The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! What is wrong with being a semi-pacifistin Philosophy

Zombieguy1987

Semi-Pacisfism: Beliveing that starting violence is wrong, but will use violence for self defense

MayCaesar

This depends on whether self-defense includes preventive offense, or not. Sometimes you know that the offence is coming - for example, it was pretty obvious in mid-1930-s that Germany and Japan would start trying to conquer the world pretty soon - the first strike can prevent it from occurring. It is technically still an offense, but it is an offense with the purpose of self-defense.

Other than that, this interpretation of semi-pacifism seems to be the way to go.

AlexOland

I don't think there is anything wrong with it other than that little detail MayCaesar mentioned. Let me share this quote from one of Sting's songs since it is relevant: "A gentleman will walk but never run."

Oppolzer

Non-violence is optimal to the solution of a dispute. Although, it may not be the ideal approach to a malicious or dangerous threat. Sometimes pacifists take non-violence to an extreme level, in which they appear absurd or senseless. Hawks (opposite of a pacifist), on the other hand,  tend to resort to violence way too rapidly. It may also appear as an automatic reaction of a conflict, which could contingently be dangerous.

We have hawks and pacifists in our society, but it would be better if everyone were pacifists.

piloteer

I think it's a little shallow to believe that we can categorize ourselves as "pacifists" or "warriors". Of course there are those who'll pull the gloves off at the drop of a hat, and those who will "turn the other cheek" until they're dead, but the majority of us are more nuanced than that. We can hem and haw about what we "believe" when it comes to confrontation, but when it we're actually in one, we never really know how we'll react until it's over. I would love to believe that I'm a pacifist, but sometimes our "beliefs" aren't with us in the heat of the moment.

YeshuaRedeemed

Not a darn thing. I am a semi-pacifist for religious reasons.

WordsMatter

By the very definition of pacifism you can't use self defense. 

Pacifist- a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable.

So semi-pacifist is a fairly hollow term. You believe violence is unjustifiable, except when it is justified. It doesn't actually help to define your beliefs and views, you have to explain that you think only self defense is ok when you use the term, so don't use the term and instead just explain your views. By labeling yourself as a semi-pacifist you are opening a door for people to make assumptions about your beliefs, based off their idea of what a pacifist is.

For example the talk about offensive self defense I would assume you wouldn't justify that due to being a pacifist. I mean how could you justify using violence against Japan before they actually attacked. Even if you are 99% sure they will I would think the semi pacifism in you to not attack first because if they hit that 1% chance that they wouldn't attack then you just created unnecessary unjustified violence.

However if you left off the pacifist part and said you don't like violence except for self defense it is much easier for me to believe that you would be okay with a first strike for self defense.