pacifism

[Michael Perez]

mike j wrote:
"seems to me the pacifist's real solace is in knowing
that it just won't fly -- he gets all the self-serving
benefits of a warm, gooey idealism without ever
actually having to employ his ideals to try and
achieve it. 

"so long as there's someone else out there guaranteed
to do the wrong thing -- say, actually *fight*
terrorism in this instance -- the bleeding heart wins
big at a crooked table, benefitting from the ends
while washing his hands of the means."

This is neither true nor fair.  Generalizations like this do not
represent any understanding of what it means to advocate the use of any
and all efforts to resolve problems without the use of extreme military
action.  As I have written before, there is a difference between
justice and vengeance.  The unnecessary and "accidental" loss of life
from military attacks (AKA "collateral damage") is inexcusable, but
military targets, including personnel within the vicinity of these
targets, even pacifists must admit, were identified before the military
actions were taken.  A pragmatic approach would, I believe, tend to
describe any loss of life within identified targets as something like
suicide.  Call this a rationalization if you want, but the attacks that
did not claim non-military casualties were not surprises.  In addition,
though the humanitarian efforts may be ineffective or even
counter-productive, the most constructive reaction would be to help or,
at least, advocate helping to set it on the right direction or, if
possible, attempt to persuade responsible parties that their efforts
may be made more effective with some adjustments.  Self-satisfying
criticism like self-satisfying feelings of vengeance are extreme
reactions, not those of someone who has called upon reason to react to
the recent tragedies.

Michael

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com