Violence, Pacifism, Collectivism, Individualism

[Hurmanetar]

It seems appropriate to start a thread on the various viewpoints regarding the use of violence. Gun Control has come up in a number of threads here in the "other" forum, and additionally I would guess most of us participating at Skeptiko have had our values and/or spiritual sensibilities shaped by various religions, NDE reports, spirit communication, etc. We hear from these sources that love is the ultimate good and there is nothing better a person can do than to love those around us - even enemies. "Turn the other cheek", "love your enemies", and "whoever lives by the sword will die by the sword." These statements attributed to Jesus as well as other martyrs throughout history have profoundly shaped human consciousness and elevated the pacifist ideals. I think we can all agree that has been a good thing for humanity. But can there be degrees of pacifism? Or is pacifism sometimes a cover for shirking of responsibilities? Attitudes about guns in particular deeply divide some of us here at Skeptiko who otherwise agree on much. We reside in different countries with very different laws and viewpoints regarding guns, but I think at the heart of the division is a different viewpoint on violence, pacifism, collectivism, and individualism.

I'm not really intending to debate gun control again, though the thread might eventually diverge into that. We can debate statistics and theory all day long, but the core of the argument comes down to a few key issues.

Pacifism

Pacifism does make sense to me on one level (and veganism too closely related). I can see how a broader perspective on life beyond the here and now could lead one in this direction. If you decide to live in such a way as to cause no harm to any living being because of your empathy and love, that seems like an entirely acceptable and internally consistent philosophy. If one chooses not to fight back in the face of hostility, the story of a martyr can have a powerful effect if the story becomes widely known.

But with the pacifist philosophy would come a certain amount of alienation and isolation, because a pacifist could not put himself in positions where use of deadly force might be necessary. I don't think it makes sense for a pacifist to have a family. Just to give a black and white example, what if you caught some greasy 50 year old man beating and raping your 5 year old daughter? I think even a pacifist would be hard pressed to conclude that the use of potentially deadly force is not justified to stop a greater violence occurring to one's own innocent child. In my opinion, not using deadly force in this instance is a shameful abandonment of a parent's responsibility to protect a child.

And looking at the concept from a social darwinism viewpoint, it seems that if sizeable groups of people or religions adopted a totally pacifist mindset they will eventually be conquered by other groups who don't care for it.

What are your views on the moral or ethical use of violence? What are your thoughts on the consequences of widespread pacifism? On the elevation of pacifism by certain interpretations of Christian passages?

Conflict

We live in a world where both nature and humanity are full of conflict and competition. Part of that conflict involves deadly struggles; however, civilization in certain parts of the world has been stable long enough that it is possible for a person to grow up and even live out his or her entire life without facing a situation where violence is necessary. This can lead a person to believe that there is no longer any need for violence; however, violence is what maintains the stability of the system. At this very moment, there are people out there committing violence against others who are selfish or lack empathy so that you don't have to do it yourself. It is this violence and the threat of violence that enables stable societal structures.

There is a spectrum of empathy in human personalities. Most people are "good people" in that they have a capacity for empathy and don't intend to hurt others. A few people are sociopaths who don't care whether they hurt others and some even get pleasure out of hurting others. Even those with some empathy can have lapses in judgement caused by jealousy or other excessive self-centered desires that cause them to knowingly and willfully harm others. As long as this is the case, it will be necessary to defend one's self or those entrusted to one's care. Defending loved ones or those who are not able to defend themselves from violent aggressors IS an act of love.

Collectivism

In a stable society and particularly in densely populated cities, people tend to have a collectivist mindset because people are more interdependent upon the services of one another. Every person has their specialty and niche and together they make the city work. Those who live out in the country tend to have more of an independent individualist mindset because there is not so much of a distribution of responsibilities, and often services are a long ways off. For example, a rancher has to know how to do a little bit of everything from fence mending to wood working to plumbing to gardening, to mechanics, and also shooting and self-defense. Much of America was settled in the not so distant past by independent individualists who lived remotely and could not rely on anyone else but themselves and their families to take care of responsibilities including self-defense.

So while I have respect for pacifism if one lives in such a way as to not put themselves in a position where violence might be required, I don't have respect for the collectivism that arises in cities where people believe they are being pacifists and want to force everyone else around them into pacifism, but don't consider the fact they are outsourcing to others the responsibility for self-defense that enables them to live as pacifists.

This collectivism is not pacifism because it says that only the state can rightfully judge and use deadly force and only the state can be equipped with weapons, and individuals cannot be trusted to do this. History has shown that taking away power from the people and giving the state a monopoly on the use of deadly force ends very badly. As long as some humans lack empathy, any hierarchy will be dangerous because sociopaths will eventually work their way to the top and oppress those at the bottom.

Spirituality and the Warrior

I think most people here would agree pacifism is a valid spiritual path, and most here would probably conclude it is the highest spiritual path. Perhaps in some ways they are right. But is it possible to be spiritual, loving, and empathetic and also be a warrior who is prepared to commit violence in defense of those who need defending? Many spiritual traditions weave the martial arts into spirituality. If spirituality is partly about gaining self-knowledge and becoming aware of your body and mind and spirit, then putting one's self to the test is a way of developing this knowledge and awareness. The dualistic nature of the universe implies that exploration in one direction develops knowledge of the other direction as well. There are ways to channel and transmute natural aggression into spiritual transformation rather than ignoring and suppressing this natural aspect of human nature. You can only know yourself if you explore both the yin and the yang. There are some things that can only be experienced and learned through conflict or the preparation for the ultimate contest. The person who sharpens and hones his faculties turning his body and mind into a deadly weapon yet lives in such a way as to avoid violence and maintains a quiet, humble, yet powerful and courageous disposition, in my opinion has greater spiritual understanding than one who shrinks back from all thoughts of dangerous and scary things and calls on others to handle this responsibility for him. I view pacifism kind of like celibacy. It is a trade off. There are some realms of spirituality and self-knowledge that can be more deeply explored and perhaps are solely accessible through pacifism and celibacy, and there are other realms of spirituality that cannot be known except through intimate love and the warrior's preparations. Now there is always danger in turning one's self into a deadly weapon. Freedom is always dangerous, but I believe the danger is worth it. One danger is that, "to a hammer everything is a nail". If people are trained in the martial arts, but this is not balanced with spirituality, empathy, and discipline, they are worse off. Everything needs balance.

I am surprised to hear some people who sincerely believe in life after death talk as if death is the worst thing that could happen. If we are here partly to learn to have dominion over our own consciousness, then isn't developing an independent spirit part that quest? I see the Gnostic goal of breaking the bonds of the mental prisons that encase our minds as closely related to the physical manifestation of such bonds that would dominate the body and mind. The struggle for mental and spiritual freedom often becomes physical. I believe enslavement and oppression on both the mental and physical level is a far worse fate than death. If the state is granted weapons while the people are not permitted this right, the people are being oppressed by a hierarchy that monopolizes the use of deadly force. Even if this oppression is not directly felt because one is unaware of the state's hidden actions in diverse places or because one has grown up into an environment pervaded by the state or because the state's overreaching power has crept in slowly, the oppression is nevertheless there and it will get worse because hierarchies always do. The only way to stop the inevitable oppression of the hierarchy is to balance out the concentrated power at the top with distributed power (over the narrative and also over self-defense) to the people at the bottom of the pyramid.

What are your thoughts?

 

[EthanT]

I think one has to take into account an evolution of consciousness here, as well as the fact that the world is what we make of it, in that the violence (or love) we see in the world around us is ultimately a manifestation of internal energies within ourselves.

If we had a world full of pacifists, there would ne no need to worry about protecting a family member. If we had a world full of violent tribal folks, well, things can get pretty nasty. In the meantime, while we consciously evolve from more animal/tribal mentalities to a higher spiritual state (back to the source?), all these forces are at play in the world. It's the great cosmic drama. Take it for what it is, I say.

You can see this conscious evolution going from the Old Testament to the New Testament. In the OT, the law is given to make us conscious of sin and it's our actions that count. In the NT, we can not just follow the law, it must be "written on our heart" and actions are not good enough, even our thoughts count now (wash the inside of the cup, not just the outside, we are told and do not even think about committing adultery, etc). And, we also go from a violent, capricious war-like God (Yahweh) to a peaceful God (Jesus) who won't raise a sword to protect his own life. These Images of God are also manifestations of the energies within ourselves at any current point in time. Really, its typically the highest we can collectively imagine of God at any one point in time. Joseph Campbell talks about how a similar transformation, or evolution, this turning inwards, took place going from Hinduism to Buddhism, but 500 years earlier.

Supposedly, the source of all energy is Love, but we take that energy and channel it in base, negative ways. As we evolve, hopefully we all become more pacifist. But, until we all get there, the debate and tension will continue. Most of the time it looks like we got a long frick'n ways to go!

 

[mfl]

Eisenhower had a very good segment about the military-industrial complex in his farewell speech.

 

[Kamarling]

I think that society has a long way to go to drag itself away from ever more violent solutions. At the core of most religions is a message of peace, love and altruism yet the religious message we are taught from childhood is more often about judgement, sin, punishment and retribution.

When I look back at my own cultural conditioning I can see a transition from warrior to pacifist reflected in the movies I watched or the books I read. Throughout childhood, I was an avid consumer of violent propaganda. I watched American and British made WW2 dramas based on heroic tales of our brave men killing those who would have killed us. I watched cowboys in white hats killing bad guys in black hats. Some of those movies are classics and I'd watch them again today but, perhaps, with a different emotional investment.

Take, for example, High Noon - a film that was being made as I was born into this world. It is, perhaps, a perfect example of the subject of this discussion. A man who has foresworn the gun and has just married a Quaker pacifist, has to face his former life of violence and can only do so by resorting to the gun. There is a scene involving the Quaker wife which is very germane to this discussion. It is a powerful movie and one that, I believe, still expresses the cultural dilemma of our times.

As my childhood and teens ebbed away, I became somewhat less moved by the shallow philosophies of much of the Hollywood output. John Wayne and his kind represented the old ways that I was now rejecting. I watched films like Soldier Blue which told a very different story of how the west was won. It wasn't so much the historical accuracy as the underlying message that the history of conquest and expansion is not glorious. Likewise, the story of the British Empire is not glorious. So my new heroes were the pacifists - those who refused to do the bidding of the war mongers. I watched many of the anti-war movies of the late sixties onwards which showed the futility of war. Films like Dr. Strangelove, Full Metal Jacket and Catch-22.

I'm probably rambling - there's so much background to my feelings on this subject that it is impossible to express it in a short forum post. I think that the aspect I'm attempting to highlight here is that society should think again about creating violent cultural heroes. To echo the plaintive plea of the woman from the Simpsons: think about the children!

 

[Michael Larkin]

Why are we violent? I think it's because we don't believe we're all aspects of the one thing. So for example when we see someone very talented, believing it's someone else, we get jealous instead of being delighted, and maybe we get violent, psychologically or physically. When we see someone odious, we feel righteous and may exact punishment, not realising we're only punishing ourselves.

It goes in stages. At the first stage, we may not act on our feelings of separation, but have them (pride, envy, anger, gluttony, lust, sloth and greed) anyway. Then we move on to sharing our feelings, which may incite violence. Then we may be violent ourselves. At each stage, we're increasing the sense of separation.

The possible solution, in the beginning, is to consciously act as if the apparent other isn't other, even if we don't actually believe it (cultivating humility, kindness, patience, temperance, chastity, diligence and charity). In time, we may come to believe it, and eventually, to know it. Maybe we have periods along the way when we really feel it, really know it, and the rest of the time lapse back into mere belief, or even forgetfulness.

If there is ever the need for violence, and sometimes perhaps it is justifiable, it is only when being violent prevents a greater violence. In that case, we are, on balance, protecting the integrity of the whole. We have to be alive to experience, and experiencing is why we're here. If someone threatens that experiencing, then violence may be the only way of stopping it. However, such violence shouldn't bring any kind of secret satisfaction or joy: if it does, even if the outcome is desirable, again, we're losing the sense of integrity for ourselves; increasing our sense of separation again.

Is there such a thing as just war? Perhaps so, at least in theory. WW2 is often cited, but even there, people sometimes went over the top: the fire bombing of civilians in Dresden, for example, or Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We're still arguing over whether we couldn't have merely demonstrated the atom bomb rather than actually dropping it -- and not once, but twice.

Even for violence done for the worst motives, things have a way of turning out for the better in the long run. Had the bomb not been dropped in Japan, would it have been dropped later in some other conflict, with even more death and destruction? Because it was dropped, and the devastation had been experienced, did that prevent a major conflagration during the cold war? Would the Russians have backed down over Cuba otherwise?

Mistakes notwithstanding, perhaps things are so arranged as to foster the conditions for gradual increase in evolution towards awareness of unity, and consequent decrease in violence. One hopes so, at any rate.

 

[Max_B]

It seems appropriate to start a thread on the various viewpoints regarding the use of violence. Gun Control has come up in a number of threads here in the "other" forum, and additionally I would guess most of us participating at Skeptiko have had our values and/or spiritual sensibilities shaped by various religions, NDE reports, spirit communication, etc. We hear from these sources that love is the ultimate good and there is nothing better a person can do than to love those around us - even enemies. "Turn the other cheek", "love your enemies", and "whoever lives by the sword will die by the sword." These statements attributed to Jesus as well as other martyrs throughout history have profoundly shaped human consciousness and elevated the pacifist ideals. I think we can all agree that has been a good thing for humanity. But can there be degrees of pacifism? Or is pacifism sometimes a cover for shirking of responsibilities? Attitudes about guns in particular deeply divide some of us here at Skeptiko who otherwise agree on much. We reside in different countries with very different laws and viewpoints regarding guns, but I think at the heart of the division is a different viewpoint on violence, pacifism, collectivism, and individualism.

I'm not really intending to debate gun control again, though the thread might eventually diverge into that. We can debate statistics and theory all day long, but the core of the argument comes down to a few key issues.

Pacifism

Pacifism does make sense to me on one level (and veganism too closely related). I can see how a broader perspective on life beyond the here and now could lead one in this direction. If you decide to live in such a way as to cause no harm to any living being because of your empathy and love, that seems like an entirely acceptable and internally consistent philosophy. If one chooses not to fight back in the face of hostility, the story of a martyr can have a powerful effect if the story becomes widely known.

But with the pacifist philosophy would come a certain amount of alienation and isolation, because a pacifist could not put himself in positions where use of deadly force might be necessary. I don't think it makes sense for a pacifist to have a family. Just to give a black and white example, what if you caught some greasy 50 year old man beating and raping your 5 year old daughter? I think even a pacifist would be hard pressed to conclude that the use of potentially deadly force is not justified to stop a greater violence occurring to one's own innocent child. In my opinion, not using deadly force in this instance is a shameful abandonment of a parent's responsibility to protect a child.

And looking at the concept from a social darwinism viewpoint, it seems that if sizeable groups of people or religions adopted a totally pacifist mindset they will eventually be conquered by other groups who don't care for it.

What are your views on the moral or ethical use of violence? What are your thoughts on the consequences of widespread pacifism? On the elevation of pacifism by certain interpretations of Christian passages?

Conflict

We live in a world where both nature and humanity are full of conflict and competition. Part of that conflict involves deadly struggles; however, civilization in certain parts of the world has been stable long enough that it is possible for a person to grow up and even live out his or her entire life without facing a situation where violence is necessary. This can lead a person to believe that there is no longer any need for violence; however, violence is what maintains the stability of the system. At this very moment, there are people out there committing violence against others who are selfish or lack empathy so that you don't have to do it yourself. It is this violence and the threat of violence that enables stable societal structures.

There is a spectrum of empathy in human personalities. Most people are "good people" in that they have a capacity for empathy and don't intend to hurt others. A few people are sociopaths who don't care whether they hurt others and some even get pleasure out of hurting others. Even those with some empathy can have lapses in judgement caused by jealousy or other excessive self-centered desires that cause them to knowingly and willfully harm others. As long as this is the case, it will be necessary to defend one's self or those entrusted to one's care. Defending loved ones or those who are not able to defend themselves from violent aggressors IS an act of love.

Collectivism

In a stable society and particularly in densely populated cities, people tend to have a collectivist mindset because people are more interdependent upon the services of one another. Every person has their specialty and niche and together they make the city work. Those who live out in the country tend to have more of an independent individualist mindset because there is not so much of a distribution of responsibilities, and often services are a long ways off. For example, a rancher has to know how to do a little bit of everything from fence mending to wood working to plumbing to gardening, to mechanics, and also shooting and self-defense. Much of America was settled in the not so distant past by independent individualists who lived remotely and could not rely on anyone else but themselves and their families to take care of responsibilities including self-defense.

So while I have respect for pacifism if one lives in such a way as to not put themselves in a position where violence might be required, I don't have respect for the collectivism that arises in cities where people believe they are being pacifists and want to force everyone else around them into pacifism, but don't consider the fact they are outsourcing to others the responsibility for self-defense that enables them to live as pacifists.

This collectivism is not pacifism because it says that only the state can rightfully judge and use deadly force and only the state can be equipped with weapons, and individuals cannot be trusted to do this. History has shown that taking away power from the people and giving the state a monopoly on the use of deadly force ends very badly. As long as some humans lack empathy, any hierarchy will be dangerous because sociopaths will eventually work their way to the top and oppress those at the bottom.

Spirituality and the Warrior

I think most people here would agree pacifism is a valid spiritual path, and most here would probably conclude it is the highest spiritual path. Perhaps in some ways they are right. But is it possible to be spiritual, loving, and empathetic and also be a warrior who is prepared to commit violence in defense of those who need defending? Many spiritual traditions weave the martial arts into spirituality. If spirituality is partly about gaining self-knowledge and becoming aware of your body and mind and spirit, then putting one's self to the test is a way of developing this knowledge and awareness. The dualistic nature of the universe implies that exploration in one direction develops knowledge of the other direction as well. There are ways to channel and transmute natural aggression into spiritual transformation rather than ignoring and suppressing this natural aspect of human nature. You can only know yourself if you explore both the yin and the yang. There are some things that can only be experienced and learned through conflict or the preparation for the ultimate contest. The person who sharpens and hones his faculties turning his body and mind into a deadly weapon yet lives in such a way as to avoid violence and maintains a quiet, humble, yet powerful and courageous disposition, in my opinion has greater spiritual understanding than one who shrinks back from all thoughts of dangerous and scary things and calls on others to handle this responsibility for him. I view pacifism kind of like celibacy. It is a trade off. There are some realms of spirituality and self-knowledge that can be more deeply explored and perhaps are solely accessible through pacifism and celibacy, and there are other realms of spirituality that cannot be known except through intimate love and the warrior's preparations. Now there is always danger in turning one's self into a deadly weapon. Freedom is always dangerous, but I believe the danger is worth it. One danger is that, "to a hammer everything is a nail". If people are trained in the martial arts, but this is not balanced with spirituality, empathy, and discipline, they are worse off. Everything needs balance.

I am surprised to hear some people who sincerely believe in life after death talk as if death is the worst thing that could happen. If we are here partly to learn to have dominion over our own consciousness, then isn't developing an independent spirit part that quest? I see the Gnostic goal of breaking the bonds of the mental prisons that encase our minds as closely related to the physical manifestation of such bonds that would dominate the body and mind. The struggle for mental and spiritual freedom often becomes physical. I believe enslavement and oppression on both the mental and physical level is a far worse fate than death. If the state is granted weapons while the people are not permitted this right, the people are being oppressed by a hierarchy that monopolizes the use of deadly force. Even if this oppression is not directly felt because one is unaware of the state's hidden actions in diverse places or because one has grown up into an environment pervaded by the state or because the state's overreaching power has crept in slowly, the oppression is nevertheless there and it will get worse because hierarchies always do. The only way to stop the inevitable oppression of the hierarchy is to balance out the concentrated power at the top with distributed power (over the narrative and also over self-defense) to the people at the bottom of the pyramid.

What are your thoughts?

I wasn't entirely sure what you were asking about, or whether my rambling reply is relevant... but my tuppence worth... (these are old ideas from many years ago when I was thinking about energy, time, competition & cooperation - dunno if they are completely valid anymore)

Conflict is the only way we can settle our differences. We always fear what we don't understand. Violence is just one form of conflict.

We only compete using energy (perhaps violently) to reach an energy equilibrium at lower energy utilisation.

But humans have access to excess amounts energy allowing far greater utilisation of energy. Society is structured in such a way that we often encounter artificial restrictions which force us to compete, this can make us very productive. Ironically we may work very hard (energy utilisation) in an effort to reach a place were we don't have to compete so hard (equilibrium). We compete... only so we don't have to.

But coming more upto date, I have realised that (at perhaps a deeper level, or a different perspective), that problems seems to stem from restrictions on the creation of patterns and meaning, and also that there is some balance to be struck between the individual and the group, such that each can protect itself from the other.

At present I suspect that balance (between group & individual) has broken down, and that we have become somewhat trapped by our patterns and meanings.

Trying to give you one simple real world example... planning & building controls (restrictions) on where, how, & what you can build, are restrictions on pattern creation, and prevent the creation of new meanings. Ultimately this leads to stagnation in building design. Applied throughout a society, it leads to stagnation and eventual decline of a civilisation.

Such material patterns (of a building) are coherent over time. The repetitious use of past patterns holds us in the past. A new pattern draws us into the future.