Suchergebnisse

The United States has a unique responsibility and opportunity to use democracy to end war; but, after 9/11, many can no longer imagine pacifism. in any form. Practical Pacifism argues for an approach to peace that aims beyond religion toward a moral consen

Pazifisten und deren Gegner streiten sich meist nicht bloss über moralische, sondern auch über faktisch-deskriptive Fragen. Z.B. sind beide Seiten bei der Kosovo-Krise (1998/9) zu völlig entgegengesetzten Beschreibungen gekommen. Kein Wunder, denn der Pazifist betrachtet die Fakten legitimerweise im Lichte seines Systems von Werten. Seine Gegnerin betrachtet die Fakten im Lichte eines alternativen Wertsystems, und der Streit, der sich angeblich auf wertfrei deskriptivem Boden bewegt, kommt zu keinem Ende, weil es keine objektiven Tatsachen aus dem betreffenden Krieg gibt, die den Streit eindeutig entscheiden könnten. Die wertbeladene Weltsicht des Pazifisten lässt sich als Befolgung dreier epistemischer Imperative verstehen: 1) Zur Natur des Menschen: Wehre Dich gegen Dämonisierungen der Gegenseite; versuche immer, den Fall aus der Sicht der Gegenseite zu verstehen. 2) Zu friedfertigen Alternativen: Suche immer nach friedfertigen Alternativen zum geplanten Militäreinsatz. 3) Zur unkontrollierbaren Eskalation: Schärfe deinen Blick für unkontrollierbare, irreversible Nebenfolgen des militärischen Einsatzes, und achte besonders auf die Gefahr, dass ein weiterer Weltkrieg ausbrechen könnte. Nicht die objektive Realität entscheidet darüber, wie weit man bei der Befolgung dieser Imperative gehen sollte. Die Entscheidung hängt vielmehr von uns selbst ab – so ähnlich wie im Fall einer Naturwissenschaftlerin, die sich dafür entscheidet, hinter dem Chaos des Mannigfaltigen noch nach einer gemeinsamen Tiefenstruktur zu suchen. Diese Parallele hat eine überraschende Konsequenz. Die epistemischen Imperative des Pazifisten können mit Kants regulativen Prinzipien verglichen werden, die laut Kant notwendig sind, um unseren naturwissenschaftlichen Untersuchungen eine Orientierung zu geben. Und so verdienen die Pazifisten einen Vorwurf ganz sicher nicht: den Vorwurf, auf irrationale Weise blind zu sein für die harten Wirklichkeit. ; Pacifists and their opponents disagree not only about moral questions, but most often about factual questions as well. For example, they came to divergent descriptions of the crisis in Kosovo. According to my reconstruction of pacifism, this is not a surprise because the pacifist, legitimately, looks at the facts in the light of her system of value. Her opponent, in turn, looks at the facts in the light of alternative systems of value, and the quarrel between the two parties about supposedly descriptive matters does not come to an end as there is no objective reality about the war in question that could settle the issue. If I am right, the pacifist's value-laden way of looking at reality can be reconstructed as an obedience to three epistemic imperatives. First, the Epistemic Imperative concerning Human Nature ("Resist against demonizing the other side; always try to understand the case from their point of view"). Second, the Epistemic Imperative concerning Non-Violent Alternatives ("Always search for non-violent alternatives to projected military action"). Third, the Epistemic Imperative concerning Uncontrolled Escalation ("Sharpen your attention for uncontrolled, irreversible side effects of military action, particularly for the danger of escalation to another world war"). Objective reality does not decide how far one should go in following these imperatives. Rather, the decision about this is our's—similarly as in case of the scientist who decides to search for common deep structure behind the chaos of the manifold. So the pacifist's epistemic imperatives can be compared to Kant's regulative principles that are necessary for guiding the scientific scrutiny of reality. ; Not Reviewed

Responding to the unprecedented violence of our times, and the corresponding interest in nonviolent solutions, this book takes up the heart of pacifism: its critique of what pacifists have termed the war system. Pacifism as War Abolitionism provides an account of the war system that draws on contemporary sociology, history, and political philosophy. The core of its critique of that system is that war begets war, and hence war will not be ended--or even constrained--by finding more principled ways to fight war, as many imagine. War can only be ended by ending the war system, which can only be done nonviolently. This has been the message of pacifism's great voices like Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Dorothy Day. It is the principal message of this book. Key Features Draws extensively on the sociological and historical research on war to expand the usual philosophical discussion beyond hypothetical accounts Expands the dialogues on the ethics of war beyond just war theory to its principal alternative: pacifism Engages discussion of empire and imperialism in relation to the logic and development of the war system Presents pacifism's response to the reality of war today, including the idea of "never-ending war"

This article considers the pacifism of Max Plowman, the notable British pacifist, focusing on the period between the outbreak of WWII & his death in June 1941. It examines the strategy for British pacifism that Plowman advocated at that time, & situates it in the context of ongoing debates in the Peace Pledge Union (PPU), in which Plowman was a leading figure. As a point of contrast to Plowman's viewpoint, consideration is given to the arguments advanced by the Forward Movement grouping within the PPU. The article notes that Plowman's pacifism originated in WWI & developed in the stormy decade of the 1930s. It considers how well the pacifism Plowman advocated stood up to the challenges of WWII & to what extent it acted as a useful guide for pacifists during that war. Adapted from the source document.

The author analyzes the classical Christian viewpoints on the military, presenting the wide spectrum of ethical problems related to the national requirement of performing military service, participation in war, the death penalty, etc. The paper also draws attention to the historical background of the penetration of both the concepts of "just war theory" and extreme pacifism into the Russian-Ukrainian brotherhood of the Evangelical Christians-Baptists. The author notes both the Russian "sectarian" and the "Orthodox-monastic" influence on the traditional pacifism of a considerable portion of the Slavic Baptists and discusses the ambiguity of the definitions of military involvement even in the creeds of the EC0B, as well as the sharp contradiction between some official publications and the actual life of local congregations. The research contains a brief survey of the key biblical texts on the problem, which are mainly interpreted fromthe position of Christian pacifism. At the same time, the author points out the known shortcomings or moral limitations of the admissibility of pacifism, specifically in its extreme legalistic form.

The author analyzes the classical Christian viewpoints on the military, presenting the wide spectrum of ethical problems related to the national requirement of performing military service, participation in war, the death penalty, etc. The paper also draws attention to the historical background of the penetration of both the concepts of "just war theory" and extreme pacifism into the Russian-Ukrainian brotherhood of the Evangelical Christians-Baptists. The author notes both the Russian "sectarian" and the "Orthodox-monastic" influence on the traditional pacifism of a considerable portion of the Slavic Baptists and discusses the ambiguity of the definitions of military involvement even in the creeds of the EC0B, as well as the sharp contradiction between some official publications and the actual life of local congregations. The research contains a brief survey of the key biblical texts on the problem, which are mainly interpreted fromthe position of Christian pacifism. At the same time, the author points out the known shortcomings or moral limitations of the admissibility of pacifism, specifically in its extreme legalistic form.