I also won’t stand in the way if other victims of the oppressive system we live under rise up in violent revolt
Hmm, doesn’t this make you non-pacifist? I think if you condone violence by others you might not be a pacifist, even if you refuse to take part in violence, yourself. I guess it depends on the definition…
Only reason I say this is because I feel the same way personally about violence – I never use it as a tactic, and would like the right to refuse to use it personally – but believe that members of a movement shouldn’t restrict the range of tactics its members use against a violent system. So I feel like I feel the same as you, but came to the opposite conclusion (I’m not a pacifist)
I can only make such moral decision for myself, not for others. I can enforce my values on myself and demand I do better, but other people have to walk that road for themselves.
If you’re making someone do something by force then what they do can’t be defined as moral. It would be compliance with someone else’s wishes, not obedience to an internal directive. Therefore moral matters are for one’s own consideration and not something to beat other people into submission with.
Somebody else here, I think an issue might be that it’s people being under (presumably) immoral oppression lashing out with immoral means, so to try to stop them might itself be siding with the also immoral oppression. There’s something here about the goal and the means.
The way I see it, the people lashing out are doing so because they were effectively forced to, which puts their behavior outside the bounds of moral judgement. Such judgement should be reserved for the ones who left those people with no other choice.
![[Discussion] Toughts on nonviolence?](https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/f109a5e5-8686-4180-b09a-94fab81488bf.webp){kind=link}
Hmm, doesn’t this make you non-pacifist? I think if you condone violence by others you might not be a pacifist, even if you refuse to take part in violence, yourself. I guess it depends on the definition…
Only reason I say this is because I feel the same way personally about violence – I never use it as a tactic, and would like the right to refuse to use it personally – but believe that members of a movement shouldn’t restrict the range of tactics its members use against a violent system. So I feel like I feel the same as you, but came to the opposite conclusion (I’m not a pacifist)
I can only make such moral decision for myself, not for others. I can enforce my values on myself and demand I do better, but other people have to walk that road for themselves.
You can’t enforce any moral values on others? Or just this one?
If you’re making someone do something by force then what they do can’t be defined as moral. It would be compliance with someone else’s wishes, not obedience to an internal directive. Therefore moral matters are for one’s own consideration and not something to beat other people into submission with.
Somebody else here, I think an issue might be that it’s people being under (presumably) immoral oppression lashing out with immoral means, so to try to stop them might itself be siding with the also immoral oppression. There’s something here about the goal and the means.
The way I see it, the people lashing out are doing so because they were effectively forced to, which puts their behavior outside the bounds of moral judgement. Such judgement should be reserved for the ones who left those people with no other choice.