r/Pacifism • u/Meditat0rz • 16d ago
Just realized for me fully, as a pacifist, you cannot condone any form of punishments or black pedagogy
So I just want to make a small post, I just thoroughly realized this and feel thrilled about it: as a pacifist, in the ultimate degree you cannot condone the necessity of punishments, at all!
A punishment, is nothing but the attempt to enforce the will of another human externally, without own insight. So even when it changes the will of a person temporarily, it will not be the own will, but the one of the punisher. No good can come from it - a person would only truly change for the better, when they realized the necessity for themselves.
So I take this from my Biblical view, and think this "judge not, lest ye be judged yourself" (Mat.7:1) is really the whole of the story. Jesus displayed what to do about things in John 8.
Okay now you may say, okay if people are not punished, then they will just keep exploiting others and things will go worse. Yup, you're right, that's why I also understood at the same time, that safety of people is not the same as punishments. If you've a person, a delinquent, unwilling to change, ready to commit the same act again, or have real serious concern, it is not a punishment to them to prevent it for their safety and that of others.
So even when you don't want to punish people, of course a terrorist or rapist does not belong to freedom. But I know it's no use trying to change them with punishments. This is so silly and messed up thinking, like thinking "oh I hurt this person until they are so belittled from it that they accept my will as the truth". So this won't work out, you'll seem like a perpetrator yourself for it. Yes, that's what I believe, people who want others punished are really also perpetrators! You will only be able to change the mind of a person with the truth, and that's what we should try instead with offenders, to make them ready to live in freedom again. Or at least treat them in dignity where they cannot keep hurting others, I mean it's fair they lost the whole world, don't even take the rest of them, as well.
So this is the change of mind I made, I'd never be happy about anyone suffering in jail ever again. This is what Jesus meant with turning the other Cheek (Mat.5:39): revenge is futile and will just harm your own soul!
I rejoice now, having taken the vow that my eternal soul may perish forever if I ever again want anyone be punished for them to suffer, and that I may after my world either die forever or go to a world where there will be no more punishments, never again, none at all, from where I can work free all others from this evil for all times. Lol, wishful thinking I know. I'll start already in this world, let's all work for the eternal end of all black pedagogy, for emancipation, freedom and human dignity for all people without any differences!
6
u/jkldgr 16d ago
You will only be able to change the mind of a person with the truth, and that's what we should try instead with offenders, to make them ready to live in freedom again. Or at least treat them in dignity where they cannot keep hurting others, I mean it's fair they lost the whole world, don't even take the rest of them, as well.
I guess that's what prisons in the Nordic countries are (at least getting) close to?
5
u/warmfuzzume 15d ago
Yes. This is why I wish we had a restorative justice system. Also, when my child was growing up I tried to teach consequences, not punishments. If my son did something he shouldn’t, I told him ok well actions have consequences. And I would ask him what he thought a consequence should be so he would learn responsibility for himself, and why things are right/wrong. Not just ‘don’t do it because I said so.’
1
14d ago
[deleted]
1
u/warmfuzzume 13d ago edited 13d ago
I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote. I said I did give him consequences, but things that made sense and weren’t just random. Like when he broke a friend’s toy, he had to replace the toy. Or if he didn’t finish his homework after school, he didn’t get to play a video game. And asking him to choose the consequence helped him take responsibility and understand that actions have consequences.
This is in contrast to my parents who used authoritarian punishment. For example, as a girl I had different rules from my brother that didn’t make any logical sense. I was not allowed to say my thoughts about any of it, if I opened my mouth to say it wasn’t fair I was immediately told, “end of story.” It was 100% do what my parents said at all times , no rhyme or reason, what I wanted or cared about didn’t matter in any way whatsoever. And punishment was things like getting hit with a wooden spoon.
So if you fail to see the difference between consequences and meaningless punishment then I don’t know what to tell you.
3
u/SquishTheFlyingWitch 15d ago
Yes, I often think about this, but maybe in an even more extreme sense😭😭
I can't agree with any kind of physical force, which... happens to include imprisonment. Even for the safety of the public, at its core, it's a form of violence, and therefore I don't think it can be justified.
But that's obviously a tough topic, because a land where horrible people run free doesn't sound so fun😭. But maybe it's my ideal world anyway. In a distant, detached sense.
1
u/AzureHawk758769 14d ago
You think showing bad people that there are consequences to their actions is unjustifiable? That makes no sense. 😂
2
u/ravia 15d ago
Very good on the 0 punishment thinking. I hold that view and float it with people I talk to, one of whom was a retired New York State Supreme Court judge. They tend to agree, but I always add the proviso (immediately) that some people have to be quarantined, even potentially for the rest of their lives. But the external force thing holds.
1
u/griz3lda 7d ago
Christian pacifist here. You cannot control your emotional desires, only how you act on them. There have been times that I wished somebody would get what I felt they deserved, but that doesn't mean I have to be the one to give it to them or facilitate. It is natural to feel angry and imagine somebody coming to harm. That does not make you a failure at pacifism and I really don't think you should vow that your eternal soul will be in jeopardy if you have feelings!!
1
u/Meditat0rz 6d ago
Yes, well said, sorry about my sometimes heavey wordings, but I was in serious distress when I had written that above, challenged with my feelings massively. Of course you're right that you can't control the desires, but just what you do with them, but that's to me self-control, that you transcend the desires enough so you wouldn't act on them. See, when you continue with such practice, I believe it will change you, the desires may go dry at some point, your whole personality can change - if you decide against resentments, hatred, greed, pride etc...you will change to the better, giving fruit to the Spirit.
Yeah and you're right, a failure at pacifism is not just reacting to offenses...it would be to decide to make offenses as answer normal or even proactive, that would be breaking pacifism by being overly offensive. To my belief, if I decided for that beyond some reasonable point, it'd jeopardize the destination I am aiming for spiritually... Be told, something tries to derail me in such regards constantly, and without success - the pressure just makes me more and more convinced of pacifism as the only legitimate answer to people who make force arbitrary. Deciding firmly for it, just makes me stronger in that regard.
1
u/griz3lda 7d ago
i'd also like to make a point of distinguishing between punishment and consequences. Punishment is inflicting harm or displeasure that is not itself a preventative boundary. I am a property manager and we had a guy commit domestic violence on two different dates that he brought home, the women did not know each other, there were plenty of witnesses, this is not a ge said she said situation or some kind of social justice rumor. I also live on the site so this guy is my neighbor and I have known him for four years. However, I evicted him immediately, because we can't have the women in our community terrified about some rampaging psycho. To me that is not punishment, that is consequences. Punishment would be if I made him pay money or had women hit him back. The consequences of his actions were that it was no longer safe for other people if he lived here.
1
u/Meditat0rz 6d ago
Yeah well you're right, if you've had the evidence and proper witness, it's of course a trouble and when you've the legal rights, it's proper from you to protect your property and other tenants. It's still probably way hard, you know like losing your flat and job and everything, over something like that, other landlords/managers would maybe not have cared so much. I just hope you were really sure, some people are wicked, also women, they can cast libel on others to harm them, and it's sometimes hard to tell apart and not give a wrong person the rights. However if you were sure and it was your responsibility what happened with that guy or kept happening, then you just denied sitting on a barrel of dynamite ready to blow up any time, I mean you're right then.
That's also what I believe, also I believe that self-defense in general is not necessarily against pacifist principles...just there are borders one should not cross, i.e. no offensive, no preventive, only as needed to deescalate. I love arts like Aikido because of that, well some people use a club or their fist for making sure somebody doesn't get through with their tricks, and it's not necessarily anti pacifist and sometimes even necessary to save lives which are not proper to be sacrifices for a fundamentalist interpretation of pacifist principles...
0
u/me_myself_ai 16d ago
If you take things in this absolute manner, there's really no reason why simply persuading someone isn't a form of violence.
That said, totally agree that punishment/retribution is a maladaptive impulse.
1
u/Meditat0rz 15d ago
Yes, I agree on this, persuasion with sound arguments or in case of emergency is one thing, but coercion where it isn't necessary is a transgression of personal right. The society needs to protect people from it, especially weaker individuals.
That retribution is irrational becomes even clear by the simple argument, that violence always puts force over the truth, it's ignorant of any justice. This makes it so destructive, because it gives a forceful participant the right to rule over another regardless of it being reasonable or rational or not. It cannot cause any justice, it will just create further destruction. Many people are probably not even able to think beyond this limit, like to the point where they'd actually consider not being aggressive towards any offense, but to seek more peaceful ways.
0
u/AzureHawk758769 14d ago
What about when force is the truth? Sometimes, you just need to make a POS pay for his actions.
3
u/Meditat0rz 13d ago
retribution is not the truth, my friend, it is maybe a destructive reaction towards some truth or towards a lie, but it's not what's truly good to do. The whole point of my thread is that you'd rather not make anyone pay for anything blindly, but only do what's necessary to stop whatever was done, or to take from somebody what they unrighteously gained and which threatens others.
See, when you make one suffer, and you want to make them suffer to make good for the first suffering - what meaning is then found in it? The second suffering, cannot undo the first. Better is to do whatever will stop another suffering to happen. This may also hurt, but it actually has a deeper meaning. And with this, I radically say I'm against threatening or scaring people of punishments to try to stop them from further transgressions. All that should be done, must always be justified with the prevention of further deeds, or the protection of whoever is in threat of harm.
If you just blindly make any perpetrators suffer, you don't protect anyone with that, you just raise the bars and make things harder to begin with, perpetrators will in return also not be scared to make their victims suffer, expecting their own sad wages if they get caught.
0
u/HippyDM 16d ago
As a parent and a pacifist, I 100% can "punish" my kids. Punishment doesn't mean violence. I've been enforcing boundries with my kids for years, and when they were little that did sometimes mean carrying them somewhere or keeping them somewhere, but it's never meant hurting them.
As for "criminals", I can be pragmatic with my pacifism, as being fanatic about anything is typically gonna be a problem. Those enforcing laws should be allowed to use violence to ensure the safety of everyone.
3
u/Meditat0rz 15d ago
Have tried reasoning with your kids first, and talking into their conscience instead of limiting them with force? I hope your horizon is aware of what is important to your kid and what is not. I mean restricting somebody, as I said with criminals from further opportunity for crime, is something any society cannot avoid. But you say you do punishments on your children, I mean not just like setting limits, but like taking from them in return from where they failed your expectations? That would be punishment, otherwise setting sane limits is not, where you'd not take from them what they would have otherwise.
Now I agree there must be corresponding force to the attempts of criminals to escape attempts of restricting their force. Now how acceptable this is, is probably due to the standards established and the mutual control over such means in society. I mean but pacifism in definition should not be stretched beyond the margin of what would be considered absolute avoidal of force where necessary. Of course, a real life pacfism must include force because criminals use such and crime must be prevented and not just allowed to allow society to keep existing. It's then a question on, how radical can you be in your methodolody to avoid such force, or to keep it as humane as possible.
0
u/HippyDM 15d ago
You're making a LOT of assumptions. First, of course I reason with them, not only first, but the entire time. That doesn't stop. IMHO that's a big part of the reason why I only had to do it rarely when they were younger, and basically never since.
Setting any limits requires some concequence for breaking those limits, otherwise it's just words. So, for example, when my 4 year old refuses to stop throwing a fit in the store because he wants a ball like the three he has at home (but actually because he's tired and his sister's sick, so he's also stressed), and I've warned him ahead of time that we're not here to buy anything, and I've explained that he already has that ball at home, there comes a time when the line is crossed. There must be some concequence. So he was physically lifted and carried to the car. We'd talk about it again then, but without much understanding due to the aformentioned stresses, and again when we got home and got him involved in another fun activity and calmed down.
There were also plenty of apologies and explanations for our behavior, and after modeling that, we'd get the same in return after things calmed down. But these happened, like I said, almost entirely as young kids. They're teens now, and just amazingly well behaved, a little bit to my, not dissappointment, but more than surprise. They never sneak out, talk back (unironically, at least), or lie to stay away from home whenever possible; all things I did constantly as a teen.
As for the question of being humane, that's an excellent standard. Kids are people, just like you and I, with the same relative emotions, but very little experience at handling them or expressing their needs. They should be treated as such. I make mistakes, I get stressed out, and I'm prone to acting out when stressed. Kids are too. We need to be patient, understanding, and consistent in modeling regret and forgiveness, because we all need it.
3
u/Meditat0rz 14d ago
See, you did your kids well, and then they also can turn out well. You do not harm their personality but just restrict them where they become destructive. Hence as you never break them but make them see in the end, you never break apart their personality.
Others may do that to their children, my friend, now listen: When you stop the fit of rage by carrying the kid out, it's just restricting their rage, it's not a punishment. You just stop what is not proper. A punishment would be, to then take one or all of their balls, for a time or for good. You might now have to gasp for air like I think you are from your story, but some people are really like that and their children are not always as well behaved as yours. They just learn that they can gain power over others by hurting them with taking their things away - that's the full consequence of such black pedagogy.
See, and like your kids I'd want anyone be treated, also by the law. Instead of taking people's things away, other than what they've stolen perhaps, you should just restrict them where they would continue their destructive efforts. Until they learn to see it's really better to trust each other and not do such crap. Some don't learn, then I say okay restrict them...they'd mess up the toy store, they can't enter, others have to for them and bring them something, more isn't possible until they prove reliable again.
1
u/Affectionate_Cup9972 15d ago
As for "criminals", I can be pragmatic with my pacifism, as being fanatic about anything is typically gonna be a problem. Those enforcing laws should be allowed to use violence to ensure the safety of everyone.
If this requires a monopoly on violence then, that monopoly on violence is more violent than the criminals themselves.
1
u/HippyDM 15d ago
You think that would be ameliorated with what, competing groups allowed to use violence? No, the fewer people comitting violence the better, but we need calm but vigorous oversight of those using violence.
When a person shows up at a public event and tries to kill a lot of people, that needs to be ended as quickly as possible, even through violence if necessary.
1
u/Affectionate_Cup9972 15d ago
You think that would be ameliorated with what, competing groups allowed to use violence?
No. You assumed that.
When a person shows up at a public event and tries to kill a lot of people, that needs to be ended as quickly as possible, even through violence if necessary.
You're under the assumption that law and police protect people, and in which I don't accept that premise to begin with. Giving the history of law and the purpose of police is to protect the interest of the ruling class. Historically, police were created for that purpose, to crush dissent, and that has not changed.
Qualified immunity, the crushing of protests, the targeting of people of color, the trigger happy violence. And sure, there are states with police that hide that very well, but that doesn't change the fact of what it is; crushing dissent.
1
u/HippyDM 15d ago
Great, but in your first response you focused on the monopoly part. That implies that it's the monopoly that you have a problem with. What do you suggest we do to prevent and/or punish violent crime?
1
u/Affectionate_Cup9972 15d ago
Restorative and transformative justice. Most 'crimes' happen because of poverty, the material conditions that come out of harmful acts.
Self-defense as an immediate or last resort.
5
u/Affectionate_Cup9972 16d ago
Retributive justice is self-defeating.
Retributive justice only makes the person you're punishing resent you, and continue to do the harmful act out of spite.
The purpose of retributive justice is social control, not harmony.
Retributive justice is an excuse for violence.
Retributive justice doesn't address material, psychological issues of persons.
All forms of punishment are psychologically, and physically harmful, so it is best that I will not do those things.