What are some arguments against pacifism?
>>18242116I'm gonna beat the shit out you until you give it up or die gracelessly and forgotten.
Imagine if you had goals or values that were better achieved through violence
>>18242116It’s non-existent among animals
>>18242121Why should I model my behavior on animals?
>>18242116Pacifism is only good if other people are also pacifists. If you are a pacifist and you go up against someone completely immoral, you're going to get raped, beaten, taken advantage of, killed, etc.In my opinion, genuine pacifism is actually immoral. A genuine pacifist will allow someone else to rape their kids and do nothing to stop it. That is evil and cowardly. Someone attacking your loved ones should be met with merciless violence. That is justice. That is moral. Allowing evil people to run rampant is immoral. Therefore, you should be pacifist only so long as others are being pacifist. The instant someone gets uppity, they should be met in kind.
>>18242126It’s the natural order of things
>>18242131Why should I care about "the natural order of things", rather than my preferred order of things?
>>18242130Maybe pacifism could get you killed etc. But on any plausible moral view, there are going to be some cases where doing the right thing requires you to sacrifice yourself or suffer some harm.The pacifist does not have to do nothing while someone commits rape. They will presumably try to use nonviolent methods to combat evil.
>>18242131So is cannibalism.That doesn't make it right.
>>18242143What makes cannibalism wrong?
>>18242142>Maybe pacifism could get you killed etc. But on any plausible moral view, there are going to be some cases where doing the right thing requires you to sacrifice yourself or suffer some harm.Yes, there are some times where this is the case. But this is irrelevant when discussing pacifism, which is an ideology that subscribes to complete non-violence in all situations.>The pacifist does not have to do nothing while someone commits rape. They will presumably try to use nonviolent methods to combat evil.And when those nonviolent methods inevitably fail, you will just allow the rapes to continue, because you are a pacifist. Sometimes, blowing someone's head off is the ultimate moral good in a situation. For example, let's say you catch a man in the act of raping a child. What do you intend to do, scold him and whine about how he's a bad person? He's not going to give a shit. The only thing to do here is to attack him.
>>18242116King James Bible. Next.
>>18242116Any philosophy that only works if everyone else in the world also spontaneously agrees to live according to that philosophy should not be taken seriously.
>>18242160>Yes, there are some times where this is the case. But this is irrelevant when discussing pacifism, which is an ideology that subscribes to complete non-violence in all situations.But the point was that the requirement to sometimes sacrifice yourself can't be an objection to pacifism, since most people accept that there's sometimes a requirement to do that. Pacifism isn't going to require you to sacrifice yourself in all situations, only in those situations where your choice is between sacrificing yourself or committing violence.>Sometimes, blowing someone's head off is the ultimate moral good in a situation. For example, let's say you catch a man in the act of raping a child. What do you intend to do, scold him and whine about how he's a bad person? He's not going to give a shit. The only thing to do here is to attack him.Attacking the man is obviously not your only option. You could just grab the child and run away, for example.But suppose we just assume that attacking the guy is the only way to stop him. The pacifist is just gonna wonder why you're allowed to do that. It's not an argument to merely assert that you're allowed to harm people in defense of yourself and others. If harming people is bad, why would there be an exception just because someone is trying to harm you or someone else?
>>18242150prions
>>18242116Well, you'll be killed by warmongers.Unless it's some sort of belliferent pacifism?
>>18242116Failure to respond to aggression with at least a comparable level of violence does little more than to embolden the aggressor to push their luck further.Preemptive force similar serves to deter future would-be aggressors In more eloquent terms, see >>18242130
>>18242187It’s the natural order of things
>>18242121Are you on drugs? There are many animals who prefer to flee (rabbits, little birds), use passive deterrence (porcupines, poison frogs), or very docile species (koalas, dugongs).
>>18242181>Attacking the man is obviously not your only option. You could just grab the child and run away, for example.And if he grabs the child as well, what then? You're not allowed to fight him, right? Your only option is to give up and let him continue raping, because you have imposed an arbitrary moral system on yourself that inhibits you from enacting justice at the expense of the innocent.Not to mention, if you just run away, he's simply going to go rape someone else. Eliminating him prevents further innocents from being harmed. There is no loss incurred by killing this man, only benefits.>But suppose we just assume that attacking the guy is the only way to stop him. The pacifist is just gonna wonder why you're allowed to do that.Because the violence is necessary to prevent evil.>It's not an argument to merely assert that you're allowed to harm people in defense of yourself and others.Yes it is. The only possible way you could even say otherwise would be if you simply considered any and all acts of violence immoral, which is demonstrably untrue, as I have laid out .>If harming people is bad, why would there be an exception just because someone is trying to harm you or someone else?Because self-defense, and the defense of the weak/innocent is morally good. Therefore, violence against those harming innocents is morally good. It's pretty straightforward.
>>18242220i'm going to fucking rape you
>>18242234>Because the violence is necessary to prevent evil.Imagine someone threatens to kill two innocent people unless you kill one innocent person. It doesn't seem like you should kill the innocent person. So, in that case, it's false that you're allowed to commit violence just so long as it's necessary to prevent evil. It might be a necessary condition for violence to be just that it prevents evil, but it's clearly not a sufficient condition.>Yes it is. The only possible way you could even say otherwise would be if you simply considered any and all acts of violence immoral, which is demonstrably untrue, as I have laid out .You wouldn't even necessarily have to think that. Violent self-defense is only one form of violence. You could in theory think that it's wrong without being a full-on pacifist.>Because self-defense, and the defense of the weak/innocent is morally good. Therefore, violence against those harming innocents is morally good. It's pretty straightforward.That just doesn't follow. Maybe it's good to defend the innocent, but it doesn't follow that it's good to defend the innocent using violence. If by "defense," you just mean the sort of defense that involves violence, well then again, you're just asserting what needs to be proved. The pacifist obviously doesn't think that it's good to defend people in that way. So, that doesn't give them any reason to change their view.
>>18242274That's not very pacific of you
>>18242116Ruthlessness is mercy upon ourselves
Statecucks be like:> we need statedaddy to not kill each other D:But also> pacifism is le bad we need muh wars actually :D
>>18242116that the state will destroy you otherwise
>>18242116If nobody ever fought how would we have cool movies like Rambo? Also, if a bad guy hits you, you just gotta stand there and take it? That's how you get taken over. Real countries need big armies to look tough and get what they want. All those peacecucks are just scared to fight, probably never been in a schoolyard scrap.
