Pacifism, Ethics and Dhamma

[Mr Man]

Speculating what the holocaust death toll would have been if a particular forum member were prime minster really is complete and utter nonsense.

[Ceisiwr]

Speculating what the holocaust death toll would have been if a particular forum member were prime minster really is complete and utter nonsense.

Knowing what you do, how would you have campaigned during WW2? Would you be pro war or anti war?


Let's rephrase this, were those who used violence against Nazi Germany justified or not?

[Aloka]

Speculating what the holocaust death toll would have been if a particular forum member were prime minster really is complete and utter nonsense.

.

[Ceisiwr]

IF one knows.

Perhaps it leads later to BILLIONS choosing violence first, instead of considering options. What of this cost? And etc.

I must emphasize again your lack of omniscience.

Let's say I take a pacifist position for moral reasons, Dhammic reasons and because I can't know the outcome of a situation. Let's say the whole (or majority) of the UK, US and France were convinced the same, now let's say the year was 1938. What would have happened?



All that is needed for a million pacifist humans to fall into tyranny is for one man to be violent.

[daverupa]

All that is needed for a million pacifist humans to fall into tyranny is for one man to be violent.

Okay, so I'm back, alas. But seriously.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... dictators/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You have no argument, clw_uk.

[Ceisiwr]

All that is needed for a million pacifist humans to fall into tyranny is for one man to be violent.

Okay, so I'm back, alas. But seriously.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... dictators/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You have no argument, clw_uk.

That means nothing. If a million people refuse to defend themselves, then it only takes one man putting a gun to their children's heads for them to do his bidding.

[daverupa]

:cited data:

"That means nothing."

The shape of this conversation is very clear, now. Enjoy the sandbox.

[Ceisiwr]

You have no argument, clw_uk.

Perhaps you could avoid politician type answers?


Were the D-Day landings justified or not? Were the allies "evil" for landing their armies in France and clearing Nazism from Europe?

Yes or no?


Yes or no?


Strange how I have given a definitive answer, yet you have wormed your way out of giving a definite position by hiding behind pseudo-philisophical positions.

Why is it so hard to state it you would kill or not?

[daverupa]

Fallacy of Many Questions.



Pseudo-philosophical, eh... this is really interesting, and aggressive.

[Ceisiwr]

If I'm coming across aggressive then I'll duck out, that's not my intent. All I will say is that to me pacifism doesn't seem to be the answer to everything.

[daverupa]

No one has said it is.

[chownah]

IF one knows.

Perhaps it leads later to BILLIONS choosing violence first, instead of considering options. What of this cost? And etc.

I must emphasize again your lack of omniscience.

Let's say I take a pacifist position for moral reasons, Dhammic reasons and because I can't know the outcome of a situation. Let's say the whole (or majority) of the UK, US and France were convinced the same, now let's say the year was 1938. What would have happened?



All that is needed for a million pacifist humans to fall into tyranny is for one man to be violent.

If all those people were pacifist I am sure that there would have to have been a large percentage of germans being pacifist too and if the were actively pacifist this would have stopped the rise of the problem.
chownah

[Spiny Norman]

Were the D-Day landings justified or not?

Absolutely. In a similar situation would you have any moral objection to being one of those making the assault?

[Modus.Ponens]

My answer to the Hitler dilemma is I don't know. By principle, I wouldn't kill. But since I am not sure I can do it for a couple of people, I cannot possibly know if I would not do it to save millions

Its simple really

If you knew that putting a bullet in Hitlers brain would save millions of babies from the gas chambers, would you do it? Or would you refrain from such an act?


It would seem that if you answer no, then you simply sacrifice millions just so you can be free from pain. Doesn't sound that noble does it?

It's simple to you, not to me.

Yes, it doesn't sound noble, but perhaps in the buddhist cosmological reality it is nobler. It really depends on how much faith you have. You are trying to debate "on my terms", but that's impossible because it is very abstract to you, so you can't relate to my position at all and you think it's ignoble. I understand the criticism, but the teachings, or at least the orthodox teachings, support my stance.

You're not going to get a better answer to this, sorry. It isn't satisfactory, I know, but I can't do much better.

[Mkoll]

Speculating what the holocaust death toll would have been if a particular forum member were prime minster really is complete and utter nonsense.

Indeed.

~~~

If all those people were pacifist I am sure that there would have to have been a large percentage of germans being pacifist too and if the were actively pacifist this would have stopped the rise of the problem.
chownah

I think that's an important point. The reason any nation is able to make war in the first place is because enough people in their population are willing to participate in it.