|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Pacifist Christians are hypocrites if they call the cops?
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
RuthW nicely summarized what I take to be the central issue: "I think one of the main difficulties in discussing how pacifists should live, what we should do, is that pacifism is so very absolute, so very ideal, at least the pacifism that I was taught."
But if a position isn't defended in practice, in what meaningful sense is it held?
I hold some absolute beliefs, such as free speech. That means I'll force myself to defend the speech rights of assorted Nazis, televangelists, and cold callers.
If I couldn't bring myself to do that, I wouldn't say that I believed in free speech. Many others who like the idea of free speech, but can't tolerate its consequences, adopt the refrain, "I believe in free speech, but ..." (here's why speech I don't like should be censored).
Likewise, pacifism frequently appears to be "pacifism but ..." If a belief doesn't hold up in practice, surely it ought to be reexamined?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
I think there are two key distinctions here. First, between principles and ideals. A principle is supposed to be foundational to one's thought and behaviour, to govern what one actually does. An ideal is instead what one wishes one's thought and behaviour to be like, it is a goal for what one does. Second, between compromising and failing. In compromising, one intentionally gives something up to achieve something else. In failing, one does not achieve what one attempts to do, against one's will.
Pacifism is a matter of principles, not of ideals. One would hope that all Christians, and indeed most people, have peace and non-violence as their ideal. What is distinctive about a pacifist is that they elevate this to a governing principle.
However, one can fail and compromise ideals, but one can only fail principles. One cannot compromise principles. The reason is simply that compromise is deliberate, and that in giving up one thing for another, one assigns greater value to something else. Therefore, a deliberately broken principle becomes second tier to something else - some other more foundational concern - and therefore cease to be a principle - for a principle just is first tier in the value system. Generally, a compromised principle becomes an ideal.
This is different from failing, which is not intended. One can fail one's principles all the time. That does not mean that one does not hold them, it just means that one has a hard time living up to them. Of course, if one fails principles all the time, questions can be raised how appropriate and sensible it is to have such apparently unachievable principles. Yet this is still is not the same thing as compromising principles. The difference is in the deliberation.
Somebody who fails their ideals or principles may be in a sad state. Likewise somebody who compromises their ideals. None of these people is however typically a hypocrite (in the true meaning of that word). However, somebody who compromises their principles, and nevertheless claims to hold them really is a hypocrite. For a compromise does abandon principle and it is hence a lie to claim to have principles and at the same time compromise them.
After this detour it is clear that a pacifist, somebody who hold peace and non-violence as principle, cannot compromise this stance. If they do, then these principles become mere ideals and they cease being a pacifist. And if they continue to claim pacifist status, then that is hypocritical.
For the case in the OP, the only remaining question is whether it is licit to have principles of peace and non-violence, but to delegate violence and war to someone else. The answer is of course, no. Murder does not become licit just because I contract it out to a professional killer. Delegation does not generally remove culpability, unless one is unaware of what the person one has hired is going to do. Thus to the extent that a pacifist knows what violence the police may apply, they are virtually doing that violence themselves. Unless a pacifist is horribly naive (say a child), they will know that a certain degree of violence is to be expected in policing - in particular for cases where one feels the urgent need to call them in!
So, no, I do not think that a pacifist can call the cops without becoming a hypocrite. I also think that there is really only one way in which to live as a pacifist in this world, and that is to withdraw from the world. Become a monk in Clairvaux, and you can have a fair shot at it...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Again, the only reason why I call the cops is when there isn't enough of me to stop the violence.
So perhaps I'm not a pacifist. Except in my armchair.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
The 'don't use lethal force' has its grey areas, but it's definitely less arbitrary than 'don't use lethal force against innocent people'.
If you strip out guilt and innocence (hardly an arbitrary distinction, since it's framed by law) then in your hostage scenario, killing the hostage isn't justified, as it doesn't end the threat. Just the opposite, it may well increase it, by spooking hostage-taker so much they panic and start shooting wildly.
Firstly, the idea that guilt and innocence is enshrined in law seems to me problematic. Firstly, I doubt you think that whether it's acceptable to shoot someone to prevent death varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Secondly, the question is what kind of guilt is sufficient to allow us to kill someone in order to save a third party? Murder? Manslaughter? Hiring a hitman? Theft? Littering? (Ok - the last one is facetious.)
Trying to shoot the hostage taker might well provoke the hostage taker into starting firing as well - rather the point of taking hostages I believe. It's not consistent to talk as if we know for sure that not shooting the hostage taker will result in more loss of life than shooting him or her will; but to argue that we can't be sure of the results of shooting the hostage.
If we rephrase: suppose the shooter is using a hostage as a human shield, and we know that if the shooter isn't stopped he or she will kill three people (or otherwise some situation in which on your view killing two guilty people would be the right thing to do).
quote:
Such better resemble a thought experiment than the day-to-day concerns of law enforcement.
If you're engaged in the day-to-day concerns of law enforcement right now, stop wasting the taxpayers' time and money and get on with your job.
What we are doing here is discussing what principles should underlie policy.
quote:
Regardless, the principles are clear: deadly force is justified to prevent the death of yourself or a third party.
Except that you've already said that deadly force is not justified if the person you're killing is 'innocent'. So it's not so clear.
[ 27. September 2014, 13:14: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Pacifism is a matter of principles, not of ideals. One would hope that all Christians, and indeed most people, have peace and non-violence as their ideal. What is distinctive about a pacifist is that they elevate this to a governing principle.
I think that is why I am not a pacifist. I agree that it cannot be elevated to a governing principle in terms of earthly governments.
But I wonder if pacifists really elevate the ideal to a governing principle. I wonder if it is as clear cut as that in practice?
Is the governing principle one which they seek to apply amongst themselves (e.g. Mennonites) as an example of Kingdom ideals at work? Do they advance it as a principle which should inform the actions of all governments? I don't know enough about the practices of self-declared pacifist communities.
IngoB, you may be right in identifying it as a ideal turned into a principle (or a community rule) in enclosed or separated communities. That may indeed be so with the Amish, for example.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Dafyd, what point, exactly, are you trying to make?
We (well, you) could spend all day thinking up weird scenarios in which innocents have to be sacrificed for the greater good. If they ever happen, which is unlikely, they'll be tested on a case-by-case basis by the courts.
I've given my view on when deadly force is justified: while the details may vary slightly, most jurisdictions fix on an imminent threat to life and limb.
What's your position?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think that is why I am not a pacifist. I agree that it cannot be elevated to a governing principle in terms of earthly governments.
But I wonder if pacifists really elevate the ideal to a governing principle. I wonder if it is as clear cut as that in practice?
Is the governing principle one which they seek to apply amongst themselves (e.g. Mennonites) as an example of Kingdom ideals at work? Do they advance it as a principle which should inform the actions of all governments? ...
Indeed, things always get much more complicated if believers in anything don't isolate or withdraw. It may be hypocritical for a pacifist to e.g. call the cops to help her/himself, but I think the neighbours would still hope and expect her/him to call the cops to help THEM. I don't have an answer, and the question isn't just about pacifism. Let's say I believe (insert favourite Dead Horse) is immoral. So I personally don't do it. How imperative is it for me to stop anyone else who tries to do it?
Perhaps, rather than expecting pacifism to work as an absolute principle, it should be considered a goal or a method, the first resort in any situation. Can we at least try it out once in a while rather than just give up and claim it never works? The best reason to make an effort to resolve conflicts peacefully, to raggedly paraphrase Ghandi, is that that when violence is used to resolve a conflict, the solution is usually temporary, but the damage is always permanent.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Don't worry, I will ALWAYS hypocritically call the cops when it kicks off at Triangle beyond my ability to stop it with appropriate force.
Excellent second para there Big Sister.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
