According to Cady’s “A Pacifist Continuum” my beliefs make me a collective pacifist. I believe that violence is only ever acceptable as a means of self defense or in defense of others. Certainly, any offensive violent act should not be condoned. Even though I don’t agree with war, I feel that there are times when no other options are available. I disagree with war as an offensive, outwardly violent attack, used as a means to an end; but rather a defensive retaliation against a malicious assault.
Violence as a method of self defense is appropriate because it is a natural response to a negative stimulus. Naturally, an individual reacts to negative stimulus by getting away from it. For instance, if you lay your hand on a hot stove, the natural response is to move your hand and distance yourself from the harmful object. In the same sense, if one is being attacked, the natural response is to rid oneself of the harmful stimulus. If the only means by which one can escape an attack, is to attack in retaliation, that is completely acceptable.
I feel like I contradict myself with my beliefs on war. Personally, I could not fight in a war. I do not like it; it saddens me to think of the men and women who are forced to fight for their country and it is horrible that their families should suffer for the sake of power struggle. I know that I personally could not point a gun at the head of an enemy soldier (who may have been forced into service), and pull the trigger. However, lack of reaction in cases of attack shows weakness and lack of governmental power. Lack of some form of retaliation would render a country more likely to fall victim of subsequent attacks.
watch out for the fatalism here ... don't fall into the trap of responding with violence or doing nothing -- it is also important to think about what it means to defend something - there is this sort of macho response of giving back as good as you get, but in war that can mean complete defeat, whereas initial surrender may mean survival in the long run --
ReplyDelete