>Should we ‘turn the other cheek’?
>Do you think Pacifism has any logic? Or is it just idealistic nonsense that we are forced to abandon whenever the situation really calls for violence?
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Battison's Blog 
>Most people raised in Christian families are raised with this philosophy. But if you get slapped, turning the other cheek will only invite another slap. And what then? Thurst out your pelvis and get kicked in the balls?I think the Dalai Llama has a good approach to this. He is not a pacifist and even thinks there can be such things as just wars. But he judges things morally and logically. Hence even if there has been genocide in Tibet he cannot start violence because he simply wouldn't win. What's the point in charging into certain death if all it achieves is to kill one of the enemy and yet at the end of the day leave the army in tact? Yet at the same time if you walk past a woman being attacked by one man it would take either a poor set of morals, or a good deal of fear to stop you acting. So violence does have its uses. It's just that we should fight to avoid these situations where violence becomes useful.
>JUST A QUICK NOTE 🙂 FIRST, a person has know way of knowing how their actions will effect future events – the early sufforagette movements failed, but later inspired others to succeed. So there may still be a point in charging to certain death. Second, voilence should never be useful – but unfortunately it is – the fact is that some psychopaths just wont back down (from school bully's to the H(itler)-word. and need to be forced down with the use of voilence for the 'greater' good (although i would argue we never know what action/s will lead to a greater good)- as Rob said in an earlier discussion – we can only make decisions based on the information we have in the present – and must act accordingly, sometimes using violence.I do NOT want to get kicked in the balls – so after turning both cheeks – its time to fight back (appeasement, then, and only if that fails – voilence)! Robin
>Interesting that you say appeasement first, especially seen as you use Hitler as an example. The consensus is that it was a mistake to appease Hitler from 1936 when he militarised the Rhineland to 1938 when Chamberlain returned to Britain waving a piece of paper and claiming "Peace for our time".So basically what I am asking is 'do you think pre-emprive strikes can be useful?'And also to expand the term 'self-defense', what about defending others? In the Scottish leaders debates the Labour leader said that his first political act was campaigning against Saddam Hussein for his genocidal actions in the Kurdish north of Iraq. So therefore he could claim to have acted in defence of those people. What do you think about using violence when you're not in danger yourself? In other words it's all very well saying you don't want to be kicked in the balls but what about one of your friends stood next to you? Would you help him/her?