Absolute pacifist = Against all kinds of violence and war. Even if it's self-defense because they thinks people's right to live is more important.
Conditional pacifism = Conditional pacifists are against war and violence in principle, but they accept that there may be circumstances when war will be less bad than the alternative.
Conditional pacifists usually base their moral code on Utilitarian principles - it's the bad consequences that make it wrong to resort to war or violence.
Selective pacifism = Other pacifists believe that it is a matter of degree, and only oppose wars involving weapons of mass destruction - nuclear or chemical and biological weapons - either because of the uniquely devastating consequences of such weapons, or because a war that uses such weapons is not 'winnable'.
Active pacifists = Politically active people who are promoting peace, having anti-war campaign and their lifestyle are matching their ideology. They refuse to join the military. Some may accept civilian services, but others don't.
I am not a pacifist. The closest I could see to my ideology is selective pacifism, which isn't really pacifism at all. Hell, I'd be more than willing to go to war against someone using WMDs against their own population (Looking at you, Syria).
I do not support undue violence, or excessive violence. However, war is sometimes necessary. Self defense is sometimes necessary. Pre-emptive strikes are sometimes necessary. It all depends on what is going to get the job done most effectively with the least amount of resources, time, and effort put into it. If that's a diplomatic solution, so be it. If it is an airstrike, so be it.
Self-defense is the only kind of violence I accept. However, even when it comes to self-defense, I believe violence should be an absolute last resort. There are many cases where even the most unjustified attacks from outside can be resolved without any further violence (for example with smart diplomacy).
I do not believe there truly is peace. 'Peace' is oftentimes misconstrued as non-aggression.
Non-aggression does not equal harmony. Take, for instance, two groups that strongly disagree with each other's stances, yet refuse to partake in violence. Refusing to resort to violence is non-aggression; however, it does not mean that the two groups are in good terms.
Not all pacifists have identical ideas of what peace is because peace itself is arbitrarily defined by the people with idealistic perspectives. Why do you think there are endless debates regarding what the 'religion of peace' is?
Umm I don't know which. All i know is, i thank the troops for what theyve done bt i never want to join the military and i hope my future kids dont join. I hate that there has to be war. I much rather there be peace. Im not about to get out and actively campaign though. Its pointless. I feel that if someone attacks you, you should act in self defense though. But dont try to intentionally kill them. Just bring them down and capture them (jailbound ig?). Anyways, you tell me which i am cause I don't know
No because their is no such thing as pacifism. If some one attacks you and you fight back, you believe in the use of force. If some one attacks you or some one else and you do nothing then you are condoning their use of force. If you or someone else is being attacked and you call the police or call on some one else to use violence to stop the violent criminal, then you absolutely condone the use of violence just so long as it doesn't have to be you making you not only not a pacifist but a coward as well. In every situation you are condoning violence in some capacity, so I choose to condone the violence that protects those who have done no wrong, its the only moral choice in my opinion.
The BBC is so biased. So-called "conditional pacifism" is not pacifism at all; they only call it that so they can claim that there are way more pacifists than there actually are. I couldn't even fall into that camp because of the appeal to utilitarianism. I agree with basically everything else in the so-called "conditional pacifist" position, but wars can also be justfied on purely ideological grounds. If a faction, especially a government, is based on a lie (example: "the Jews are behind all our problems") then making war against that faction is right even if the lie led to a net gain in utility.
I guess I would be a conditional pacifist. That said I have little patience for diplomatic bullshit so I would be a terrible world leader.
In essence I see war as a huge waste of manpower and resources but it can also open up opportunities in the future. Its undeniable that countries have prospered greatly from winning certain conflicts to secure national interests. That said it often comes at a cost on a global setting so if we look at the whole picture then its still a net loss.
The most efficient system would be to all work together in harmony, barring that you at least need to secure the minimum of national interests like raw resources or strategic positions otherwise your nation will suffer.
I am a conditional pacifist I don't like violence but I do t mind it in games but real life it still has its place I understand maybe if I had my life to do over and I knew the road my life would take maybe I would have defended myself instead of just standing there with my hands in my pockets but I guess that's something I can be glad I didn't do anything and end in prison who knows right maybe I am just over thinking it now
I think I feel the same way (as in, being a conditional pacifist), but I'm not sure. I abhor violence, but I understand that sometimes you have no choice but to engage in it out of justifiable necessity.
Side note: The graffiti on the wall is Arabic and it says: ABU JARIR LOVE ALL
I oppose war, but my reasoning is not based in utilitarian principles. I mostly follow the principles from the metaphysics of ethics, although in edge cases I do deviate (which is ironically against one of the core principles; those exceptions have mostly no bearing on this question though). Where I advocate violence is where one tries to infringe on another's dignity and no nonviolent option can be expected to succeed.
Conditional Pacifism. I stand for Non-Aggression Principle. Unless provoked would not engange in any forms of aggression. Believe in strong defense, defense for ourselves and our allies. Defending if necessity arises like to prevent genocide.
In certain cases I am willing to take pre-emptive action, like if enemy is on our doorstep, or using drones to kill suspected terrorists who intend harm.
I want peace as much as anybody else. However, there will always be evil men with ambitions of power in this world. If those evil men attack my country with the intent of taking away my God given rights than war is the only option. The idea that talking to those people, or that protesting that war will change their minds is asinine.
I don't know which category I fall under but I don't ever justify war. But when a country wages war in another and the other country fight back (essentially engage in war), I would justify that. And only if that were to protect themselves and their land.
Sometimes violence is necessary. Most of the time it doesn't help but in a few cases it's morally correct. E. g The joker, he's killed probably millions of people in the DC universe and shows no willingness to change. Killing or crippling him would save tonnes of lives at the cost of his.
In real life if a serious killer or group like that appeared then maybe killing or scattering them would benefit others more.
Circumstances are way more complicated than these handful of categories. Such hypocracy - If you eat meat you promote violence against animals. Humans were bred to be violent and peaceful depending on the situation. We are all pacifists in that we don't want violence done onto us.
I'd say conditional. War isn't nice, but the world isn't all sunshines and raibows. You can't reason with some people, some groups, some organization, who use violence, war and death to prosperate, and see pacifism as a weakness to exploit to get more power. Sometimes, you have to crush the enemy because that's the only way to stop him.
Conditional, while war and violence is terrible; I recognise that there are times when leaders won't be open to diplomatic and negotiating, those that are aggressive and dictatorial, and there's also the issue of defending a country after it is attacked.
Conditional but I would say I'm more of a consequentialist than utilitarian... and obviously (for whom has thought a little about moral philosophy) all moral stances have their limits so my consequentialism is not absolute... That would be monstrous)
Conditional pacifist. Though I never served, I want a strong military so as to make people think twice about starting war, & only use them when there is no other way.
I'd be a fool not to love peace, but peace at any price never works. Sometimes people have to take a stand for something.
I'm pacifist unless my country is attacked then we should go to war. If others countries who aren't my own are being attacked we shouldn't go to war or get involved.
Conditional pacifism because I don’t like war and Im against it but when someone wants to kill people of my country or they are a threat to my country I believe in war and I’ll kill every one of them
I sees myself as a conditional pacifist too. I'm against war and violence. I think people should always try solving the problem in a peaceful way and do diplomacy. War is almost always completely wrong. But sometimes it happens as a last resort. People started war to stop the holocaust and the slavery for instance. Killing is wrong, but in these cases it was the lesser bad of the few options you could choose between. If a country tries to invade another country, people should first try to convince them to stop doing that. War is the last resort after trying all the other methods imho.
I wouldn't say I believe in war. In some of the cases where it's used as the last resort I wouldn't say killing is justifying, good or right. It's still wrong, but it may just be a lesser bad of all the bad things.
Most Helpful Opinions