Fri Mar 13 1:18 PM 2015
About compromised pacifism.
Ideally, we would all learn to forgo violence entirely. But ideals have not historically stopped knives, or bullets, or bombs past a certain threshold. They can certainly prevent their use, but until we live in a world where we all diligently strive for a harmonious existence, violence may still rend our skin and shatter our bones.
If a soldier witnesses the slaughtering of innocents, should we expect him to use words rather than immediate forceful intervention? I envision a world where such an option is effective, where words alone can instantly dispel the rage and fear that fuels violence, but I realize that some would dismiss these notions as flights of fancy. The way many perceive reality seems narrow and immutable to me, but I accept that difference of opinion.
I propose then that violent action should be strictly reactive. Never proactive. Violence should be the very last, desperate recourse, used only to stop an immediate moment of distress. It’s purpose should be the immediate return to a viably peaceful state for all.