Pacifists are morons. You are basically saying if you were attacked, you would not defend yourself. So you would rather let yorself die or be robbed or murdered, or see you’re loved ones killed, than fight back. Guns- there is nothing wrong with guns. Guns don’t kill people, killers with gus kill people. Gun control – liberal crap. Won’t prevent criminals from getting the weapons, just disarms innocent people. Capital punshment gives jerks what they deserve. Religion strenghten’s one’s confidence and adds meaning to life. You are a moron.
I received this email this morning and thought I’d respond publicly. I’ve quoted it above exactly as I received it. To begin I must state that undoubtedly on many levels most humans can be morons (myself included on occasion) but my desire to respond isn’t because of any name-calling. My desire to respond was because it is this sort of ignorance and dislike of people because their beliefs and ideas differ from your own which causes much of the anger, violence and bloodshed that I (in my very small way) oppose. It also very clearly illustrates the point I made in an earlier post about attempting to generate understanding and tolerance.
Firstly ‘pacifism’ is a little more complicated than my correspondent would have you believe. There are two major schools of pacifistic thought – and I’ll keep this relatively brief to avoid turning it into a philosophy lecture and cover it in broad terms. The first is ‘Absolute Pacifism’ – which can be described as the belief that all forms of violence, war, and/or killing are unconditionally wrong. This absolutist position I find is almost untenable. It would requires the growth of a degree of moral purity and a considerable increase in overall virtue in the world to be possible. It is I suppose best described as an idealistic dream. The second is ‘Conditional Pacifism’ which posits that the absolute prohibition of the use of violence or war is not possible and admits its use under certain circumstances. Myself? I am a ‘Conditional Pacifist’ and part of the ‘Pacificism’ movement or at least I share much of their ideology.
To give it a broad definition (one which encompasses many and varying viewpoints) pacificism is a movement which believes that peaceful conditions are better than war but who accept that some wars may be necessary if they advance the cause of peace – now I exist in the figurative ‘extreme left’ of these thinkers – I not only prefer peaceful conditions to war but believe a ‘just war’ has to meet some exceptional conditions. Conditions for example that elements of the Second World War met but certainly not the actions of the United States in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Laos, Grenada, Beirut, South America, Cuba and pretty much everywhere else they’ve invaded or sanctioned violence in during the mid to late 20th and early 21st Century.
In my idealistic youth I believed Kahlil Gibran’s words – “If my survival caused another to perish, then death would be sweeter and more beloved.” (Voice of the Poet). Whilst I still honour the sentiment I sadly do not follow the creed anymore. I believe there are instances in which violence becomes necessary and some circumstances under which you may call a war ‘just’ but those instances are limited. They should be tightly controlled and carefully monitored. The prime example I use is the monstrosity that is called ‘collateral damage’ – that very casual phrase used for the devastating consequences of the use of force on the innocent which is almost treated a side effect of that violence. Whilst wars are still fought in which ‘collateral damage’ is regarded as unfortunate but not note-worthy there can be no ‘just war’. We need to learn to use force in a manner which protects the innocent whilst achieving an outcome that enhances peace. I do not believe in turning the other cheek but just cause must be given, weighed and carefully considered before there is recourse to violence. Violence and war should never be resorted to for glory, land, honour or wealth. The taking of human life for these purposes lessens us all as human beings.
I will briefly touch on my correspondent’s last three points because I believe they have been better answered elsewhere by others and indeed my words are little likely to change their mind. Gun Control? The nonsense about criminals and disarming innocent people? I agree with my correspondent that gun control does not stop criminals getting guns. But so what? The vast majority of gun deaths are people killed with their own weapons – not some hypothetically heavily armed criminal but either accidentally, by a family member or by an intruder using their own weapon. The only other point I will make about gun control is about statistics. It has been repeatedly statistically proven that if you restrict the ownership of guns then deaths from firearms (including accidents as well as murders) are dramatically reduced and indeed, though I tend to be more conservative on the statistical linkages cited, that overall murder rates fall as well. This is a FACT. I thankfully live in a country where gun control, whilst not perfect, is pretty good and gun violence is considerably less than in other countries – not non-existent but significantly statistically smaller than a country like the United States. I would be happy to cite via email a number of statistical studies on this topic if anyone would like further evidence.
Capital punishment? It’s never achieved anything – except revenge by the State onto the criminal. It’s not a deterrent, it doesn’t reduce the number of crimes committed, it fosters a culture of violence and revenge, it encourages increasingly violent acts because the perpetrators know they have nothing to lose if they are executed and tragically as has been borne out repeatedly the State frequently executes the wrong person for the crime. There is no decent argument to support it that has been proven to actually make sense.
Religion? Apparently religion provides confidence and adds meaning to life. Does this imply the author lacked these traits beforehand or do they believe everyone who lacks religious faith also lacks these traits? If the former is true then I am sorry they are unable to find those traits within themselves but I am happy for them that they have found them through their religious beliefs. Personally I find myself a flawed being but a reasonably self-confident and happy one without the need for religious beliefs. But I respect their right to believe without the urge to describe them as a moron for believing it. If the latter is true then I think they would find it a very hard position to defend given the intellectual capital of agnostic and atheist thought. I would suggest they wander over to alt.atheism and ask the question there and see if the many fine people on that newsgroup believe that religious belief is linked to meaning of life and confidence.
I know little I write will change the mind of my correspondent – in my opinion he or she has a very narrow and what I would consider ‘traditional’ right-wing view of the world. My guess is that from the opinions stated in the email that the author is male, white, 18 to 35, probably at least nominally a Christian of some kind, American and probably a Republican and a supporter of the Bush Administration. I don’t think he or she is a moron but I do feel pity for them. To place so little value on human life itself and to deride someone for believing that taking human life is wrong is a great shame.
) have been happening.