ec2-3-17-75-227.us-east-2.compute.amazonaws.com | ToothyWiki | RecentChanges | Login | Webcomic "MoonShadow wonders what Vitenka would do if he found himself in the middle of a war that someone else had already started.
Question: If I am walking down the street and somebody runs towards me with a cricket bat from behind with the obvious intent of doing me an injury and you (the pacifist) were in a position to see my incoming assailant but you knew that I, being a non-pacifist, would use all possible means at my disposal to defend myself would you warn me that I was about to be attacked? --King DJ
I can't tell you what I'd do because it's impossible to predict what one would do in such a situation (probably run away, knowing me!), but I should like to be able to do something different. I'd like to stand between you and the attacker so that you would have a chance to run, and the attacker would hit me. --AR
Right. According to my system of beliefs what I would now have to do would be to assist you as best I can. If you had been severely injured this would mean that I (being a first aider) would be obliged to treat your wounds. However the cricket bat wielding maniac is still a problem. I could engage him which has a high probability of failure but which would be the only option if he seemed intent on finishing you off or I can flee which I would do if I judged the danger to myself to be too great to assist you.
Either way you have increased the danger to me (and my attacker) as there is more chance I will be forced to fight rather than flee and you have injured yourself to boot. Wouldn't it be easier for all concerned if you shouted a warning and let me defend myself as I choose to? -- King DJ
She hasn't forced you to fight. That's your choice; you can't blame it on someone else. I do get your point, but I thought that worth clarifying - SunKitten
I now have to go back for a downed comrade. This means I can't simply run away as I stand to lose by doing this where as before the outcome would be neutral. This is why getting yourself shot in a battle is more than just bad for you but it is also bad for all your friends. --King DJ
You are incorrect. You do not have to go back and help her. She has not even asked for it. It is your choice - SunKitten
I could leave her behind but what kind of a person does that make me? She's allowed herself to be beaten about the head on my behalf. Why shouldn't I do something to heal her wounds or get her to someone who can? The point is the stakes have now gone from one life being in danger to two lives being in danger and leaving the exactly the same options open to me as before.--King DJ
But it is still your choice - you cannot hold her responsible for it. To do otherwise is to make the same fallacy that an abusive father makes when he says to his children "if only you behaved better I wouldn't have to beat you up all the time". Even if the father can't help himself and genuinely can't act any other way, either he is to blame or no-one is; certainly it is no fault of the children's. In the same way, Angela's choices in the situation described do not render her responsible for your subsequent actions. I agree with you that I would feel somewhat betrayed if a friend deliberately did something I thought was utterly pointless or even counterproductive in a situation where I believed they could do something helpful, but I would not hold them responsible for my subsequent actions - surely they are responsible for their actions and I am responsible for mine? - MoonShadow
I have two choices. One choice would not be taken with anyone with any honour whatsoever. Therefore I have one choice. In any case I stand by my assertion that pacifists are a danger not only to themselves but to everyone else as well.--King DJ
Ah. Honour. I take it you've never been in such a situation? I haven't. I cannot say what I'd do despite having trained for 8 years in a martial art. But, if you choose to try to be honourable, whatever that means, you cannot hold her responsible for your choice. Angela's choices in the situation described do not render her responsible for your subsequent actions. To blame her for making you do something is not honourable either - SunKitten, pragmatist and not really a pacifist
On re-reading, that comes across as a bit harsh. What I wanted to point out was that none of us can say with certainty what we would do in such a situation without direct first-hand experience. Also, what does 'honour' mean to you? It seems to be a very useful buzzword, but what does it actually mean? It seems to me to be at least as 'dishonourable' to wrongly blame Angela for forcing you to defend yourself against this hypothetical maniac as it does to accept her sacrifice for you, which is what she chose of her own free will to do, and take advantage of it. Honour is an extremely fuzzy and subjective thing, so I suggest we drop the word and go to what you mean by it. Explain it to me - SunKitten
If you only have one choice, then by the same logic Angela has only one choice - her notion of honour does not allow her to do anything but jump in front of the maniac. Can you hold her responsible? Alternatively, if Angela has two choices, then so must you - otherwise you are guilty of inconsistency and double standards. - MoonShadow
Ah. Well I don't want to explain everything, as it will provoke half a dozen different arguments, all off topic. I believe that I have a duty to help those around me. In particular those that have in the past assisted me. To fail them when they need me for my own selfish reasons is dishonourable.
Let me try and clarify how I view the situation. The Manic is attacking me not AR and so her injuries are the only danger to her. I am saying that her sacrifice puts me in a more difficult situation morally and physically than I would be if she had warned me. As for "blame": there is a tree of possible options open, my options are only fight or flee (basically). ARs decision has made it more attractive to fight than flee (to go for broke rather than accept the situation). However I still take full responsibility for my actions. It is just that in trying to make the best out of a bad situation I am more likely to take the more violent option. This is supposed to be a bad thing from the pacifists’ point of view isn't it? Saying whose fault it is neither here nor there, the fact is at the base of the probability tree more people have been hurt.--King DJ
Oh, I fully understand your point, and did from the beginning. What I didn't like was that you appeared to be trying to blame Angela for a choice that was 100% your own. I'd like to ask why you feel you have a duty to help those around you, but you didn't want to go off into different arguments so it can wait ;)
If the pacifist wants to protect you without hurting anyone, and assuming the warning she shouted wasn't enough (I don't think warning someone is non-pacifist; I think she missed that part of the argument), what other choice has she? - SunKitten
Whatever happened to the good old fashioned *Glomp!*? as a non-violent way of averting disaster? --Edith
Now this is more like it. Thinking of alternatives is something that the world could do a lot better at before launching into battle. But tell me, what is an old fashioned *Glomp!*? Are they purchasable? :-) --AR
Glomp, otherwise known as the massive flying hug. Usually the least thing someone expects and thus incedibly effective. Glomps tend to be free, unlike the subject of one. --Edith
I find it satisfying in the extreme that a page named 'pacifism' which started as a discussion of behaviour in a violent situation has ended up as a page defining a variety of hugs. I shall use that as my answer in future. --Vitenka
I point out that Edith knows very well that a Glomp works just fine on someone armed only with blunt implements, and is really not very good against sharp attacks... --ChessyPig
![[Home]](/img/text_logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Pacifism