Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

3 Reasons Why Targeted Defies Pacifism

Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2012 11:07:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sounds to me like any sort of killing would be anti-pacifistic... is it more complicated than I am understanding it?
Rob
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 1:01:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's violence.
Pacifism rejects violence.

No exceptions.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 1:15:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yeah, It's straightforward. You can go into the intrinsic details, if you wish to. Targeted killing leaves a trail of emotions behind, family distraught, urge to revenge, the principles directly contradicting the objectives of Pacifism.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 1:29:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 1:01:57 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's violence.
Pacifism rejects violence.

No exceptions.

I believe she's referring to Pacifism in it's casual political sense and not the philosophical. That is, not getting into war.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 2:24:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I wouldnt really run Pacifism because it can easily be turned, and its not what the debate will be about. You're going to say that targeted killing violates pacifism which is bad because pacifism leads to peace, prosperity, etc. They can just as easily say that targeted killing takes out terrorist leaders which also leads to peace, prospeity, etc. And at that point its not really about pacifism and is more about Util.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 2:32:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I mean, pacifism isnt really a criterion at all (assuming thats what you're planning to use it as).

Think of it this way - why are pacifists against war? Because it kills people? No, because if war killed 100 but saved 1000, pacifists would be for the war. What pacifism believes is that war doesn't save more people than it kills. It kills more than it saves. Thats why you would be for pacifism. So its not really a criterion and more of a logical conclusion based on Utilitarianism. So Util would be the better criterion.

I suppose you could argue it philosophically though and say that violence is inherently bad. But at that point you're more talking about the non-agression principle and not pacifism.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 2:34:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
^ NAP could be good on this topic for judges that like philosophy. Its much better than pacifism which carries a negative connotation for a lot of people.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 8:33:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 1:29:32 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/29/2012 1:01:57 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's violence.
Pacifism rejects violence.

No exceptions.

I believe she's referring to Pacifism in it's casual political sense and not the philosophical. That is, not getting into war.

Violence, war, what's the difference but scale?
Politics is a segment of philosophy.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.