|
The painful choice between violence and injustice ...
Larken Rose If you fail to act when you have it in your power to protect the innocent, then I would call you a coward.
April 5, 2009 - I'm sure it will offend some to hear this, but I can't always tell whether some people choose pacifism out of principle or out of cowardice. (Are you offended yet?) Some people, for example, wear it as a badge of honor that they DON'T own firearms. But is that really something to be proud of? If someone attacks you, you have every right to not resist, and not fight back. The guy might beat you up less, or he might beat you up more as a result. And some say that, no matter how the aggressor reacts, the path of non-violence is still the most noble and the most pure. But is it? Suppose someone is just attacking you. Your failure to resist might hurt you, but it won't endanger anyone else. One could make the argument that not fighting, not resisting at all, is more noble, shows more human compassion (even for the attacker), and avoids further escalating anger and hatred on both sides. The argument is that, by not stooping to the level of violent, animalistic behavior, it furthers the goal of peaceful society. Maybe, maybe not. Of course, a completely non-violent society would be ideal. If no one ever swung (or shot) first, the world would be a lot better place. But in a world where some people DO initiate violence against the innocent, which is better?: 1) for the innocent to act as noble martyr, suffering the injustice without resistance, or 2) for someone to use force to make sure the bad guy — the guy who started the conflict — loses? When put another way, the question becomes a no-brainer for me: "Which is better, for a thug to beat up someone innocent, or for someone to forcibly stop the thug from doing so?" Does anyone want to argue that it's GOOD for the innocent guy to get beat up? I doubt it. And would anyone argue that using force to STOP the attacker is WORSE than what the attacker did in the first place? I doubt even many pacifists would want to say that the defensive force is WORSE than the act of aggression. But some would still claim that letting yourself get beat up is better than resisting. Now let's complicate the issue. What if it's not YOU that's being attacked? What if you, the pacifist, come across someone ELSE being attacked? Is it still noble and righteous to passively stand there, watching as someone else gets assaulted and/or murdered? Again, I think everyone would agree that the attacker getting beat up, even if that's also unpleasant and unfortunate, is not as bad as the innocent guy getting beat up. So how could anyone argue that NOT forcibly intervening — that allowing the WORSE of two choices to happen — is at all noble or virtuous? In short, it's not. If someone attacks YOU, and you choose to let them, I will disagree with your choice, but I wouldn't criticize you very loudly. But if you stand by while someone ELSE is being victimized, if you fail to act when you had it in your power to protect the innocent, then I would call you a coward. Furthermore, you would not even deserve the "non-violent" label at all. When an attacker decides to use violence, it's already too late for a non-violent resolution. You aren't preventing or even reducing violence by standing idly by; you are merely allowing the bad guy to win the contest of violence. Would anyone like to self-righteously pronounce, "I am noble and virtuous, because I did nothing and said nothing while my neighbor was beaten to death"? That's not nobility, nor is it a principled thing to do. If you ask me, it is cowardice, disguised as virtue. And the ultimate dead give-away is when a self-described pacifist says, "Well, I would call the police." And will they come with flowers and love letters, or will they come with GUNS? How can anyone, on principle, say that it's virtuous for them to refrain from ever using violence, while advocating that someone ELSE do it instead? That's not principle; that's passing the buck. While I disagree with a bunch of things that Gandhi said (including the first sentence of the following quote), here's an interesting statement I just found from him: "A non-violent man or woman will and should die without retaliation, anger or malice, in self-defense or in defending the honour of their womenfolk. This is the highest form of bravery. If an individual or group of people are unable or unwilling to follow this great law of life, retaliation or resistance unto death is the second best, though a long way off from the first. Cowardice is impotence worse than violence. The coward desires revenge but being afraid to die, he looks to others, maybe to the government of the day, to do the work of defense for him. A coward is less than a man. He does not deserve to be a member of a society of men and women." [Gandhi] To be blunt, I think that for many, passing the buck really is the basis of pacifism. They don't like to have to think about the possibility that some day THEY may have to use VIOLENCE against another human being. Yes, good people find the thought disturbing. Not only is it scary to think of maybe getting hurt in such a conflict, but even the thought of harming someone else — even if it's necessary — is not something good people enjoy. I've made it this far through life without even having to punch anyone, much less doing something really unpleasant to someone. And I hope that holds true until the day I die. HOWEVER, I also realize that there are some times when the good guys are forced into a choice between using VIOLENCE, and allowing horrible injustice to occur. The reason I own firearms is so I can do the RIGHT thing if I ever find myself faced with that unpleasant choice. (P.S. In the quote shown above, Gandhi implies that passively standing in the way of an attacker, and letting him beat or kill you, amounts to "defending" one's family. How so? If someone came to take your kid, would you just nobly stand there, get beat up, and let your kid be taken? Is that "defending" anything? No. It is cowardice, a thousand times more evil than blowing the attacker's head off with a 12-gauge. And THAT is what Gandhi got wrong.)
More Good Stuff:
|
STUMBLE IT!