The 5 levels of Pacifism

[Templeton]

I have done some meditation on the matter and I being a pacifist have come to a conclusion as to why our world isn't pacifist as well.

There has been war from the time of the beginning, and that once disgusted me as a pacifist, it has lead me to believe in one thing however. Anyone who uses aggression and has the will to prevent from acting out again is infact a pacifist in a way. From a pacifist who fights for democracy and then returns to his or her base with a sound mind, to a more archaic pascifist who takes out a rival gang member and then heads home not harming anyone else along the way.

From this standard I have come to this guide to what I consider the "5 levels of pacifism"


Level 1: Religious Pacifist

Level 2: Civilian Pacifist

Level 3: Soldier/Freedom Fighter Pacifist

Level 4: Tolatariant Fighter Pacifist

Level 5: Anarchiac Pacifist

I feel that I fall under the status of "Civilian Pacifist" which means that I will work for the benefit of humanity without the use of force.

Something must be kept in mind however, we need to maintain a balance of all these types in our civilivation in order to preserve humanity. It's only when they are working in harmony that our race enduers and remains confident.

What I'm generally saying is, that its in some of us to use violence only when necessary, and that will to limit it makes us all in this Universe pacifists in our own way.

It's a theory of mine thank you for listening

[Yvl]

So everyone except for a psychotic killer is a pacifist in some way? Doesn't that kinda wreck the meaning of the word?
_________________

[Tokuro]

He is right kinda of Yvl. Because only a psychotic killer would kill for fun. The rest mostly will kill for something he believes as a greater force than life, like God or the concept of freedom, so in his mind he is making violence for peace. And he is only kinda right because a real pacifist would find a non violental act to change the things to the way he believes that things should be, no matter if he does that for a God or freedom.
So Templeton, you explained the Civilian level of pacifism. Care to explainthe others?

[Yvl]

Indeed, but then there are better words to describe them than "pacifist." You could say that the majority of humanity strives for peace instead. And I suppose your definaition wouldn't include people who kill for personal gain such as dictators and such, correct? And what about killing for revenge or to stop a threat to humanity as a whole (the moral dilemma depicted in the anime "Monster")?

Your theory as a whole I don't mind, its just, as I said, the word "Pacifist."
_________________

[Sage]

A pacifist is someone against violence, no? So using violence "only when necessary" would mean to a pacifist that violence is never necessary and thus, never used.

It seems more to me that you are describing one's self control over their own violent actions. I personally would not call that pacifism.
_________________

[Timbo]

I agree with Sage and Yvl. I don't think a person can be a pacifist if they use violence 'when it is necessary'. That would seem to define pacifism as 'wanting peace',when it is closer to 'against violence'.

[Tokuro]

Yes it is. The higher ideal on this case would be kill to not get killed, isn't it?

[Timbo]

[Tokuro]

On the case I am calling higher ideals anything that would make someone who is normally pacific (and not a psicho killer) to harm and/or kill others.

[Templeton]

The real reason I wrote this is because me being in denial about the historically violent nature of the human race want things to change.

I decided to classify these types because I can somehow say that all people must be tolerated from concervative pacifist to ones who may use force and those who are traditionalist like the amush(Sp?)

I've been a democracy loving pacifist for 4 years now, I've been studying how I should approach my beliefs. There's been many hurdles having to be knocked down in order for me to find justification in all happennings, for example, I thought that all countries that are tolateriant should be instantly santioned by the UN; But I have to realize that somehow it is the people of those countries who are waiting for their country to mature and thus we should invest in such regiems hoping they don't find a reason to declare war right after.

It just sucks to me that people are being manipulated by society and the right wing media into supporting the use of violence to make a problem go away and for us to feel special about it afterword. I have always wished that police and militaries around the world would be reformed into non-violent organzations which would use peaceful means to solve world conflicts. Of course there would bound to be a crack in the system and someone would take advantage of such a system.

That's all for now.

[Timbo]

[Amyral]

As much as I find the idea of a militant pacifist to be, well, awesome, it completely defeats the purpose of what pacifism is, and undermines the efforts of the real pacifist revolutionaries, like Ghandi.

You admit it yourself. You're in denial. You want to try to classify nearly everyone in the world as a pacifist, when they aren't in any way. If violence is an option to a person, they aren't a pacifist. If violence is an acceptable course of action for a person, they aren't a pacifist.

In this denial, you've made the definition of pacifism so broad that it's nearly meaningless. Not completely, because it does limit it to people who wouldn't use violence as a first resort, but it puts such a broad group into it that the word has lost most of its meaning.

[Nimble Jack]

I think that this topic is in sore need of a clear definition of what pacifism is.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

[Tokuro]

[Sparhawk]