Pacifism, Fault, and Veganism

[Purple Knight]

If a society of pacifists allows a gang of bandits to exploit them, bandits who would have otherwise died, are the pacifists partly to blame when the fattened and pampered bandits go out again, to another society, and have greater success?

If so, if part of the blame falls on a pacifist for his pampering of brutes, then I fail to see the ethical merit of pacifism.

However, if not, because presumably people are never responsible for what others do even if they knowingly caused or enabled it, then I fail to see the ethical merit of veganism, since you can easily buy meat without killing the animal yourself.

To my mind, at least one of these things doesn't work.

[boatsnguitars]

If a society of pacifists allows a gang of bandits to exploit them, bandits who would have otherwise died, are the pacifists partly to blame when the fattened and pampered bandits go out again, to another society, and have greater success?

If so, if part of the blame falls on a pacifist for his pampering of brutes, then I fail to see the ethical merit of pacifism.

However, if not, because presumably people are never responsible for what others do even if they knowingly caused or enabled it, then I fail to see the ethical merit of veganism, since you can easily buy meat without killing the animal yourself.

To my mind, at least one of these things doesn't work.

I don't think the two things are related. I know many warriors who are vegan or vegetarian. Refusing to apply violence to innocent creatures doesn't mean you can't whoop the bad guys butts.

I'd encourage everyone to read about Wolves, Sheepdogs and Sheep in this book by David Grossman.
https://brookingtech.com/articles/on-sh ... sheepdogs/

You can be both a gentleman and a warrior. In fact, I'd argue that's the ideal. Always be ready to fight, but always try to keep the fight from happening.

[Purple Knight]

I don't think the two things are related. I know many warriors who are vegan or vegetarian. Refusing to apply violence to innocent creatures doesn't mean you can't whoop the bad guys butts.

Right; that is a consistent belief system: That you can hurt the bad guys.

What I'm saying is an inconsistent belief system is to be a pacifist and a vegan.

If you're a pacifist, you must believe that violence you cause without committing it personally (such as allowing thieves to run rampant and never stopping them) is not your fault. A pacifist must believe that responsibility ends where his fist does. If he didn't personally commit the act of violence, he isn't morally responsible for it.

Yet a vegan will not buy animal meat at the grocery store because he does believe he is responsible for violence he causes, not just violence he personally commits. If he followed pacifist logic, it wouldn't matter that more animals are killed so he can buy and eat them, since he didn't personally do it.

So one of these principles is bunk. Either veganism is bunk or pacifism is bunk. It may be both but it's at least one.

If you are morally responsible for what you cause and not just what you personally do, then you do not allow thieves to rampage - you resist them and stop them, because by allowing them to rampage, you are causing more theft.

If you are not morally responsible for what you cause, only for acts you personally commit, then even if killing animals is wrong, you can eat meat, since it's all the butcher's fault and none of yours for creating the demand.

[boatsnguitars]

I don't think the two things are related. I know many warriors who are vegan or vegetarian. Refusing to apply violence to innocent creatures doesn't mean you can't whoop the bad guys butts.

Right; that is a consistent belief system: That you can hurt the bad guys.

What I'm saying is an inconsistent belief system is to be a pacifist and a vegan.

If you're a pacifist, you must believe that violence you cause without committing it personally (such as allowing thieves to run rampant and never stopping them) is not your fault. A pacifist must believe that responsibility ends where his fist does. If he didn't personally commit the act of violence, he isn't morally responsible for it.

Yet a vegan will not buy animal meat at the grocery store because he does believe he is responsible for violence he causes, not just violence he personally commits. If he followed pacifist logic, it wouldn't matter that more animals are killed so he can buy and eat them, since he didn't personally do it.

So one of these principles is bunk. Either veganism is bunk or pacifism is bunk. It may be both but it's at least one.

If you are morally responsible for what you cause and not just what you personally do, then you do not allow thieves to rampage - you resist them and stop them, because by allowing them to rampage, you are causing more theft.

If you are not morally responsible for what you cause, only for acts you personally commit, then even if killing animals is wrong, you can eat meat, since it's all the butcher's fault and none of yours for creating the demand.

I disagree that ALL pacifists MUST, etc.

But I suppose my biggest problem is that this is a protracted argument to blame the victim.

I get that your argument, but it isn't sound. It probably isn't valid, either. Your conclusion certainly doesn't follow from your premises, and I'd say it follows tortured logic.

I'm just not seeing how you can turn pacifists into the bad guys here.

I think the flaw is: if you eat animals, you are respnsible for killing them because you provide the market incentive for one more animal to be killed. But, there isn't a clear connection between being a pacifist and 'allowing theives' to rampage. After all, not all rampaging theives are killed. Most are arrested, which would fit within a pacifist morality. Surely, few pacifists are in the vicinity of theivery and would have a say in whether the thief lived or died.

I think you're stretching. Interesting, I suppose, but not hitting the mark.

[Purple Knight]

I'm just not seeing how you can turn pacifists into the bad guys here.

I'm not. It's possible pacifism is the right way. But then veganism is unnecessary because just as the pacifist is not responsible for the actions of jerks, even if by his actions, jerks and their actions increase, so he is also not responsible for the actions of the butcher, even if by his action of buying meat, the actions of the butcher increase.

It is also possible that veganism is correct, but then pacifism is not.

[Purple Knight]

I think the flaw is: if you eat animals, you are respnsible for killing them because you provide the market incentive for one more animal to be killed. But, there isn't a clear connection between being a pacifist and 'allowing theives' to rampage. After all, not all rampaging theives are killed. Most are arrested, which would fit within a pacifist morality.

I've thought about this a lot and I think it's a valid objection but it depends on the pacifist.

Some people will resist arrest and necessitate the use of force against them. If the pacifist is not against force but only killing then you're right and he's not necessarily inconsistent in being vegan.

It depends on what he would do if he knows he has in front of him, the rare criminal who will resist to the point of needing to be put down. If he will still call the police then he's inconsistent being vegan.

[boatsnguitars]

If you're a pacifist, you must believe that violence you cause without committing it personally (such as allowing thieves to run rampant and never stopping them) is not your fault. A pacifist must believe that responsibility ends where his fist does. If he didn't personally commit the act of violence, he isn't morally responsible for it.

Yet a vegan will not buy animal meat at the grocery store because he does believe he is responsible for violence he causes, not just violence he personally commits. If he followed pacifist logic, it wouldn't matter that more animals are killed so he can buy and eat them, since he didn't personally do it.

Going back to this.

I think you're saying:

1. If Pacifist -> Violence (animal killed) not your fault/ not morally responsible (since you didn't kill the animal).
2. If Vegan -> Pacifist is at fault for violence/ morally responsible (since they had the animal killed).

OK, I think I agree.

3. If you are morally responsible for what you cause and not just what you personally do, then you do not allow thieves to rampage - you resist them and stop them, because by allowing them to rampage, you are causing more theft.

4. If you are not morally responsible for what you cause, only for acts you personally commit, then even if killing animals is wrong, you can eat meat, since it's all the butcher's fault and none of yours for creating the demand.

So, first, I note in 3, I don't think pacifists are allowing theives to rampage. That's where it gets a little dicey, but you might say that their peaceful actions allow it (like the police-free zone in Oregon or Washington - I forget. But the protestors created a no-police zone, and then people started causing trouble.)

I think Gandhi would be the appropriate reference here. Was he wrong to "allow" the British to massacre people, or should he have fought back (yet, probably causing more bloodshed)?

Again, this is why I see it as blaming the victim. If he fought back, the British would have fought harder, killed more, but his pacifism was credited for stopping more massacres. And you can't blame him for "allowing" them to do it, they did it because they were the bad guys.

But, i agree there is something to the whole thing, but I can't put my finger on it.

It may very well be that there is a contradiction between the two ideaologies, which wouldn't be abnormal. The reason they are twwo different things means there is something that distinguishes them. I'm just not seeing it yet - and it may not be between pacifism and veganism, but something else.,,,

TBC.

[Purple Knight]

I think you're saying:

1. If Pacifist -> Violence (animal killed) not your fault/ not morally responsible (since you didn't kill the animal).
2. If Vegan -> Pacifist is at fault for violence/ morally responsible (since they had the animal killed).

Yes. You're either at fault for violence you cause but don't commit, or you're not.
If you are not at fault for violence you cause but don't commit, then go ahead and eat meat as long as you didn't kill it. This is even if you think killing an animal is murder.
If you are at fault for violence you cause but don't commit, then you can't just say pacifism and done; you have to look at whether your inaction results in more violence or not and act accordingly.

In your Ghandi example, the British might fight back causing more violence, so being non-violent that time would be the correct action. But if you put Ghandi in a situation where his nonviolence would allow someone to commit more violence, and he still behaved as a pacifist, saying it didn't matter what happened as long as he did not commit violence, then if he is also vegan it's a personal and not a moral choice. If he would disown responsibility for violence caused but not personally committed, there is no longer a moral reason to avoid eating animals somebody else butchers.

It may very well be that there is a contradiction between the two ideologies, which wouldn't be abnormal.

It means one of them is wrong. Maybe both are wrong, but at least one.

If a pacifist allows a thief to take all that he has, and that fattened thief who would have starved if the pacifist resisted him goes out and steals more, and saying anything against the pacifist is victim-blaming and wrong... well then, veganism must be misguided.

You may think this wouldn't happen, or is a bad construction, but it's just one example of a situation where a pacifist could enable more violence by refusing to commit a little violence now. And this is the crux of pacifism. Nobody says it is moral to willy-nilly commit a bunch of violence. The debate between a pacifist and a non-pacifist is whether you should commit some violence against an aggressor and stop the aggressor from committing more. The pacifist will not say that situation is impossible, just that in it, it is wrong to commit violence. The non-pacifst thinks the pacifist errs in his choice, and the non-pacifist would choose less violence overall, even if he personally must commit some of it.

[chelayn256]

In both cases, ethical considerations, including discussions within pacifism and veganism about responsibility, consequences, and the morality of indirect contributions to harm, can vary based on individual perspectives and philosophical beliefs. It's essential to engage in thoughtful discourse and consider multiple viewpoints, such as those about banana chips air fryer, to fully grasp the ethical complexities involved in these issues. Different ethical frameworks, including those related to food choices like banana chips prepared using an air fryer, may lead to different conclusions about the responsibility of individuals in certain situations.

[Sallymilr]

In the case of the pacifist society allowing bandits to exploit them, the ethical evaluation may depend on one's perspective. Some might argue that by not taking action to protect themselves, the pacifist society bears some responsibility for the subsequent actions of the bandits. Others may contend that the bandits, being responsible for their own choices, are solely accountable for their actions, regardless of the pacifist society's behavior. The ethical merit of pacifism often involves a nuanced consideration of principles like non-violence, empathy, and the belief in resolving conflicts through peaceful means.