Friday, February 29, 2008



the opposition to war and violence as a means of settling disputes. Pacifism may entail the belief that the waging of war by a state and the participation in war by an individual are absolutely wrong, under any circumstances.

In the ancient world, war was taken for granted as a necessary evil by some societies, while in others it was not even regarded as an evil. …

Pacifism is a utopia dream. It can work like in the case of India and the peaceful demonstrations against British rule. In this case, the British responded morally by not attacking the demonstrators. But as seen recently in Burma, peaceful demonstrations will not work when the opposing side has no moral scruples and responds with violence.

It was the demonstrations of the peace movement that led to the US pullout of Vietnam. While the demonstrators felt good about themselves; the consequences of that withdrawal were horrendous. It led to Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. It led to more deaths in the long run.

In the run-up to World War II, Hitler was appeased time after time in an effort to avoid war.

My question: Does pacifism respect life?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Of course Pacifism respects life. Pacifism is the normal state of affairs between most nations and it serves far better than war.

But there are times pacifism doesn't cut the cake and so absolute pacifism is as you hint at.

One wonders with the Israel/Palestine conflict though. It is different. Pacifism seems not to work. Nor war. Most wars and conflicts are expected to end but this has gone on and on and on.