Peace on Earth?

[Rogar]

It seems like this is the season when we wish each other peace on earth in our Holiday greetings and may think about it a little more. I am hardly the bible scholar, but my rudimentary understanding is that the birth of Christ ushered in something of a new era that updated many of the Old Testiment teachings. The struggles among the tribes and nations and the eye for an eye concept of the Old Testiment was eclipsed by the teachings of Christ...to turn the other cheek, love you enemy, and treat others as you would want to be treated. If I have it right. Not what I see among the Christian leaders of Christian nations, so I must be missing something.

Like Einstein said, we can't solve problems by using the same thinking we used when we created them. But it seems like we have a habit of solving violence with more violence. At least to me World War II was a struggle between good and evil, but the rest of our military conflicts over the last hundred years are grey areas. I wonder sometimes what alternate future we would have if we became a nation of concientious objectors. What might have happened, say, after 9/11 if instead of a military reaction, we would have taken a similar amount of money, technology, and effort toward global health and education? Are the real peacemakers of the world the military defenders of what we think unjust, or the Gandhis and Dalia Lamas who say, we're not going to play that game? I'm not sure. Seems like history says we might just be biologically programmed to physical conflict.

I don't have any great theories and maybe just a little too ponderous today. Or it's the holiday spirit. I suppose we're in for more of the same regardless.

[Aqua Blue]

1+ I often think the same thing. We don't seem to get less war by going to war.

[redfox]

"Why do we kill people who are killing people, to show that killing people is wrong? What a foolish notion..."
Holly Near

[bae]

I believe pacifism in general is a morally bankrupt philosophy for several reasons, and practically, leads to poor outcomes in the real world. In the right circumstances, it of course is a very powerful and appropriate tool, but it is not a universal answer.

I am pacific instead - I do not think it is morally acceptable to initiate violence against another, but use of force in defense of self or others is acceptable to me, and even rises to an affirmative duty in some cases.

My conclusions are drawn from simple game theory. See Axelrod's "The Evolution of Cooperation" and Triver's "The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism" for some treatments of the ideas. Peter Singer's "Practical Ethics" is also helpful.

"Never again", as some of my relatives would have said, had they lived through the camps.

[Rogar]

World War II seems a straight forward defense against evil global tyranny .

I have a home defense weapon and would use if I felt my life or that of my neighbor were threatened. Would I shoot to kill, to maim or just to scare? It is the grey areas, where fear of harm is artificially created or enhanced by our leaders, where the gains are domination or economic rather than protection, or the outcome of war on the tole on humanity is worse than the original threat. Seems like there are examples of these in our comparatively recent national history. Unfortunately, the motives and outcomes are always in hindsight.

[Xmac]

I believe pacifism in general is a morally bankrupt philosophy for several reasons, and practically, leads to poor outcomes in the real world. In the right circumstances, it of course is a very powerful and appropriate tool, but it is not a universal answer.



Pacifism, as I see it, isn't morally bankrupt, it's inconsistent and ineffective. Pacifism is not synonymous with Non-violence. Non-violence is consistent and effective. If it wasn't Jesus and Gandhi et al wouldn't have made such indelible marks on the world.

The pacifist is just as fearful as the violent actor. Submission to another is violence turned inward and condoned. Submission to violence is submission to fear. That fear is that I'll lose what I've got or I won't get what I want. Both are choked off from innovative action that respects all life.

Turning the other cheek, giving up your undergarment as well, and carrying a soldiers pack two miles are not acts of pacifism. They are fearless acts of provocative Non-violence. Walter Wink articulates it brilliantly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC8pffvX1to

[Zoebird]

I think to really look at absolute pacifism, you have to look at what quakers have been doing since the 1660s. A lot of it works, but i'm not sold on the "absolute" aspect of it per se. Which would put me i the nonviolence camp.

anyway, quakers are cool. i wish the locals met more frequently.

[happystuff]

Every time I read the subject line of this thread I think of the hymn:

"Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me"

Some of the biggest events/movements in history began with one person. Not saying I, personally, will bring about world peace, but I'm happy to do my best to try when and where I can. :)

[Xmac]

Peace in is peace out, realize global peace within.

[HappyHiker]

I think we humans are divided just as the chimps and bonobos, their very close relatives, are divided. The chimps tend to be quarrelsome and violent, while the bonobos would rather make love than fight. I do wish more of us were like the bonobos...maybe if we were more often in that lovely post-coital state of bliss, we'd be more unlikely to commit mayhem upon our fellow earthlings.