we know that even so-called "precision" munitions are anything but precise and cause a great deal of "collateral damage", ie the deaths of civilians and the destruction of civilian infrastructure. It has also been realised for a long time that aerial bombing alone rarely achieves anything substantive; it is usually merely the precursor to "boots on the ground". It's also fairly clear that bombing and other forms of military violence are a factor in rallying more recruits to the cause, leading to more violence. So while on the surface it may appear that bombing is the only option and/or the most effective option, deeper reflection often suggests otherwise.
47John5918
An interesting intervention by the Catholic representative to the UN. I haven't seen the full text of his remarks, but in this report at least there is no mention of endorsing a violent response to terrorism. However neither does he sanction inaction or passivity; indeed he sets out quite a challenging list of concrete actions to be taken.
'Collective international response' only counter to terror, nuncio says (NCR)
'Collective international response' only counter to terror, nuncio says (NCR)
48hf22
>47 John5918:
Reading into statements is not helpful. We know Vatican diplomacy under this Pope has authorised force (http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/03/13/vatican-backs-military-force-to-stop-isis-genocide/).
Reading into statements is not helpful. We know Vatican diplomacy under this Pope has authorised force (http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/03/13/vatican-backs-military-force-to-stop-isis-genocide/).
49hf22
>46 John5918:
Firstly no one suggests bombing in isolation can achieve strategic objectives. Particularly the limited bombing conducted under modern western rules of engagement. Pointing to stupid uses of force is a strawman.
Secondly, while military force is often used when it should not be, deeper reflection on concrete cases will not be found inclinations to absolutism. If you want to show force was not needed in Sinjar, you have to show other options and how they would work. Otherwise you have to defer to those on the ground and those expert in such matters.
More generally point to the ideal first, the abolition of war. Then speak to the nonviolent means available and their effectiveness. Then speak of how we are ready to fight over things not worth fighting. Then speak of the costs of war in human suffering. And finally acknowledge sometimes force will still be necessary, without trying to effectively deny this with switches between most conflicts and rare hard cases.
Then you will have a great argument, not riddled with stupidities and evil outcomes, which if accepted would be a boon for the common good. And all it costs is giving up on some rhetorical and ideological excesses.
Firstly no one suggests bombing in isolation can achieve strategic objectives. Particularly the limited bombing conducted under modern western rules of engagement. Pointing to stupid uses of force is a strawman.
Secondly, while military force is often used when it should not be, deeper reflection on concrete cases will not be found inclinations to absolutism. If you want to show force was not needed in Sinjar, you have to show other options and how they would work. Otherwise you have to defer to those on the ground and those expert in such matters.
More generally point to the ideal first, the abolition of war. Then speak to the nonviolent means available and their effectiveness. Then speak of how we are ready to fight over things not worth fighting. Then speak of the costs of war in human suffering. And finally acknowledge sometimes force will still be necessary, without trying to effectively deny this with switches between most conflicts and rare hard cases.
Then you will have a great argument, not riddled with stupidities and evil outcomes, which if accepted would be a boon for the common good. And all it costs is giving up on some rhetorical and ideological excesses.
50John5918
>48 hf22: We know Vatican diplomacy under this Pope has authorised force
That's as may be; "Vatican diplomacy" does all sorts of things. But the pope himself did not necessarily say so, and he specifically excluded bombing. Other Vatican officials are on record as saying that he didn't mean violence.
That's as may be; "Vatican diplomacy" does all sorts of things. But the pope himself did not necessarily say so, and he specifically excluded bombing. Other Vatican officials are on record as saying that he didn't mean violence.
51hf22
>50 John5918:
He did not "specifically exclude bombing". He said "I underscore the verb 'to stop'. I am not saying 'bomb' or 'make war', but 'stop him'. The means by which he can be stopped must be evaluated. Stopping the unjust aggressor is legitimate. Which is to say, if it could be done another way it should be, but they can be stopped by the means required.
Which was made clear by the later statement of the Vatican diplomat speaking in his capacity as a representative of the Pope, on a matter on which we know the Pope takes a personal interest. You can pretend otherwise, and ignoring inconvenient facts seems to be your favourite play on these matters, but it does not change the reality. Indeed, under the idea of Responsibility to Protect, Archbishop Silvano Tomasi called international military action in defense of beleaguered minorities “a doctrine that’s been developed both in the United Nations and in the social teaching of the Catholic Church."
He did not "specifically exclude bombing". He said "I underscore the verb 'to stop'. I am not saying 'bomb' or 'make war', but 'stop him'. The means by which he can be stopped must be evaluated. Stopping the unjust aggressor is legitimate. Which is to say, if it could be done another way it should be, but they can be stopped by the means required.
Which was made clear by the later statement of the Vatican diplomat speaking in his capacity as a representative of the Pope, on a matter on which we know the Pope takes a personal interest. You can pretend otherwise, and ignoring inconvenient facts seems to be your favourite play on these matters, but it does not change the reality. Indeed, under the idea of Responsibility to Protect, Archbishop Silvano Tomasi called international military action in defense of beleaguered minorities “a doctrine that’s been developed both in the United Nations and in the social teaching of the Catholic Church."
52hf22
Another take from Millennial, which looks to endorse peacemaking under the rubric of Just Peace, while maintaining the option of just military intervention (https://millennialjournal.com/2016/04/20/replace-just-war-theory-with-nonviolence-what-about-syria-and-genocide/).
BTW I don't agree with the Syrian Government as a example of where a just military intervention could have been made. While I don't dispute they are an undesirable regime, I don't think a case has ever been made as to how a military intervention would have helped. Our militaries could have destroyed the regime itself, but we have very little ability to shape the resulting new order (and intervening civil war) in a way which would not end up with worse.
BTW I don't agree with the Syrian Government as a example of where a just military intervention could have been made. While I don't dispute they are an undesirable regime, I don't think a case has ever been made as to how a military intervention would have helped. Our militaries could have destroyed the regime itself, but we have very little ability to shape the resulting new order (and intervening civil war) in a way which would not end up with worse.
53hf22
Another take, with a mention of South Sudan (http://ncronline.org/blogs/making-difference/vatican-conference-urges-church-abandon-just-war-theory).
I do wish the non violence of the early Church was not so poorly used in such articles however. Starting with the fact it was answering a different question (can a Christian serve in the Roman army) and is based on a narrow sample of patristic witnesses (Tertullian and Origen mostly, neither of whom are canonised, because their witness is tainted with error).
I mean it is a real thing#, and does support Christian nonviolence. But it needs better handling to learn its lessons. Like how with the end of Christiandom and Christian states, is our question now closer to that asked pre Constantine than those asked post Constantine, and does that lead us to a more strict pacifism in our own day?
#A real thing if we rightly ignore praxis, as Christians did serve in the army without active Church censure, as Tertullian himself attests before his rigorist turn. A fact which does not weaken the support pacifism gets from the witness of the early Church, but worth keeping in mind for when ppl argue the opposite re slavery etc.
I do wish the non violence of the early Church was not so poorly used in such articles however. Starting with the fact it was answering a different question (can a Christian serve in the Roman army) and is based on a narrow sample of patristic witnesses (Tertullian and Origen mostly, neither of whom are canonised, because their witness is tainted with error).
I mean it is a real thing#, and does support Christian nonviolence. But it needs better handling to learn its lessons. Like how with the end of Christiandom and Christian states, is our question now closer to that asked pre Constantine than those asked post Constantine, and does that lead us to a more strict pacifism in our own day?
#A real thing if we rightly ignore praxis, as Christians did serve in the army without active Church censure, as Tertullian himself attests before his rigorist turn. A fact which does not weaken the support pacifism gets from the witness of the early Church, but worth keeping in mind for when ppl argue the opposite re slavery etc.
54hf22
And going the other way, the limits of pacifism (http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/limits-pacifism).
55JGL53
> 54, etc.
I have just finished reading a detailed account of the Crusades.
I now understand that 99.9 per cent of today's christians are big fat pussies.
I conclude the problem of christian violence is very close to being utterly solved.
As all this dovetails perfectly with my new attitude of always looking on the bright side of life, I am well pleased.
Namaste.
I have just finished reading a detailed account of the Crusades.
I now understand that 99.9 per cent of today's christians are big fat pussies.
I conclude the problem of christian violence is very close to being utterly solved.
As all this dovetails perfectly with my new attitude of always looking on the bright side of life, I am well pleased.
Namaste.
56hf22
A Protestant theological view in favour of nonviolence (http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2016/04/26/4450563.htm). Which seems to aggressively miss the point, but still.
57southernbooklady
Daniel J. Berrigan has died. He's sort of the embodiment of activist pacifism.
58John5918
Yes. I posted a couple of articles about him on the other thread where peacebuilding is being discussed, #142 at http://www.librarything.com/topic/172073#5566505
Incidentally I also posted an article from Sojourners at #140.
Incidentally I also posted an article from Sojourners at #140.
59prosfilaes
>41 southernbooklady: But then wouldn't moral motivations demand we intervene and start just wars on behalf of every endangered population?
No. Sometimes it's not the right tool for the job.
That assumes that people only follow the law out of fear. It assumes they can't be convinced to change their minds.
If the court makes its ruling and people follow it, it's not because they've changed their minds about the fundamental matter. It may be too simplistic and essentialistic to always boil it down to "state power" for the reason people follow the law, but as Andrew Jackson said, "The Supreme Court has made their decision; now let them enforce it." Even with the forced integration of Little Rock High School demonstrating a federal power that wasn't there in Jackson's day, the states hardly jumped to follow the court's decisions.
>38 John5918: It therefore challenges the assumption that nonviolence is not successful, or is only successful in certain "soft" struggles, or against conscience-stricken democratic regimes.
I, like many readers, have a sprawling mess of a collection demanding to be read. It would be better for this discussion if I did read it, but odds are not looking good. And my question isn't really statistical; we keep referring to the US Civil Rights movement as an example. I'd like to see a good example of a successful non-violent response to sheer tyranny. Is there really no point at which a willingness to use pure brutality will crush a non-violent movement?
No. Sometimes it's not the right tool for the job.
That assumes that people only follow the law out of fear. It assumes they can't be convinced to change their minds.
If the court makes its ruling and people follow it, it's not because they've changed their minds about the fundamental matter. It may be too simplistic and essentialistic to always boil it down to "state power" for the reason people follow the law, but as Andrew Jackson said, "The Supreme Court has made their decision; now let them enforce it." Even with the forced integration of Little Rock High School demonstrating a federal power that wasn't there in Jackson's day, the states hardly jumped to follow the court's decisions.
>38 John5918: It therefore challenges the assumption that nonviolence is not successful, or is only successful in certain "soft" struggles, or against conscience-stricken democratic regimes.
I, like many readers, have a sprawling mess of a collection demanding to be read. It would be better for this discussion if I did read it, but odds are not looking good. And my question isn't really statistical; we keep referring to the US Civil Rights movement as an example. I'd like to see a good example of a successful non-violent response to sheer tyranny. Is there really no point at which a willingness to use pure brutality will crush a non-violent movement?
60John5918
>59 prosfilaes: I'd like to see a good example of a successful non-violent response to sheer tyranny
I don't have the book with me at this moment to go through it and list some. But one which I personally witnessed was the overthrow of Nimeiri's regime in Sudan in 1985 by intifada (popular uprising).
Is there really no point at which a willingness to use pure brutality will crush a non-violent movement?
Of course nonviolent resistance will not always succeed. But there is no guarantee that violent resistance will succeed either, and there is evidence that nonviolence is twice as likely to succeed. Also, while pure brutality may succeed against a nonviolent campaign in the short-term, it often sows the seeds of its own downfall and leads to more successful nonviolent action later.
I don't have the book with me at this moment to go through it and list some. But one which I personally witnessed was the overthrow of Nimeiri's regime in Sudan in 1985 by intifada (popular uprising).
Is there really no point at which a willingness to use pure brutality will crush a non-violent movement?
Of course nonviolent resistance will not always succeed. But there is no guarantee that violent resistance will succeed either, and there is evidence that nonviolence is twice as likely to succeed. Also, while pure brutality may succeed against a nonviolent campaign in the short-term, it often sows the seeds of its own downfall and leads to more successful nonviolent action later.
61hf22
>60 John5918:
Once again, please oh please, stop misusing evidence.
That X is twice as likely to succeed on average than Y for a population of Z conflicts, does NOT mean there are not conflicts for which Y is not a better (or the only) option.
Especially when we know different types of conflicts will respond differently to different approaches. For example, what works against say a 20thC democracy (say the British in India or US Civil Rights), is not going to work against a 20thC totalitarian state (say Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia).
Pretending otherwise gets to horrific results, like what would have happened if the Jewish people followed the advise attributed to Gandhi in relation to the Holocaust.
Once again, please oh please, stop misusing evidence.
That X is twice as likely to succeed on average than Y for a population of Z conflicts, does NOT mean there are not conflicts for which Y is not a better (or the only) option.
Especially when we know different types of conflicts will respond differently to different approaches. For example, what works against say a 20thC democracy (say the British in India or US Civil Rights), is not going to work against a 20thC totalitarian state (say Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia).
Pretending otherwise gets to horrific results, like what would have happened if the Jewish people followed the advise attributed to Gandhi in relation to the Holocaust.
62John5918
A couple of recent things which struck me as examples of what modern war is really like - both resonate with my own personal experience of war:
When will the UK stand up to save education from bullets and bombs? (Guardian) on respect for education facilities.
UN Security Council Resolution 2286 (2016) on respect for medical and humanitarian personnel and facilities.
When will the UK stand up to save education from bullets and bombs? (Guardian) on respect for education facilities.
UN Security Council Resolution 2286 (2016) on respect for medical and humanitarian personnel and facilities.
