# Conscientious Objector



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

How many of us here are pacifists, and if so, is it because of a religious belief or a personal line of reasoning?

If you have your own personal moral philosophy against violence which you wish to share, please feel free to share it here for discussion and illumination. I am mainly interested in what my fellow intellectuals think about this topic.


----------



## Pianoasis (Nov 10, 2011)

First post!

I myself try to avoid fights cos to be honest I'm not that strong 
I prefer to attack with fists of verbal acrimony!


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

Wars categorically are a horrific waste of humanity and are dehumanizing even to those who survive. The human, psychological and economic costs of major wars are simply unmeasurable. 

Worse, they are declared by governments but tend to be fought by young men (and women) removed from the impacts of those decisions. I at least could respect on this level the old kings and emporers who led their men into battle and fought side by side with them. 

That said, there are times when nations and people need to fight, either to defend themselves or (more rarely) to defend others or stop another nation or group from doing something horrible. The Allies' (particularly the Western Allies' position) in WWII is a classic example of this. 

You can call yourself a pacifist all you want, but I fault anyone who claims on moral grounds that it was wrong to shoot a Nazi. That's a wimpy moral position. 

It would take a lot for me to claim conscientious objector status. Part of that is feeling like it's a failing in my duty as a man, and part of it would be embarrassed as a citizen of my country for placing my own interests above those of my country. 

My honest opinion is that all to often, unless you're part of an established group which sincerely claims this status as part of their long-held beliefs like the Quakers, I strongly suspect that the status is claimed out of cowardice and evasion of one's duty as a citizen rather than from any particular moral position. If killing is something you don't want to do on moral grounds, then go be a medic or Navy corpsman (in the U.S. armed services) rather than a regular soldier - I can certainly respect that.


----------



## L (Aug 12, 2011)

I consider myself a pacifist. If I can talk my way out of a situation then I do that (and it has worked so far). The reason I chose to be more of a pacifist was because I was getting into a lot of fights in grade school and I realised that it was about to escalate (started getting bullied a lot). Also, now with my physical size and my...urge to win...I would seriously hurt or kill somebody. If it was self defense or in the name of somebody else's defence then to hell with being a pacifist:tongue:

I also like @redmanXNTP 's response.


----------



## SPtheGhost (Apr 26, 2010)

pacifism? 

...only sith deal in absolutes


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

I am a pacifist because I believe the only reason violence exists is that some people are not pacifists. I would rather not be part of that problem. I don't even believe in participating in the military by becoming a medic, because it still validates war and allows it to continue.


----------



## Snow (Oct 19, 2010)

As @redmanXNTP said or implied, it is rather shallow to simply accept "pacifism" and turn away from issues. Doing that or having that type of mentality is (in my eyes) the equal of turning away from a situation where bullies are bullying someone (say two straight men are beating up a gay man). The same can be applied to the world as a whole; would a true pacifist believe that stopping the Nazi invasion and destruction of Jews (among other races) refuse to join the military because it would involve killing? No; they would refuse based on their fear of death, fear of taking responsibility of killing someone else, or fear of being forced to deal with situations on questionable moral grounds.

Ironically, the bullies (and the Nazi soldiers) largely fell into the same category as the "Conscientious Objector:" they were scared, and just did what was morally the easiest for them--to follow the easiest path to maintaining self-superiority, safety, and fellowship with those around them.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Revenant said:


> As @redmanXNTP said or implied, it is rather shallow to simply accept "pacifism" and turn away from issues. Doing that or having that type of mentality is (in my eyes) the equal of turning away from a situation where bullies are bullying someone (say two straight men are beating up a gay man). The same can be applied to the world as a whole; would a true pacifist believe that stopping the Nazi invasion and destruction of Jews (among other races) refuse to join the military because it would involve killing? No; they would refuse based on their fear of death, fear of taking responsibility of killing someone else, or fear of being forced to deal with situations on questionable moral grounds.
> 
> Ironically, the bullies (and the Nazi soldiers) largely fell into the same category as the "Conscientious Objector:" they were scared, and just did what was morally the easiest for them--to follow the easiest path to maintaining self-superiority, safety, and fellowship with those around them.


Being a pacifist doesn't mean failing to take a stand against evil. We can still be outspoken, courageous, and willing to sacrifice ourselves to protect others.... just non-violently.


----------



## Snow (Oct 19, 2010)

snail said:


> Being a pacifist doesn't mean failing to take a stand against evil. We can still be outspoken, courageous, and willing to sacrifice ourselves to protect others.... just non-violently.


How would you stop the bullies (or Nazis) from attacking others _nonviolently?_ Call the police, who can in turn use violence? I don't understand this frame of reference, especially when inaction will cause much more harm to the person(s) which harm is occurring than action. I would not hesitate to involve myself unless it was clear my presence would not actually help the situation.


----------



## WolfStar (Aug 18, 2009)

I guess I'm a pacifist? I've never been in a fight and I don't see myself ever being in one. I'm not physically strong, anyways, and I don't like confrontation. It's just _such_ a waste of energy. I'd rather just act like they don't exist and remove myself from the situation. I just prefer to relax in life. Other people can do whatever they like, just leave me out of it.

A large part in this will also be that I have very strong moral principles in that I will never intentionally hurt another person, physically or otherwise. I act kindly in my dealings with others.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Revenant said:


> How would you stop the bullies (or Nazis) from attacking others _nonviolently?_ Call the police, who can in turn use violence? I don't understand this frame of reference, especially when inaction will cause much more harm to the person(s) which harm is occurring than action. I would not hesitate to involve myself unless it was clear my presence would not actually help the situation.


Political forces can be dealt with by spreading information, and by organizing a passive resistance. The Nazis used brainwashing and propaganda to cause the violence, so I believe it would have been possible for concerned citizens to alter public attitudes enough to prevent it, if enough people were involved.

As for bullies in schools, there are non-violent options such as suspension and expulsion, removing the person engaging in the harmful or threatening behavior. If the adults responsible for protecting children were more actively involved in teaching them empathy, the problem could probably be nearly eliminated, and in cases where there were no anti-bullying programs, and where no authority figures were present to non-violently remove the bullies, a pacifist could make enough noise to draw attention, create a distraction, or throw himself/herself between the bully and his/her victim, allowing the victim to escape.

Being a pacifist means coming up with creative solutions, but despite the added difficulty of having to think spontaneously, it is worth the trouble. Using violence to stop violence only encourages the idea that superior force entitles the strong to violate the weak. It doesn't change people's hearts. It reinforces the system the bullies are already applying.


----------



## Snow (Oct 19, 2010)

snail said:


> Political forces can be dealt with by spreading information, and by organizing a passive resistance. The Nazis used brainwashing and propaganda to cause the violence, so I believe it would have been possible for concerned citizens to alter public attitudes enough to prevent it, if enough people were involved.
> 
> As for bullies in schools, there are non-violent options such as suspension and expulsion, removing the person engaging in the harmful or threatening behavior. If the adults responsible for protecting children were more actively involved in teaching them empathy, the problem could probably be nearly eliminated, and in cases where there were no anti-bullying programs, and where no authority figures were present to non-violently remove the bullies, a pacifist could make enough noise to draw attention, create a distraction, or throw himself/herself between the bully and his/her victim, allowing the victim to escape.
> 
> Being a pacifist means coming up with creative solutions, but despite the added difficulty of having to think spontaneously, it is worth the trouble. Using violence to stop violence only encourages the idea that superior force entitles the strong to violate the weak. It doesn't change people's hearts. It reinforces the system the bullies are already applying.


I understand what you are saying, though I would encourage you to consider a few items: in the late 1930's, there was no Internet or means of mass communication. What people heard, they believed, for that was the only information they had access to. Those _few_ who did not believe could have organized some form of resistance (and many tried), but were subdued quickly. Would you consider that in the _past_ violence was occasionally the only option?

What about a scenario when non-violent means is not an option? Would you allow a situation to occur despite the potential permanent damage caused to someone else? If you witnessed the aforementioned situation where two men were beating up another based on a form of discrimination, would you not interfere? If you had a gun, would you not use it on them or threaten them with it? If they called your threat and approached you in turn, would you not shoot them?

It seems that a person's fear of making those moral distinctions is what would cause them to turn away. The end result would be that two bullies would have hurt or killed someone (and possibly you also) and gotten away with it, and would possibly feel more comfortable doing so again given their previous success. Is this is a better alternative than the potential for them to become more violent in the future, based on an equally (or perhaps even more) abstract idea that engaging them in violence would encourage them to use it in the future?


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

snail said:


> Political forces can be dealt with by spreading information, and by organizing a passive resistance. The Nazis used brainwashing and propaganda to cause the violence, so I believe it would have been possible for concerned citizens to alter public attitudes enough to prevent it, if enough people were involved.
> 
> As for bullies in schools, there are non-violent options such as suspension and expulsion, removing the person engaging in the harmful or threatening behavior. If the adults responsible for protecting children were more actively involved in teaching them empathy, the problem could probably be nearly eliminated, and in cases where there were no anti-bullying programs, and where no authority figures were present to non-violently remove the bullies, a pacifist could make enough noise to draw attention, create a distraction, or throw himself/herself between the bully and his/her victim, allowing the victim to escape.
> 
> Being a pacifist means coming up with creative solutions, but despite the added difficulty of having to think spontaneously, it is worth the trouble. Using violence to stop violence only encourages the idea that superior force entitles the strong to violate the weak. It doesn't change people's hearts. It reinforces the system the bullies are already applying.


Your head's in the clouds. While what you say is fine as far as it goes, you don't always have the luxury of time or alternative methods to address wrongdoing other than violence. Maybe in 1930 Germans might have done away with the Nazis more or less along the lines that you said (maybe, but the Weimar Republic was a flat out mess), but what's your "creative solution" if you're a Pole and it's September 1939 and the German tanks are starting to roll down your street? 

What's your solution if someone's forcing their way through the door of your home and your kid's asleep in the other room? 

Hitler and his ilk can't be reasoned with. There's no arguing them off of their path. The nature of this world is that sometimes evil wins. 

This is where pacifism starts sounding a lot like a naive and empty headed philosophy. You don't always get to choose your way out of negative consequences with non-violent means.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

redmanXNTP said:


> Your head's in the clouds. While what you say is fine as far as it goes, you don't always have the luxury of time or alternative methods to address wrongdoing other than violence. Maybe in 1930 Germans might have done away with the Nazis more or less along the lines that you said (maybe, but the Weimar Republic was a flat out mess), but what's your "creative solution" if you're a Pole and it's September 1939 and the German tanks are starting to roll down your street?
> 
> What's your solution if someone's forcing their way through the door of your home and your kid's asleep in the other room?
> 
> ...


If I can't find a nonviolent way to resolve something, then it is to be treated as something that cannot be resolved. It isn't always possible to protect oneself even when one considers violence an acceptable option.


----------



## Sonny (Oct 14, 2008)

I was raised in a conscientious objecting religion where soldiers, armies, wars and the politicians who started them were deemed 'bad'. I left the religion and while I considered myself pacifistic, I oppose war and violence, I upped and joined the army at 17. It wasn't a terribly difficult decision for me in the end although I could not answer with any conviction the question of "if required, could you take a life?" after deep introspection I came to the belief that I could likely kill for self preservation reasons. I never saw action to answer that question.

So long as there is greed and desire for power there will always be conflict, unfortunately, I do not see avoidance of this reality as intelligent. I fully respect those who seek pacifistic non-violent means to spread their message, Gandhi was a great example of how powerful that could be, but for me I believe there are times to fight to defend.

I prefer non-violent political pressure to resolve conflicts, but that is too idealistic to be the answer for every situation. Politics start conflicts, not armies, so that's where they need to be stopped, but armies are still needed to defend those who cannot defend themselves once conflict has started.

I am not anti-military and subscribe to non-aggression passivism, not non-violence. Which is a rejection of initiating violence but supporting self-defence and defence of others who are unable to do so themselves.


----------



## Epherion (Aug 23, 2011)

redmanXNTP said:


> It would take a lot for me to claim conscientious objector status. Part of that is feeling like it's a failing in my duty as a man, and part of it would be embarrassed as a citizen of my country for placing my own interests above those of my country.


HA! You are a riot. So your duty as a man is to die for your nation? Nice thinking. 

Oh, and the nationalism yeah... if your nation sends you to die at the expense of a few in power, its not your nation. You are its pawn, they do not care for you. They dont owe you shit, and you dont owe them. Let the bitch burn.


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

Self preservation or to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Preference for non-lethal measures.


----------



## Splodge (Jan 2, 2012)

People often fail to realise there are two types of violence - Predatory and Protective. Protective violence is by nature a good thing, and is the whole reason society works in the first place.

People work together, and follow the rules, thus we have civilisation. There has to be a way to enforce those rules, or the first guy who comes along and doesn't want to play nice can run roughshod over everyone else.

The reason we have the right to free speech is because there are good men who are willing to spend their lives defending views they disagree with.

As an interesting aside: One of Adolf Hitler's first acts on rising to power was to march troops across the Rhine, into the Rhineland, breaking the treaties put in place after world war one. His generals went along with it, to see what would happen. If they had faced so much as a marching band on that bridge, the armies would have been turned around and Hitler would have been deposed.

Instead they got a bunch of harshly worded letters.


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

Epherion said:


> HA! You are a riot. So your duty as a man is to die for your nation? Nice thinking.
> 
> Oh, and the nationalism yeah... if your nation sends you to die at the expense of a few in power, its not your nation. You are its pawn, they do not care for you. They dont owe you shit, and you dont owe them. Let the bitch burn.


Yup, my duty a man. What will you be doing at that moment? 

Your profile indicates you were born in Yugoslavia. I'm sure your principles mandated that you engage in untold acts of heroism in stopping the civil war and protecting innocent life there, right? Or did something happen on the way back from the internet coffee shop?


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

snail said:


> If I can't find a nonviolent way to resolve something, then it is to be treated as something that cannot be resolved. It isn't always possible to protect oneself even when one considers violence an acceptable option.


So at the moment where you realize that your non-violent means won't save you, you would rather surrender your safety, freedom and even your life, and those of people you love rather than engage in violence to protect yourself and/or them? 

Why should I respect that point of view?


----------

