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.
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 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.
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.
To prevent acts of violence or oppression against other people or groups. There are many hypotheticals. . I believe there are bad people in the world / people who's goals dont align. unfortunately words fail and violence is the lowest common denominator
Oke defending yourself the weak and the opressed could be a good reason for using violence but it still should not be your first option unless violence is already being used by another party and you dont have the luxary of thinking things trough
Then I am a conditional pacifist. I'm against war and violence in principle but that must never prevent an entity from defending/attacking to prevent its own demise.
I get told by a lot of people in real life that I am nice, but don't mistake me for being a pushover. When you rub me the wrong way I'll fight back. I never start fights, but I'll be glad to finish them.
I'm disagree with you. As a pacifist I think the civilian population (including women, children and pacifist men) shouldn't be attacked because I don't believe in violence or war, making more misery in the world. Even if they think "bad" things, they're still innocent as long they don't do any actions. It's bad enough soldiers are attacking each others. As long the armies on both of the sides are voluntarily and don't attack civilians, it wouldn't be equal bad and then it would be up to them if they wanted to waste all their energy on this crap!
Even if Russia attacked my country, I would still believe in a diplomatic solution on the problem and that no one needed to be violent. I would even speak against people in my own country if they wanted to use violence against civilians.
Curiousnorway, I can see by your response that you have had the privilege of never having been to war. Women and children can just as easily shoot you or blow up in your face. Everyone is a potential hostile until proven otherwise.
@WrathXXI, children isn't mature like adults, so adults have more responsibility then them. In addition children have rights that's agreed upon in UN. Civilian women and men usually aren't guilty and don't want war. So you can't just attack them for no reason or if they hasn't done something. That's inhumane and injustice.
I am well aware. Potential hostile is not treated the same as a confirmed hostile. You also have to remember that since 2001, the US and other nations haven't been fighting against a uniformed military. It's very much been civilian combatants taking up arms, including women and children. A war against another nation is one thing. A war against groups like Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS/ISIL, etc is a completely different type of war.
@WrathXXI, I guess we can just be agreeing in disagreeing. I would rather die than kill children and innocent civilians just because of people seeing them as a potential threat.
Curiousnorway, you don't shoot at potential threats, which is what I'm assuming you as misunderstanding. You watch them very closely, and if they make a potentially aggressive move, you first warn, then fire. There is an entire list that goes with escalation of force. However, if I see them with a firearm in their hands, I'm going to either order them to drop it or shoot them, depending on the situation. If they have no visible weapons, then they are getting restrained and searched while held at gunpoint, in case they pull anything.
However, if they are a confirmed threat, such as pointing a gun at you or yours, then personally I would open fire, no matter who is holding it. If you are old enough to pick that weapon up and point it at someone, then you are old enough to keep me from seeing my family, and I will do whatever I need to do to see my family at the end of the day.
@WrathXXI, thanks for clearing it up. A 10 year old child with a gun may be forced to do it. So if they're dangerous, using water cannon or pepper spraying them might work and is bad enough. No need to do anything else. Although some children are child soldiers, they should be spared.
Curiousnorway, the problem is that you don't ever have a water cannon and cannot get close enough for pepper spray. Normally military do not carry non-lethal means of neutralizing a person unless it is otherwise planned. Last time I checked, water cannons and pepper spray do not come close to the same effective range of an AK-47.
Except greed, tyranny, abuse, enslavement, resources, starving populations on purpose, and any number of other causes that have caused 95% of the wars through history, unlike religion.
Also, don't go trying to pull the Crusades as a counter, because the first Crusade had to do with Muslims violently invading their way into Turkey, as well as across the northern part of Africa and crossed the strait between the Mediterranean and Atlantic, and started invading into Europe that way. The Church was both a political body and a religious one, so they used religion to motivate men into fighting, because otherwise the many kingdoms would not unite and put away their differences. The other crusades after the first one were due to greed, because the kingdoms and the church saw the plunder they brought back with them and were hungry for more. What this little history lesson demonstrates is that land, retaliation, resources and greed were the causes of the Crusades. Religion was just used as a tool to rally the troops on both sides.
What should the meaning be? I think there should be degrees on pacifism like right and left-sides in the politics since it would describe more accurately. In my home country republicans are considered very right-sided, while democrats are considered just a little bit on the right-side.
Well the actual meaning is to find war and violence to be unjustifiable, and someone who refuses to be violent. I feel like the answer to 'are you a pacifist' is a simple yes or no, as in do you absolutely refuse to be violent in any situation, or are you willing to be violent if the situation arises?
im against war unless you have to defend yourself. i dont believing in going to war to steal other countries natural resources, for imperialism, or over politics.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions