Your opinion on pacifism

[Exarkyon]

So I imagine the debates are going to start below. I'm going to provide my opinion:

I support the just war theory. Self defense and that of others is permissible, with a few caveats. You have to have a reasonable chance of success; don't go to war if it isn't going to help anyone, because then it's just harming people for no reason. War must be initiated by a competent authority; I can't start wars as a citizen. The intention behind the war must be right; don't use a just cause as a pretext while really going for something else. Use force as a last resort when other options have failed or are clearly going to fail, and the anticipated benefits of the war must outweigh the probable costs.

This can also be applied to individual self-defense situations. It has to be a self-defense situation or defense of others situation, be proportional (don't use lethal force against someone who is not using lethal force against you), try to solve it peacefully first if you can (if you're being attacked you can safely assume they don't want to negotiate), don't use self-defense as an excuse when it isn't really your intention, and don't use force if it is clearly not going to achieve your intended aim.

Note that for the "chance of success" it is important to remember that this is for achieving your intended aim, not necessarily military victory in the conventional sense. If a small nation gets aggressively attacked by a bigger nation, it could still justly resist if the point is to stall in order to get aid, even if it has basically no chance of actually driving them out at the start of the conflict.

[Floofybit]

Violence is never good unless in cases of self defense. Safety is a priority.

[Past beans]

OK so don't beat me up for saying i'm imperialist.
I believe violence works to further goals.
a good example is manifest destiny. from what I know about it, violence was used for territory which furthers the goals.

[Exarkyon]

Violence is never good unless in cases of self defense. Safety is a priority.

What about defending other people (in the case of individual use of force) or allies (in the case of nations)?

[Exarkyon]

OK so don't beat me up for saying i'm imperialist.
I believe violence works to further goals.
a good example is manifest destiny. from what I know about it, violence was used for territory which furthers the goals.

That is not a perspective I was expecting to see a lot of here. We will refrain from beating you up.

Does this mean that wars of aggression intended to expand are justified for you?

[The Astral Mandate]

Pacifism is good.
Here's my take:
Only use violence to end a greater violence, or in defense.
Basically option 2 in the poll.
This nation represents RL views, and it is of course pacifist.

[Past beans]

OK so don't beat me up for saying i'm imperialist.
I believe violence works to further goals.
a good example is manifest destiny. from what I know about it, violence was used for territory which furthers the goals.

That is not a perspective I was expecting to see a lot of here. We will refrain from beating you up.

Does this mean that wars of aggression intended to expand are justified for you?

yes it does. manifest destiny, the entirety of the mongols, and other things. those worked to further the groups goals.

[Cuba 2022 RP]

I am a total pacifist. Gandhi-level. Or at least I try to be, I might violate that if I were actually being beaten up, one can never predict how they’d behave in a dangerous situation

[Tangatarehua]

Despite roleplaying as a pacifist nation, I'm really not a fan of pacifism.

While like most people, I'd prefer not to live in a violent world and thus usually choose to avoid violence where possible I'm also well aware that humans have not changed since leaving the jungle and that violence and the threat thereof is the only thing holding most of civilisation together.

I don't want to encourage the 'might makes right' view but given that there's no evidence for objective morality nor do there seem to be any cogent counter-arguments, I'm sadly left in a world in which I'm aware that this is the reality underpinning the human experience.

[Floofybit]

Violence is never good unless in cases of self defense. Safety is a priority.

What about defending other people (in the case of individual use of force) or allies (in the case of nations)?

Alright, I'll broaden my terms. Not self defense, just defense

[Floofybit]

Safety is one of the most important things. More important than freedom. No one should be hurt.

[Past beans]

Safety is one of the most important things. More important than freedom. No one should be hurt.

I think safety is OK, but I think the interests of a group may include and use violence. I condone it in the name of furthering a group's needs.

[Exarkyon]

Safety is one of the most important things. More important than freedom. No one should be hurt.

I think safety is OK, but I think the interests of a group may include and use violence. I condone it in the name of furthering a group's needs.

So then the world is a free-for-all of groups all of which would be justified to kill each other to better themselves?

[Exarkyon]

What about defending other people (in the case of individual use of force) or allies (in the case of nations)?

Alright, I'll broaden my terms. Not self defense, just defense

Ok. I was just checking because some people might believe national self-defense is ok but protecting allies in war is not.

[Zanderlock]

The only problem with pacifism is that it is very difficult to fight for it, because, you know...
Fighting = Bad.
If you are in a war, for example, they are not going to stop because you asked politely.
If you are being mugged, they are not going to stop because you said so.

[Exarkyon]

I am a total pacifist. Gandhi-level. Or at least I try to be, I might violate that if I were actually being beaten up, one can never predict how they’d behave in a dangerous situation

Suppose you were put in control of the countries that in our timeline became the Allies in WW2. How would you have them behave instead?

[Exarkyon]

The only problem with pacifism is that it is very difficult to fight for it, because, you know...
Fighting = Bad.
If you are in a war, for example, they are not going to stop because you asked politely.
If you are being mugged, they are not going to stop because you said so.

Yes. And being polite will not necessarily stop the war from happening if the enemy subscribes to the imperialist view.

[A m e n r i a]

Safety is one of the most important things. More important than freedom. No one should be hurt.

I think safety is OK, but I think the interests of a group may include and use violence. I condone it in the name of furthering a group's needs.

This is exactly the mindset liberals use to justify American aggression.

[Necroghastia]

That is not a perspective I was expecting to see a lot of here. We will refrain from beating you up.

Does this mean that wars of aggression intended to expand are justified for you?

yes it does. manifest destiny, the entirety of the mongols, and other things. those worked to further the groups goals.

Why does it being "their goals" matter? Something being a group's goal does not make that goal or that group good, you realize. I hate to drag out the obvious example but since Manifest Destiny is quite arguably already a genocidal idea, by your own logic the Nazis were doing good things by "furthering their goals."

[Exarkyon]

I think safety is OK, but I think the interests of a group may include and use violence. I condone it in the name of furthering a group's needs.

This is exactly the mindset liberals use to justify American aggression.

Considering he labeled himself an imperialist, I don't think that is going to persuade him he is wrong.

[Past beans]

I think safety is OK, but I think the interests of a group may include and use violence. I condone it in the name of furthering a group's needs.

So then the world is a free-for-all of groups all of which would be justified to kill each other to better themselves?

that's the way it seems to be in the middle east. the reason it doesn't happen is because not everyone is imperialist. so long as it is within the interests of a group, and made to actually improve the group, I find it justified.

[Necroghastia]

So then the world is a free-for-all of groups all of which would be justified to kill each other to better themselves?

that's the way it seems to be in the middle east. the reason it doesn't happen is because not everyone is imperialist. so long as it is within the interests of a group, and made to actually improve the group, I find it justified.

So the Nazis trying to subjugate Europe and rid it of undesirables was justified. Well, if you say so...

[Safiloa]

Violence begets violence.
Violence is never the answer.
Ideas like Nunuku Whenau, Mohism, and Ahimsa last forever, imo, because they are the future goals of humanity.

[A m e n r i a]

This is exactly the mindset liberals use to justify American aggression.

Considering he labeled himself an imperialist, I don't think that is going to persuade him he is wrong.

Idk man, wanting the worst country in the world to ruin yours in every possible way is another level of masochism.

[Cuba 2022 RP]

I am a total pacifist. Gandhi-level. Or at least I try to be, I might violate that if I were actually being beaten up, one can never predict how they’d behave in a dangerous situation

Suppose you were put in control of the countries that in our timeline became the Allies in WW2. How would you have them behave instead?

Full scale economic embargo, end all trade, and lend-lease the Soviets even more materials than in our timeline when they get invaded. Large scale covert operations in German territory to continuously leak their intel to the Soviets, as well as attempting multiple times to rescue Jews and take in all refugees asylum.

If things get too bad, I’d say that the Allies should still get involved as much as I hate to say it. There are some cases where war is necessary, from a moral perspective, although those are very rare cases.