Re: War: Do we need guns, bombs and knives to fight it? (some thoughts on JS Mill)
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
alt.philosophy only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

 Up
Re: War: Do we need guns, bombs and knives to fight it? (some thoughts on JS Mill)         

Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: Cormagh
Date: Aug 13, 2008 23:16

On Aug 13, 1:46 pm, Andy googlemail.com>
wrote:
> "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and
> degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that
> nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for
> which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his
> own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of
> being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than
> himself" -- John Stuart Mill
>
> I'd like to suggest this is a forerunner to the Gandhi approach of
> pacifism...
>
> Firstly, It is often said that the pen is mightier than the sword.
> Killing someone doesn't convert them to any cause, and they will still
> feel the same way in the afterlife, maybe reincarnate and carry on
> where they left off. Whereas diplomatic effort CAN actually change
> peoples minds permanently through the forces of reason.
>
> Gandhi did fight for his country, in a very patriot manner. After he'd
> moved away from some of the extremist factions in the Indian
> independence movement, he decried the use of terrorism, and he was
> very supportive of the police, who he didn't blame for taking orders
> from above. He spent a few years in Jail periodically for public order
> violations with regard to demonstrations etc.
>
> My view on war, is, again ,that it is game. Whilst conventional war
> involve violence, real wars of mankind consists of fights within the
> mind of each person. It is when that troubled mind is projected onto
> third parties that the conventional war breaks out.
>
> Should we fight for what we believe in? The answer is certainly yes,
> and sadly far for many don't, myself included regretfully. But
> fighting for your beliefs does not have to exercise any form of
> violence, intimation, injury or property damage.
>
> Here in the UK we have elections, you can vote and stand as a
> candidate. All takes a lot of time and effort, but we must do it all
> the same if we are to win this fight!
>
> To refer back to Mill's point:
> The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing
> which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable
> creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by
> the exertions of better men than
> himself

While Mill's point is correct, I would like to call attention to the
destructiveness of overbaking these notions. One is that there are
better men - any "better man" theory should be proven if leadership is
to evolve. Another is the assumption that the only reason for pacifism
is "personal safety". Many men object to war for moral reasons not
related to self-protection. These men still have a responsibility to
make their voice heard.

Cormagh
no comments
diggit! del.icio.us! reddit!