Where does your country fall in regards to this quote

[Mephisto]

I was going through some literature I give to potential martial art students when I found a quote by Ayn Rand that I thought was particularly relevant today. I was just wondering where the U.S. or Great Britain would fall if we were to use Rand's quote as a scale. Are we the "pacifist society" or the "immoral thug?"
_______

"The necessary consequence of man's right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.

If some 'pacifist' society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left hopelessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it."

 

[Jocko]

Are we the "pacifist society" or the "immoral thug?"

False dichotomy. Lack of pacifism, in itself, is neither immoral nor thuggish.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

If some 'pacifist' society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left hopelessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it."

The conclusion about pacifism is not necessarily true. A true pacifist society could not be coerced into doing something by force, whether that is an invasion or terrorism.

 

[Manny]

Are you an Objectivist, Mephisto? I'd be surprised to learn it.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Re: Where does your country fall in regards to this quote

The conclusion about pacifism is not necessarily true. A true pacifist society could not be coerced into doing something by force, whether that is an invasion or terrorism.

How do you define "true pacifism"?

 

[Jocko]

Re: Re: Re: Where does your country fall in regards to this quote

How do you define "true pacifism"?

Hard to do, since no true pacifist has ever survived long enough to warrant a definition.

 

[Hutch]

. Are we the "pacifist society" or the "immoral thug?"

I rather hope we are somewhat closer to the 'civilized' Society, albeit we haven't gotten it quite down pat yet..

In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I don't think retaliation with physical force is a "moral imperative". But then, I don't believe in moral imperatives. People should act through reason. If you've been attacked, you should act to ensure that don't fall prey to further attacks, both from your attacker and also to anyone else who may be watching and will benefit from an instructive example. This may mean you use force, but it isn't necessary. Retaliation with force may not be the best means to achieve your goal. You might find it more advantageous to use the incident to forge international alliances, or punish the aggressor economically, or send in agents to topple the aggressor's government through a scandal or something. Mandating that force requires force in response is just limiting your options.

And nobody should act "in retaliation"-- one should act according to one's best interests and judgment and reason. Sometimes it's more advantageous to turn the other cheek, if solely because when one occupies a "moral highground" one can milk position to maximum advantage with some people. If holding back from retaliation brings you more benefits than retaliating with force, why would you?

"Moral imperative", to me, is just a code phrase for "sloppy thinking". People only use the term when they are unable to justify something through reason. (Up yours, Kant.)

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Re: Where does your country fall in regards to this quote

How do you define "true pacifism"?

As an ideology that does not accept the use of force under any circumstances.

 

[delphi_ote]

Since we haven't all run away to the valley of utopian capitalism, I'd say Ayn would probably use 1000 pages of obscure language and one dimensional characters to write a horrible novel placing us in whichever category is worse (50 of those pages would of course consist entirely of a particularly one-dimensional character making a single self-righteous radio address to the world.)

The following two quotes are all the analysis anyone needs of Rand's "philosophy."

"Yes, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of ****, I am never reading again." - Officer Barbrady (South Park)

"This is similar to my works in that anyone who reads it is sure to be an ******* for at least a month afterward." -Ayn Rand on America (the book) (The Daily Show)

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Where does your country fall in regards to this quote

As an ideology that does not accept the use of force under any circumstances.

That would have been my first assumption, but that doesn't explain how a true pacifist society could not be coerced into doing something by force.

What would stop an outside group from using force on the pacifist society?

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where does your country fall in regards to this quote

That would have been my first assumption, but that doesn't explain how a true pacifist society could not be coerced into doing something by force.

What would stop an outside group from using force on the pacifist society?

It greatly depends on the enemy of course but Gandi (of legend) did it, as did King. Faced with an adversary like terrorists, they'd perish rather quickly.

 

[RandFan]

Since we haven't all run away to the valley of utopian capitalism, I'd say Ayn would probably use 1000 pages of obscure language and one dimensional characters to write a horrible novel placing us in whichever category is worse (50 of those pages would of course consist entirely of a particularly one-dimensional character making a single self-righteous radio address to the world.)

The following two quotes are all the analysis anyone needs of Rand's "philosophy."

"Yes, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of ****, I am never reading again." - Officer Barbrady (South Park)

"This is similar to my works in that anyone who reads it is sure to be an ******* for at least a month afterward." -Ayn Rand on America (the book) (The Daily Show)

I'm guessing you don't care for Rand.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where does your country fall in regards to this quote

It greatly depends on the enemy of course but Gandhi (of legend) did it, as did King. Faced with an adversary like terrorists, they'd perish rather quickly.

I'm a huge fan of Gandhi and King but there are limits to his philosophy of nonviolence. It doesn't work when hunting lions or bears and it doesn't work against people like Stalin and Hitler.

For anyone who disagrees watch Conspiracy and then tell me your opinion.

The historical recreation of the 1942 Wannsee Conference, in which Nazi and SS leaders gathered in a Berlin suburb to discuss the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question". Lead by SS-General Reinhard Heydrich, this group of high ranking German officials came to the historic and far reaching decision that the Jews of Europe were to be exterminated in what would come to be known as the Holocaust.

How does pacifism work against an entity that is intent on genocide? An entity whose collective consciousness has no conscious? FWIW, I'm not comparing anyone to anyone.

 

[Tmy]

Is there such a thing as "self Defense". Even if you are attacked, at some point you become offensive rather than defensive.

 

[Freakshow]

Is there such a thing as "self Defense". Even if you are attacked, at some point you become offensive rather than defensive.

It refers to the fact that you were not the initiator of the situation. Even if you are using offensive techniques, it can still be considered self defense if you were the one attacked while minding your own business.

 

[Freakshow]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where does your country fall in regards to this quote

I'm a huge fan of Gandhi and King but there are limits to his philosophy of nonviolence. It doesn't work when hunting lions or bears and it doesn't work against people like Stalin and Hitler.

For anyone who disagrees watch Conspiracy and then tell me your opinion.

How does pacifism work against an entity that is intent on genocide? An entity whose collective consciousness has no conscious? FWIW, I'm not comparing anyone to anyone.

I've seen "Conspiracy". It is...I don't know how to describe it. Although not a particularly stellar piece of filmmaking, the subject it depicts is sickening. But I am glad I saw it.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where does your country fall in regards to this quote

It greatly depends on the enemy of course but Gandi (of legend) did it, as did King. Faced with an adversary like terrorists, they'd perish rather quickly.

Ghandi was only succesfull because he was up against a regime that was somewhat reasonable and had a conscience.

When the Japanese were threatening to overrun India's borders, Ghandi said the British should leave to pre-empt an attack. When it was pointed out to him that the japanese would probably just say "Gee! thanks guys!" and invade anyway, Ghandi said that they would peacefully resist. When it was put to him that the Japanese werent very impressed by passive resistance and would just massacre resisters regardless Ghandi remarked that "the non-violent resisters would have won the day inasmuch as they will have preffered extinction to submission"....... tres machiavellian..... I dont think very many of the extinctees would have agreed with this. Hence the quote in my sig.

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where does your country fall in regards to this quote

That would have been my first assumption, but that doesn't explain how a true pacifist society could not be coerced into doing something by force.

What would stop an outside group from using force on the pacifist society?

What I am describing is based on "pacifism" as an undiluted ideology, this is not something I would ever expect to see since I don't think any ideology thought up so far works in its "undiluted" state whether that be libertarianism, liberalism, capitalism, socialism and so on.

After that rather large caveat back to your question. The short answer is “nothing”.

However the outside group would have to apply that force on an individual level to achieve anything which, for example, would make invading and occupying a country very difficult.

You can’t move a pacifist with the threat of force (e.g. threatening to shot or hitting the pacifist) since this would have no result as the pacifist does not accept force as a compulsion to do anything.

Quite often pacifism is portrayed as a “cowardly” ideology; my personal view is that a “real” pacifist is one of the bravest types of person there could be.

(Edited never to nothing.)