My World Gathering

Sebastian O: Talking with a Friend of mine, she was telling me about her first husband, a bit of an odd case he was, he was a conscientious objector in the 60s but when he had his interview with the draft board what he said was "I refuse to kill someone who I don't know, I would never kill someone who I don't know and you(Govt.) can't tell me whom to kill", I didn't know whether to be amused or shocked, then i found out that he believed it most pacifists were wimpy because most pacifist couldn't kill a person or wouldn't in a given situation, but always let it open to "I don't know"s in questions such as "and what would you do in self deffense"...he was obsessed with the samurai or so i was told but he was a pacifists as well, he said that THEN it is you make a conscious choice for peace and are able to answer with more than "I don't know", though not in agreement with that, I myself have questioned a lot of times wether I am a pacifist because it's the view i am naturally inclined to, or wether it's truly a conscious decisition, at 54 kg and 6'1'' i know violence is not what works for me but even then one day as i walked i asked myself "what will you do when you have to kill in order to survive" and then the answer in my mind was "die" and this reminded me of Gandhi, it said something like "first they insult you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you and then it's when you've succeeded", i know the jewish faith says that if someone else's life is in danger you should not hestitate in helping them even if involves killing someone, this i disagree with, islam also mentions that you're allowed to attack someone who is against the church, god or you, this i can't agree with either, but i do realize that I've always been of the thought that there's always an individual option when faced with pressure from outside, no matter who wants to convince you there's no way out there's always a choice you can make up yourself, and this is what i think it's right...i don't think i could ever kill someone when i was 10 years old and would get into fist fights i remember well that i would close my eyes before hitting and even hestitate because i was afraid of harming the otehr person, other times in my life when i've been tried to mug what i've usually done is run away and that has worked for me, however if it involved my family, i wouldn't attack, nor "deffend"...at an extreme i guess i could try and disarm the other person and as contradictory as it sounds, even if it got "violent" i wouldn't try to hurt the person...someone said it's easier to say what you will do but like in the catcher in the rye, you never know what you're going to act like, but i do believe that in general one's ethics are not based on how relative they are to every situation, you don't make a rule of how you are suposed to react to every situation but you keep in mind that violence, killing, harming others is out of the choices to take to solve any situation. Say someone comes running to you with a gun pointed at your head or a relative, someone hands you a gun quickly, this person screams as he/she advances towards you and you have to choose, even then there's no immorality in dying, but it is always immoral to kill. PS: I hate the word "moral", I preffer "ethics". (02/27/06)

Sebastian O: That's a darn wee font for comments by the way. (02/27/06)

Anna D: Having spent ages on the phone last night listening to someone who was feeling they couldn't come to Meeting because they had hit someone who had tried to mug them and felt he had let Friends down by doing so, it felt really weird finding this as your next question! I hesitantly describe myself as a pacifist - hesitantly because whilst I subscribe to the ideal I've never really been put in a position of actually having to test it. I couldn't knowingly kill anyone and don't expect anyone to do so on my behalf. For me this extends to animals too, altho' any insects that find their way in to the kitchen are more likely to be be splatted than rescued! When I worked with people with challenging behaviour we were taught breakaway techniques and non-violent restraint which I hope I'd be able to remember if put on the spot (ironically the training came after our worst cases had left!). I had no problem with those methods and see them in much the same light as non-violent direct action. Whatever our response tho in any given situation I hope that Friends would be supportive, loving and caring as living after any situation that raises such issues is fraught with emotion as well as principles. (02/27/06)

Daniel Morris: Well, here goes nothing...I have briefly read the threads on here, and although not part of your group, and my fundamental views differ somewhat, they might at the very least give you an insight onto how the other side think:) I wouldn't have ever called myself a pacifist, and until recently have never heard of quakers, but here's how i see it... I do not believe in the death penalty, (a given on here) and i certainly don't believe in the needless killings of anyone...but as Leith said in the question, what happens if you are put in a situation so horrific that the only outcome would be someone's death, their's, your's or possiably someone's you know? I can not say what i WOULD do in that situation , but i can say I hope I would be able to save the life of myself/friend/family for the following reasons.. 1: as a human being , the person who's threating your/other lives has made a choice. And by making a choice that will result in someone else's death, how can they not expect anything but the utmost resistance on the victims behalf. I have never knowingly killed an animal larger than an insect. If i find a spider inside, i will take it outside,why kill it, it is just doing what it does? But people are conscious and make choices, if someone consciously made a choice to kill me or someone i knew, and there was no alternitave, i know what i try to do. 2:If you are able to stick true to your values, and the worst happens, what happens when they try to kill someone else?... Assuming you value human life above all else, and all lifes are equal, then this comes down to a simple equasion. Would you do something you don't want to do, and kill one person,or would you, by inaction, let the deaths of at one , and likely more take place? Same kind of question, different scenario.. What if tommorrow another country invaded ours with thousands of armed troops, whose orders were to inflict as many casualties as possiable. If everyone in this country was a pacifist, including the military and the police, what would happen? I think as a principal, pacifism is fantastic, except for one thing... not everyone is a pacifist. some scenarios for you here... 1:If everyone in the world was a pacifist, no problem, noone would ever invade, happy ending:) 2:If everyone in one big group (i.e. New Zealand) was a pacifist, big problem! Other big groups see NZ as an easy target, know we are fundamentily hindered by our refusal to kill, we ourselves then become killed, or us and future generations have our freedom taken away. Not a happy ending:( 3: As we live in an impefect world i believe we need in any large group, people who are prepared to do what is neccecary if the worst happens. And this i believe is the reality today. I think having a majority of people as pacifists is good, better than a minority even, but they must realise that in order for them to enjoy their freedoms, there must also be, within their own group, people who are prepared to take the most extreme of measures if the need arises. You may say "But i don't want these people to protect me!, i don't want them to kill in my name" Well that may be you view, but it doesn't stop them from being killed themselves, as part of thir duty. When the kill, they are not simply taking lifes, they are losing their own innocence, so others may live. Hmm , dunno if that made sense. What i'm trying to say, is that lacking every single person in the world sharing the pacifist view point, the next best solotion is to have a few people in your group who don't. I'm sorry if i kinda got off the topic , but maybe it helped show a bit of background for why i said what i said. If you strongly disagree with what i said that is fine, it shows to me that even if we we don't live in a perfect world , it's likely we've got the next best thing:) (02/28/06)

ria: hmm, i am also undecided on this issue (= as has been said, its very hard to know what one would actually do in such a situation, on top of the trouble of deciding what one should do.... the trouble with posing such a question, is that it inevtably leads to the "what if..." where u would be forced to choose between something u hold extremely dear (like urs or others' lives), and killing/harming somebody. such scenarios have been described above, and when reading them, it strikes me that in a way they are quite dangerous and almost trick questions- they say: what if there is no other choice, just the choice between 2 unthinkable evils. this makes the assumption that such a situation is possible.. Maybe the difference for a pacifist is that they dont believe this, but instead believe there is always another way out, always some other action u could take... im not saying there is- im not sure, its just a thought... perhaps as soon as u admit the possibility that such a situation could occur and that if so u may act and kill or harm somebody in defense or whatever, u give urself an easy way out rather than forcing u to find other solutions... perhaps the important bit is deciding beforehand that u wouldnt- u can always act differently if such a situation does arrive, follow ur best judgement, perhaps it just helps to force u to act only in the most extreme circumstances, to consider more carefully because u would have to go against all that u hold dear... i think it would make it harder which might be a good thing... maybe? having said that however, i suspect if i found myself in such a situation, if it were possible for me to save lives of myself or those i love, i would do so in any way i could... (02/28/06)

ralph: I think its the wrong question, sort of. Pacafism is not about killing its about war. Violent solutions just dont work - violence leads to more violence. I can be a pacafist and still be prepared to kill on an individual basis. Way way way before you have somone trying to kill your son, loved one ... you took the wrong turning. When we let discontent grown, when we took more than our share of resources, when we didnt say "Hey thats not right... (02/28/06)

Avon: Hey cool site Leith, but it's stopping me from doing my work :) I agree with Ria that it is really a trick question. This question is always raised in regards to armed conflict and consciencious objectors - thus your airforce friend raised it. They are actually jumping from one issue (is it ethical or right to take a job that by it's nature involves being prepared to kill, whether directly or by helping others to kill better) and turning it into a personal question (if something happened in your personal everyday life, how would you react). These are not really linked, in my mind. I agree with the 'odd case' who said he would not kill someone because x told him to. I totally abhor killing (as happens in any war) ordinary people who have done nothing wrong except being a member (or soldier) of a particular country, whose ruler doesn't agree with your ruler (or you). In my personal life, I do whatever I can to avoid the situation of anyone killing anyone. And if I live somewhere where that situation was likely, say South Africa, I run away. I retreat. And like Ralph said, I don't drive around wearing jewels while others starve and then wondering "why did those bad people rob me??" To say that others are violent so I must be violent, others have guns so I must have bigger guns...that is a copout. It starts with you, and you are always responsible for your own actions. (03/01/06)

Julian: There you go again Leith, asking all the easy questions... Reading through these threads has really prompted some new thoughts on this issue. I'm intrigued by Ralph's comment that one can be opposed to war but sanction killing in a personal situation. I don't know if I agree but it's a fascinating moral dilema. I love Avon's point about the difference between choosing a military job, and an abstract ethical question. To me violence is more than just killing. Violence is a choice. It manifests in acts of war, in physical violence against others, in verbal or emotional abuse. It is an intent, a will to dominate by force. While it seems interesting to debate relative ethics based on arbitrary scenarios, I'm not sure it answers the deeper questions. What you do in your life day to day, how you treat people now, this seems much more important than what you think you might do in a hypothetical situation. So, if someone joins the military, intent on working in peace keeping roles, is this different to a gung-ho person who really quite likes the idea of shooting guns at foreigners? It seems so to me. This peacekeeper's intent to protect and serve, is that any different from a person who joins the police force? And in what way is that different to the actions of non violent activists who put themselves in dangerous situations to protect us all from overtly militaristic or oppressive governments. So, it seems to me that it's not even one's actions, it's the intent behind those actions that counts. And we each individually, are the only ones able to judge our own intent. (03/04/06)