Pacifism vs Just War Theory

[theInquirer]

So I come from a pacifist Mennonite family, but for the past couple of years I personally have not been sure whether I ought to believe the pacifism view or the just war view. . . any advice?

[simplejeff]

10 minutes ago, theInquirer said:

So I come from a pacifist Mennonite family, but for the past couple of years I personally have not been sure whether I ought to believe the pacifism view or the just war view. . . any advice?

Look up if possible and find and watch "The Conscientious Objector" ,  a true life about Desmond Doss.   (never compromise)

[theInquirer]

Okay thanks, I will look into that.  

[Willa]

I knew several conscientious objectors from the Viet Nam war.  They were medics who became registered nurses that specialized in critical care.  Some may go into rehabilitation.  Many areas of need in veterans hospitals.  

[Who me]

On 2/14/2019 at 10:05 PM, theInquirer said:

have not been sure whether I ought to believe the pacifism view or the just war view.

You have to review the claims being made for each military action taken or proposed and decide whether it is right and just or not.

Regardless of what view you hold or your family holds you should support and pray for those in the military.

 

Just to be provocative. What about your support for the police who often have to use leathal force in sometimes questionable circumstances?

[Billiards Ball]

On 2/14/2019 at 5:05 PM, theInquirer said:

So I come from a pacifist Mennonite family, but for the past couple of years I personally have not been sure whether I ought to believe the pacifism view or the just war view. . . any advice?

Does it matter? Are you in the Service? Of draft age?

If fighting is not in your conscience and you're drafted in America, serve in the medical core.

But if you don't believe in just war, imagine if America and Russia had stayed out of WW II!

[Guest]

On 2/14/2019 at 5:05 PM, theInquirer said:

So I come from a pacifist Mennonite family, but for the past couple of years I personally have not been sure whether I ought to believe the pacifism view or the just war view. . . any advice?

I come from the World War II generation, uncles in both Pacific and European Theaters of Operation.  I managed to hang onto my college deferment until near the end of the Viet Nam War.  My number was called and I reported for my physical.  I failed my physical and was allowed to finish my university career getting my BSME.  I don't know what I would have done if I passed my physical.  I was very Liberal in those days.

[frienduff thaylorde]

On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 2:15 PM, simplejeff said:

Look up if possible and find and watch "The Conscientious Objector" ,  a true life about Desmond Doss.   (never compromise)

All mens wars are about one thing .     They desire to have something they don't .      OH but they can cloak anything and make it seem as a righteous cause .

NO COMPROMISE .     That's right jeff .       From whence comes wars ............    exactly . 

Do we really think even the civil war of America was really fought because the ellites in the north LOVED the slaves .  I tell us all NO .

It was the love of money .   See, the south had free labor and could set the market and the north could not compete.  But throw it in as slavery and a good cause and that will make it seem just .

[theInquirer]

On 2/21/2019 at 9:46 AM, Who me said:

You have to review the claims being made for each military action taken or proposed and decide whether it is right and just or not.

Regardless of what view you hold or your family holds you should support and pray for those in the military.

 

Just to be provocative. What about your support for the police who often have to use leathal force in sometimes questionable circumstances?

Well, but my question is more about whether it is ever permissible to force someone to do something.  The argument against this would come from Matthew 5: "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye and tooth for tooth,' but I tell you, do not resist an evil person.  If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.  And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.  If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.  Give to the one who asks you and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."  If this is referring to always forgiving someone for sinning against you, then of course it would be permissible to force someone else to not sin against a third person.  After all, I can forgive Jones for punching me, but I cannot forgive Jones for punching Smith since the offense is not against me.  Although come to think of it, I suppose it would be possible to forgive someone for something while still forcing them to stop doing something.  

I suppose the very concept of using force involves causing another individual to do something against their will and thus be uncomfortable.  After all, if they were willing to do that thing which you would be wanting them to do or not do, no force would be necessary.  Also note that if we define evil (as opposed to sin) as pain, we must dutifully consider this discomfort (experienced by the individual being forced) to be evil.  Thus, the question becomes one of whether or not evil may ever be caused by good, and the case here is rather strong that good can and does cause evil, albeit probably indirectly (I have yet to formulate a proof of this, but I believe it to be true).  Every time Jesus told the Pharisees something they didn't want to hear, every time a family was divided because of the Gospel (Jesus: "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."), every time an apostle got martyred for his faith, obedience or propagation to/of good was causing evil. (Note, however, that we may also easily prove that this evil was not the good's "fault."  We could easily argue that if I have to kill someone because they are doing something wrong, that is the fault of the person doing that sin, not my fault.)  

Thus, we have narrowed the question once again down to, "Is it ever right for anyone to force anyone else to do or not do something?"  The question technically has nothing to do with the outcome of killing or not killing, since it is a very feasible statement to make that instead of the end justifying the means, the means justifies the end.  In other words, whether or not the answer to this question is yes or no does not depend in any way upon who would die or suffer or otherwise because of my taking this or that action.  That is the epitome of pragmatism and utilitarianism, and is in no right necessarily moral.  

I wish I could keep writing and come to a final conclusion, but that's honestly the farthest I've gotten in my reasoning.  I wish I had an answer beyond this, but I don't; thus my initial question in this topic. 

And to respond to your question on my views concerning police toughness, I'd have to say that I think we have to consider those problems on a situational basis since of course probably some were times when the police did indeed go too far and some were probably times when they really were acting within their correct boundaries.  In general, though, I'd probably lean towards the side of the officers since I see a lot of bloating of the facts in the media, and this bloating generally goes in favor of the victim in accordance with the views of the media, not (necessarily) based on fact.  

Edited May 19, 2019 by theInquirer

[theInquirer]

On 2/23/2019 at 10:26 PM, Cletus said:

to some people eating meat is a sin.  to others its not.  if someone who believes eating meat is sin does eat and violates their conscious its sin.  no matter what happens, no matter what man does to you a clear conscious before God is worth more than the whole world and all the gold in it.  do not throw it away.  keep yourself unspotted from the world. 

I agree with you on that--somewhat.  In responding to this, I am going to ask what sin is at all?  In I believe third John, it clearly states, ". . . sin is lawlessness."  If sin is the opposite of the law, then what is the law?  Jesus clearly summed it up when he said "Love the Lord your God," and ". . . love your neighbor as yourself."  The common theme here is, of course, love, which is a thing of the heart and mind and not the body.  Nothing is sinful except for the opposite of love of the right things, which obviously is hate.  I'd also like to point out that in truth, nothing in the world is sinful except for the heart/mind/soul of the individual.  Consider a murder: is the bullet that killed the unfortunate fellow evil?  No it is not.  What about the gun that shot the bullet?  Nope.  What about the hand that pulled the trigger?  Actually, no.  What then?  Ultimately, it is only the motive of the murderer that was sinful.  

Thus, we see that we may do anything as long as it is not motivated by sinful desires, i.e. a love of the wrong things or a hate of the right things.  Why, then, does Paul talk about some things being permissible for some and not for others?  I believe that this is because of the concept of avoiding temptation.  The things that may be inherently fine but cause us to sin are certainly things we ought to avoid; but this does not make the things in question sinful.  So we see that if certain styles of music cause an individual to have certain immoral thoughts, he ought absolutely to avoid this style of music, whether it's hymns, country, bluegrass, rap, or whatever.  You might say that it's become sin to him, or rather that he has become sinful because of it.  

There is one important point I want to address, though.  If the only thing that is ever sinful is out motives, then can't we do anything as long as our motives are clean?  Why even did God give us the Ten Commandments if all we have to do is keep a sound mind?  My analysis of that is that, first of all, what God does in the Bible is clarify what it means to love God and others, thus clarifying what it means to love God.  After all, if you really love God, chances are that you're not going to go and worship a piece of wood, and if you do, chances are that you don't love God.  You might say that it's not possible to have good motives about having bad motives.  It's impossible to lovingly hate someone, or hatefully love someone.