Pacifism Vs. Peace.

[Shad]

Hello.

Are they perfect synonyms? (Geez, I used this word too much lately)

Nope as peace can be applied in other ways such as an armed peace, the removal of violent people, individuals that not actively violent but are not pacifists

I.e. does pacifism always equal peace and peace always equal pacifism?

See above.

Does being a pacifist necessarily mean being peaceful or peace maker (by definition and ethics, not necessarily by action)? What about the other way around?

No as a peacemaker is someone that actively tries to establish peace between others. It doesn't work the other way either.

I personally believe that they are two different things with just some similarities depending on case. I think some people confuse the two as perfect synonyms. They could be synonyms, but conditional/contextual only, not perfect by any means.

I agree

 

[LuisDantas]

Does " a pacific resolution" mean the same as " a peaceful resolution" or they got
different meanings?

Far as I can tell, they are one and the same.

 

[Thief]

it is written....
Beware the Sons of God...for they are peacemakers

sounds like penalty for resistance

 

[Smart_Guy]

Too much pacifism can lead to war.
Like before World War 2, when Chamberlain gave in to Hitler too often.

Isn't pacifism non gradual? I mean, too much or a little of it seem to be not applicable. It seems to me it is either pacifism or no pacifism at all.

But I get your point and I agree. The enemy/trespassers/offenders/aggressors/etc. consider it stupidity and a weakness that they would exploit to get what they want. Considering, pacifism could indeed be really bad and it should not be permanent.

 

[psychoslice]

Isn't pacifism non gradual? I mean, too much or a little of it seem to be not applicable. It seems to me it is either pacifism or no pacifism at all.

But I get your point and I agree. The enemy/trespassers/offenders/aggressors/etc. consider it stupidity and a weakness that they would exploit to get what they want. Considering, pacifism could indeed be really bad and it should not be permanent.

Who really knows and who really cares, don't wast your life over stupid matters, enjoy your life, here and NOW.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Its kind of hard for me to imagine what would be considered a "peaceful religion" that engages in force and violence as a means to that goal. Like forced conversions and destroying one's enemies so that no one stands opposed and one can live peacefully? That doesn't sound peaceful. Can you give an example of how that would work?

Folks, that's what I mean by confusing peaceful with pacifist

Not sure about the details, but teachings is something and how/why/when they are applied is something else.

As for examples; I don't believe in forced conversions, so no example is needed by default. As for destroying the enemies... I don't want my family murdered/raped, and my belongings taken. If others want that, it's their problem. But as I said, I believe pacifism is better practiced first, then if harm comes into the picture, it should be neglected.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I actually disagree. Peace without pacifism is not much of a goal. It amounts to trusting luck to hold.

What's in red is something I'm with as I said before. I don't understand what you're disagreeing with here.

It makes a lot more sense to accept harm if necessary while pacifism is pursued. As Badshah Khan did.

Well I would never accept having my family raped/murdered, and my belongings take by force. If someone else is fine with that, it's their problem.

Hmm, not really, sorry.

You never seize to amaze me

 

[Smart_Guy]

I have long sympathized with non-violence as a sense of direction, but I can't take it to an extreme as there are times when one should confront aggression. However, it should be done only as the last resort, imo.

BTW, Gandhi did not call himself a "pacifist" because the root word implies not to do anything. Instead he preferred the term "non-violence. To him, cooperating with evil is also an evil.

Completely agree. There is a limit for everything and one has to be versatile and adapt to life.

As for Gandi, I think it was just the language barrier or his personal choice of words Unless her said it himself?

 

[Tumah]

Folks, that's what I mean by confusing peaceful with pacifist

Not sure about the details, but teachings is something and how/why/when they are applied is something else.

As for examples; I don't believe in forced conversions, so no example is needed by default. As for destroying the enemies... I don't want my family murdered/raped, and my belongings taken. If others want that, it's their problem. But as I said, I believe pacifism is better practiced first, then if harm comes into the picture, it should be neglected.

I understand what you're saying. I'm trying to think of how one could be "peaceful" without being "pacifist". The moment you discard pacifism, have you stopped being peaceful (at least temporarily)? So my thought was that you are describing "peacefulness" as a goal not a state. Meaning you can be completely violent now with intent to end violence in the future. That's where my example was coming from.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Who really knows and who really cares, don't wast your life over stupid matters, enjoy your life, here and NOW.

Believe me, my friend, that's what I really wish to always do.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I understand what you're saying. I'm trying to think of how one could be "peaceful" without being "pacifist". The moment you discard pacifism, have you stopped being peaceful (at least temporarily)? So my thought was that you are describing "peacefulness" as a goal not a state. Meaning you can be completely violent now with intent to end violence in the future. That's where my example was coming from.

No technicality please. I guess next time I'll say "peacefulism" with pacifism

But, are you saying if one is not pacifist, they necessarily are not peaceful? Would, for example, being violent against a rapist trying to rape a family member make one not peaceful?

 

[Tumah]

No technicality please. I guess next time I'll say "peacefulism" with pacifism

But, are you saying if one is not pacifist, they necessarily are not peaceful? Would, for example, being violent against a rapist trying to rape a family member make one not peaceful?

I would say that one is not acting in a peaceful manner in such a case. I would call that positive violence.

Maybe its just me?

 

[Smart_Guy]

I would say that one is not acting in a peaceful manner in such a case. I would call that positive violence.

Maybe its just me?

Hmm... I think it could be put that way, depending on how one defines those.

My understanding is that getting violent against that rapist is a means to bring peace to the rape victim. Like for example if a rapist is laying over a victim doing their deed, how can peace be given to that victim? At least physicality has to be taken to take the rapist off, and from the looks of it, the rapist won't just go along with just holding their shoulders nicely asking them to get off. On the other hand, the victim itself won't bring peace to themselves without getting violent against the rapist here.