Some people says pacifists are weak and coward because they often refuse to join the military, other thinks they're strong for having a different opinion. I'm wondering what YOU think and WHY. #Pacifism#Pacifist#War#CowardVsBravery The different types of pacifism according to BBC. I'm a conditional pacifist and I think many pacifists are both brave and strong. Many of them aren't afraid of dying, but don't want to inflict pain on anyone. They think there are many peaceful solutions on conflicts. They're very idealistic, but usually not coward in my opinion.
Strong And Brave (WHY)
Weak And Cowards (WHY)
Depends on which type of pacifism we're talking about here (EXPLAIN) (Absolute, conditional, selective, active pacifism)
Depends from person to person
Other (Explain what and why)
Select gender and age to cast your vote:
Please select your age
Are pacifists strong and brave or weak and cowards?
Voted "Other" but I could have also voted for it depending on the person. Some are pacifists out of convenience, others out of conviction. The problem is secondarily the person. The problem is the principle.
While I am not a fan of John Stuart Mill, one of the fathers of utilitarianism, and as such of modern democracy, noted the weakness of pacifism.
To quote: "“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse... A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.”
In 1914 as World War I was breaking out in Europe, President Wilson declared American neutrality, announcing that it was possible for a nation to be too proud to fight. It is hard to imagine how different the rest of the 20th century might have been but for Mr. Wilson's pride.
Once again, an excellent point. Wilson gets far too much of a free ride. His dogmatic idealism was, in my opinion, a major factor in flawed peace settlements that led directly to the Second World War.
@JimRSmith Thanks, very kind - and absolutely agree. The man who was elected President and went on to break the 20th century. While I am somewhat ambivalent about his domestic policy, his foreign policy was a catastrophe.
You are right that much of what he did was a major factor leading to WWII, he also unleashed forces that still haunt the world to this day. The principle of national self-determination - which is tearing the Middle East to pieces and still roils Europe. His naive belief that the forces held in check by the balance of power could be abolished by parchment international law.
Suffice to say I could go on, and that does not even reflect the impact it has had on the conduct of American foreign policy to this day. Believe me, we are as one on this.
Anyhow, thanks again for your very generous remarks.
Well it does take some courage to stick to ones convictions if there are consequences to it If you look at the US during the Vietnam war for example pacifists had to flee their country or imprisonment etc. If they were conscripted and many did Now in many places it has little consequences declaring yourself pacifist so no way of telling from a person really Here in Denmark there is a draft every year 18 year old men go get a physical and an interview and get to draw a number and the number decides if you are drafted or not Now if you get drafted but object to military service then you get put into a similar civilian service for the service time instead It does not really cost you anything to refuse Who knows how many who refuse if the alternative was to flee the country?
Jeg er glad for at det er frivillig i Norge. I tillegg så har jeg medisinske grunner til å slippe. Jeg har ikke lyst til å være med i militæret og ser meg selv som pasifist. Jeg fikk brev fra forsvaret at jeg slapp da jeg ble spurt.
Translated: I'm glad it's voluntarily in Norway. In addition I've medical reasons, so I get away with it. I wouldn't want to join and see myself as a pacifist. I received a letter from the military that I didn't have to join when they drafted people.
Most people I know are selective pacifists. Selective anything is usually a recipe for disaster on a moral stance like that, so yes, on that I'm gonna go with weak and coward. However, though, this doesn't make the original objective weak or cowardly. I can probably describe myself as a conditional but active pacifist. I don't talk about it much. I'm not anti-violence in any and all cases. I believe in self-defense after repeated harassment/bullying. But all within reason. Most of the time, I have found that people who respond with violence are not people who don't know any other way to defend themselves, but are using it as a constant tool. That's the kind of violence I'm against. I don't think conflict can be avoided, and people who talk big about peace in the world are not usually the ones I consider true pacifists. Those are the ones that most would consider weak.
It entirely depends on person to person, some pacifist just believe no war, some believe in no fighting, and some believe in peace in everything. There are many different examples on which pacifist can lead their lives but ultimately it's what they choose to do with their lives as what matters. If people can think that there can be a world without war then I'm all for it, robber they must understand that there are situations where war is necessary. So basically my point being is whether you are a pacifist or not no matter what you do or choose it will only affect you.
10.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
i think it is relative to a situation
if you opt not to help a person in need because it involves physical altercation then i'd suggest you may be acting cowardly if you opt not to go join a military and not have a choice in who you fight i would not suggest that is cowardly
Cowards. There are bad people in this world. This has been true during every period in history, across every country, just as it is true now and always will be.
There's nothing brave about standing by and allowing harm to come to your self, family, or others.
Pacifism is saying "Yes I know there's a problem, but I refuse to do anything about it because of my moral cowardice I've come to the conclusion that stopping bad people from doing bad things to others is somehow wrong."
Bravery comes from taking action when there are potential dangers. Pacifism is about inaction or attempting to run away from those dangers.
They're allowed to run away if they like, it's their life after all. Calling them brave though... that's a bigger insult than saying Jenner was brave.
You may mean "Admirable", which is fine. Brave though? Fuck off. There's nothing brave about inaction. All you're doing is shifting the burden of defense onto others and demanding that others out themselves in harm's way to protect you.
Calling pacifism brave and strong is a backwards way of seeing things.
This has to do with what Nietzsche called "slave morality". When Nietzche spoke about slave morality he talked mainly about the Christians. He basically said that Christianity came about in the late Roman empire, in the minds of timid slaves who lacked the stomach to get hold of what they really wanted, so they clung to a philosophy that made a virtue of their cowardice.
They wanted the good things in life but they didn't have the mental of the physical capacity to get hem, so instead they created a backwards, hypocritical value system that denounced all of the things they wanted while they praised the things they didn't want but happened to have.
Sexlessness became "purity". Weakness became "goodness". Submission to people one hates became "obedience". Not being able to take revenge became "forgiveness".
This is where the idea pacifism comes from. "Turning the other cheek" - forgiveness. Putting others before yourself. Most pacifists couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag, of course they're going to claim their lack of ability to defend themselves as a virtue.
""It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. Violence is any day preferable to impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent.".
~ Mahatma Gandhi
It's all based on the individual. Many Pacifists aren't actually Pacifist. Some Pacifist are cowards (I tend to agree this is most). Some Pacifist have strong moral fortitude and while I wouldn't consider it brave it does take strength to truly maintain that line. If deep down at the core you truly believe in non violence at all times, even when violence is used against you/those you love AND you are physically/emotionally capable of acting physically. Only then are you truly Pacifist and truly not a coward.
I've met plenty of men that accepted poor treatment, while pretending to act as if they're choosing to allow it, when the reality is they don't have to strength to actually do anything about it. Like a guy who gets picked on regularly and wishes he could stop it from happening, but does nothing about it while saying "it would be wrong for me to hurt them".
We all would like to live in a world where there is no voilence or war. But it seems to be in the human nature to look for conflict. Since the dawn of time there are men who want to show that they have a bigger stick or more power than others, or if it is not because of showing off their power use it to take something from others because they lack the knowledge, resources or skills to reproduce it. And then there is the excuse of patriotism and preemptive violence. Not an excuse for conflict. Final answer would be, they are just human who don't approve violance. Doesn't make them cowards or brave.
You could be strong & brave & be an unconditional pacifist. But I think most of them would be weak and cowardly on average, as it's a very convenient excuse.
I guess I would qualify as a conditional pacifist (but I don't believe utilitarianism is always correct). I don't believe it's wrong at all to fight in self defense, & if someone seriously fucks with you I don't blame you for what you do after in a general sense, but violence should always be the last resort. Otherwise you're just operating on an all too primal basis & that's not productive because it exercises our sense of sadism which I think is bad for your mental healthy except in the strictly erotic & consensual sense. I don't think violence is bad in a bedroom situation for everyone, even if that personally isn't my M. O.
I actually have a lot of respect for active pacifists & I feel like you could take up far more frivolous causes than peace.
War: Pacifism is idealistic-dribble because “if you want peace, prepare for war” since “weakness invites aggression.” If a war is overall just for a concrete mission to prevent harm of innocents, then it would be a clear moral obligation to help. If a war were overall killing civilians indiscriminately and didn’t have an exit plan, then it would be immoral to join.
In-person: Pacifists whom stand up to believed certain attack are strong and brave. Pacifists whom cut-and-run are weak and cowards.
I believe most people with a brain could understand that killing anything is wrong in one way or another regardless, because the morals of the world are always shades of gray. Even if you understand it is wrong though, you also have to see that causality cannot be determined easily either. An action that is evil can stimulate a lot of good in the world to rise and counteract it and acting as a pacifist can also stimulate the evil in others as they see no one around them will oppose them. If you believe yourself wise enough to see what the causality of your actions will be to a small extent, then although your personal actions may feel wrong and dye your consciousness as a result the causality of those actions may cause far more good to be in the world. It's an extremely difficult thing to ascertain what actions will result in what though.
Depends from person to person in my opinion. I've met active pacifists who were just cowards and wanted a better name than coward. And I've met absolute pacifists who were pretty much like Ferdinand.
So it depends on the person and the reason why they are a pacifist. If they are just scared of war and it's consequences-- AND are a pacifist because of that-- then coward. If they are standing on principle and will die to uphold it. Then brave.
Although pacivism itself isn't really brave or cowardly. It's just an opinion..
Depends from person to person and from country to country. You're not exactly swimming against the grain for saying you don't want to be recruited in Switzerland (unless you live in a very conservative part of the country), but you have to contribute in other ways. Some have to pay a percentage of their income for not going and some have to do social work that takes triple as long as going to the military if I'm not mistaken. The brave ones to me are the ones who have started the military program and switch mid-way, not don't caring about all the paperwork and maybe even a psychological evaluation, because they are so convinced that it's the right way and also don't even mind the extra year they lose in the process.
In this day and age, I'd say speaking up about what you believe in when it's seen as sort of an unpopular opinion is very brave. I feel like when it comes down to it, on paper most people are selective pacifists. No one wants wars with weapons of mass destruction.
Bravery is the act of feeling fear and doing it anyway. Cowardice is lack of bravery. This has nothing to do with choosing to, or not to fight. Most people have some types of rules on when they will or will not fight. I've walked away from a fight because I was angry, does this make me a coward? I wouldn't think so rather it makes me a moral man as I don't fight out of anger. Though the other person called me one.
One interesting thought is how people use the term to try and make you conform to their will. It's a shaming tactic, therefor the term should be ignored.
I suppose I should be clear here, I study swordsmanship, archery, and other martial arts. I've fought in competition and for my life. I've lived in extremely violent environments and have been in situations where I very well could have been killed. I am not opposed to violence nor am I opposed to violent solutions to complicated problems. I have not, to my knowledge killed, but I have left behind people who were extremely injured who may have died. I have also defended home and family with arms. I am not, by any definition a pacifist.
Honestly I view them kind of weak and cowardly it depends.
It's fine to be agaisnt violence in an ideal world and in most situations it should never be the first thing you resort to. But you also have to recognize that the world is a harsh place and filled with horrible people sometimes violence is necessary and in some situations it's the only solution.
I personally don't like war I would prefer to avoid it but if my country called I would be the first to answer and if the enemy came to my land I'd be the first one with a rifle aimed at them. If someone tried to mug me or threaten my family or friends I'd hurt them or kill them. If that's what it took.
There is a difference between standing by and letting violence happen and refusing to take any part in it no matter what even if that means letting others suffer. And aborning violence but be willing to partake in it if it meant the greater good and the ability to stop even greater violence from happening.
There have been a lot of assess that have been stronge and brave. Martin Luther, Martin Luther king jr, Gandhi Sargent York (was a pacifist four day to fight in ww1 and got the metal of honor Desmond doss who refused to pick up a gun in in WW2 and saved 75 men in the battle of Okinawa there a lot throughs are they only one I can think of
Pacifism is weak and cowardly. You can not defend yourself without physical prowess. 'Not wanting war' doesn't make you a pacifist. No sane person would want a war for no reason. "Pacifism covers a spectrum of views, including the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war, opposition to any organization of society through governmental force "
Essentially, pacifism is giving up defending yourself and laying your fate into other's hands.
I love peace. I hate wars. I refused to join the military even my Dad bribed the government back in 2012. Now I am over-exceeded from the military age and being exempted for a while. I am weak on the inside, tough on the outside. People say I need to get out of my shell but who are they for me to listen to whatever they say? ;) I am what and who I am so better let things stay that way.
When one thinks pacifist, they typically correlate a relation to the military as a bi-polar opposite. Its like saying cats and dogs. Two completely and utterly separate subjects. Now you state the term bravery as a matter of question as to whether pacifism is right or wrong. To answer YOUR question? It can be either or both. Overall, it is dependent on the scenario or situation. Take for instance, a pacifist joining the military. Wouldn't one joining the military in itself be "strong" just for the sake of questioning or challenging his own opinion in a means to decipher for himself ultimately, as to what his stance or belief would indefinitely be? One might say he's strong for sacrificing himself, his time or life to prove or disprove something to himself. That itself can be challenging sometimes. Perspective and Interpretations are critically important.
I respect those that can and do walk the talk, the ones who can truly turn the other cheek out of principle, rather than those who are simply weak and afraid of pain and confrontation. "It's better to do violence if there is violence in your heart, than to use the cloak of pacifism to mask impotence."- Mahatma Gandhi
Pacifism is impossible. I say this as someone who avoids violence. Sometimes it is required, no other method will be sufficient to stop some people when they choose to refuse getting help and want to commit violence themselves. I think pacifism should be conditional, needless violence is stupid, but when it is needed, avoiding violence is just as stupid.
Most Helpful Opinions