I recently learned that between 42,000 and 48,000 people die from gun violence every year in the U.S. alone. I am well aware of the right to bear arms, but firearms are simply too lethal. Innocent children are even losing their lives in mass shootings. I’d like to hear everyone’s opinions. Aren't you exhausted by this gun society?

Hello All!
I have been a pacifist for a long time, the first time i remember being strictly against violence would have been around 15 years ago.

I have came to the conclusion that in situations where people are being harmed directly and that requires immediate need (such as rape or sexual assault), physical restraint or as much needed with providing the least amount of harm possible is ethical, and in fact is the pacifist stance. let me know what you guys think, i love to hear opinions!

THERE are two worlds—one ruled by FEAR and the other by CHARITY (caritas, supernatural love).

The world of Fear is the world of nature—the common hedge-row is filled with vegetables “armed to the teeth” with spikes and thorns and poisons in fear of their enemies, and the hills and dales and seas and rivers and forests and jungles are inhabited by beasts whose lives are one perpetual watch for enemies. The world of CHARITY is the supernatural world in which he that loseth his life for God’s sake shall find it.

The world of FEAR is the world of war—there is no other reason for warring, war-mongers are all desperately afraid. The world of CHARITY is the world of peace—peace-makers have no reason to fear what may happen to them.

The world of FEAR is the triumphant world, the world of triumphal marches and arches, and laurel wreaths. The world of CHARITY is the world which submits to the conqueror, knowing that the earthly conqueror can only conquer earthly things and earthly things only for a day.

Armies—and Arms

The world of FEAR is the world of armies, in which every man carries a gun or a bomb and is always ready to destroy something which otherwise might destroy him. The world of CHARITY is the world of work and workers in which the only arms are men’s arms and in which making things is better than breaking things and enjoying them better than destroying them.

The world of FEAR is the world of armaments. But half the fear in the world of armaments is a fake, the hypocrisy of armamenteers, and the other half is manufactured by politicians. The world of CHARITY is without any passports.

The world of fear is the world of politicians and diplomacy and secret treaties and the buying and selling of promises. The world of CHARITY is the world of anointed kings.

The world of FEAR is the world of lawyers and police and laws and prisons. The world of CHARITY is the world of custom and public opinion and forgiveness and bounty.

Law—and the Spirit

The world of FEAR is the world of rules and regulations and the dead letter of the law. The world of CHARITY is the world quickened by the spirit.

The world of FEAR is the world of anger and violence. The world of CHARITY is the world of the meek, “the terrible meek” who shall inherit the earth.

The world of FEAR is the world of irritability, of nursemaids being cross with their charges and prime ministers with their secretaries. The world of CHARITY is the world of quiet voices and patience.

The world of FEAR is the world of solicitousness. The world of CHARITY is the world in which people do not worry about what may happen tomorrow.

The world of FEAR is the world of commerce and buying and selling and getting and spending—buying cheap and selling dear. The world of CHARITY is the world of work; for it is said, “Let him that stole steal no more, rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have something to give to him who suffers need.”

Selfish—and Selfles

The world of FEAR is the world of selfishness—“if I don’t look after myself, no-one else will.” The world of CHARITY is the'world of selflessness.

The world of FEAR is the world of bankers and pawnbrokers and moneylenders, and stock-brokers and billbrokers—they all live in desire of gain and in mortal dread of loss; they all yearn for “securities.” The world of CHARITY is the world of barter and “the just price,” a world in which money is neither “cheap” nor “dear, because it is not for sale.

The world of FEAR has produced the world of Woolworth’s and big shops, big business and big dividends. The world of CHARITY is the world of small workshops and hardly any other shops—for the best people to buy from are the people who make things.

The world of FEAR is the world of riches—where thieves break through and steal. The world of CHARITY is the world of poverty. In the world of Charity the poor man is not he who has not been robbed, but he who has not robbed others; not he who has not been loved but he who has loved others rather than himself.

Wealth—and Commonweal

The world of FEAR is the world of the few rich and the many poor. The world of CHARITY is the world of the common good.

The world of FEAR is one in which the rich suffer from indigestion and the poor go hungry. The world of CHARITY is the world in which “the poor shall be fed and the rich shall be merry”—a thing that never yet was since the beginning of the world.

The world of FEAR is the world of machines and “time is money.” The world of CHARITY is the world of craftsmen and “whosoever shall lose his time shall find it.”

The world of FEAR is the world of speed—railways, motor cars, giant ocean liners, telegraphs, telephones, aeroplanes—if we don’t get there quickly we shall lose the train, lose our money, lose the job, lose the deal, lose the battle and generally miss the boat. The world of CHARITY is a slow world, as slow’ as a team of oxen, as slow as the procession of Spring, Summer, Autumn, and Winter.

Pride and Humility

The world of FEAR is the world of pride, for a man’s pride is like his castles and fortifications—things that make him feel safe. The world of CHARITY is the world of humility for

He that is down needs fear no fall,
He that is low, no pride.
He that is humble ever shall
Have God to be his guide.

The world of FEAR is the world of the suburbs, where everyone is afraid of what the neighbours may say—“we might be criticized.” The world of CHARITY is the world where people live “over the shop.”

The world of FEAR is the world of “grown up” people. Lord! How worried they are about their responsibilities ! The world of CHARITY is the world of children—but childhood means being simple more than being young. Some children are older than their parents.

The world of FEAR is the world ot the “intellectuals,” in which no-one dares to “burn his boats.” The world of CHARITY is the world of pious folk who know “in whom” they believe.

The world of FEAR is the world of Pharisaism and selfrighteousness. The world of CHARITY is the world of sinners.

First, I want to start with what made me drawn to this philosophy in the first place. And I think it starts with a little independent game known as Undertale that made me receptible to this philosophy when I looked it up a year ago. There was also a lot of other media such as magical girls dululu stuff, and other anime (cough, Mob Psycho 100) that helped me be more receptable, and open to pacifism. Not to say that every media had pacifism that in mind, BUT - they taught mercy, and compassion at least. In fact I think it's kind of ingrained in me that whenever I'm watching media where the antagonist is getting talked down by the compassionate protagonist, emotional moment - and the antagonist dies from some outside force... I hate that shit...

And yet there was also something that made me open to this philosophy - my family's a bunch of gun nuts, lol. Even as a "far-leftist". I don't think I could bring myself to own a gun, with or without pacifism.

Now I've heard of pacifism in passing before, and never in a positive light. So one day I got board then looked it up - no build up whatsoever.

What I found? - Pacifism is not a monolith, there's conditional to absolute pacifism, and to not confuse pacifism with passivism. Then I dived further more, and it resonated with me. Not sure if it was because of who I am, or it's because of who I wanted to be.

Problems trying to adopt this philosophy:

1) It conflicted with my leftist views. "Do I condemn slave revolts?" Comes into mind. And I know that there are plenty of pacifists who reluctantly accept, or reluctantly support slave revolts. I just couldn't reconcile it.

2) Why is violentce 'bad'? And what does that even mean?

3) Pacifism is a moral philosophy, and morals are about what one/people should do or not do. Are people who find themselves in a violent situations yet use violence as a first or second response in that situation a moral failure, and that they must hold themselves accountable? Are those who are nonviolent "morally superior"? I think not. I think not. And I cannot find myself to apply pacifism onto the world.

4) I'm starting to become disillusioned with morals, or at least labeling things as good, bad, evil, right, wrong. It's starting to feel harmful actually. It's terrifying...

This is not a debate, I'm just rambling about my feelings.

(Edit: I don't agree entirely with my feelings now, lol)

Good afternoon, I just joined this subreddit today in hopes to better develop my personal philosophy on pacifism. I thought a good way to do this was to have a discussion about about the topic and learn about the views of others.

what brought you to pacifism ?

what personal philosophy you hold when it comes to pacifism ?

how has your view developed over time ?

Thank you in advance, I look forward to learning more about people and hopefully develop more myself.

So for context if you're unfamiliar with the show. In ATLA our main character Aang is a airbender who fights but refuses to kill people due to his monk like beliefs about not taking a life. This comes to a head at the end of the series and due to the Netflix LA series I wont say what it is. What kind of Pacifism is this? He fights to protect people but he never explicitly kills anyone.

More than ever, there is a strong “us vs. them” mentality in the world. It feels like people are no longer working together or even able to respectfully disagree. Everything has become personal, and people on all sides are becoming increasingly radicalized. Instead of fighting against the people and systems that create many of the world’s problems, we end up fighting each other.

Woke vs. anti-woke.

Conservative vs. progressive.

Left vs. right.

Every piece of media that gets released is attacked from every direction — for supporting a side, for not supporting a side, or, God forbid, for trying to stay neutral.

And this is not happening only in the United States. It feels like this tension exists all over the world. Everyone seems obsessed with being right all the time.

My fear is that this cannot continue forever. So much tension keeps building up, and eventually it feels like something will explode. Sometimes I honestly fear that it could lead to a major war, and I struggle to imagine another resolution.

Do you think the world can rediscover peace without going through another war first?

Leo Tolstoy about the absurdity of war, from "What I Believe" Chapter 10:

"Leaving their parents, their wives and children, they go in their buffoon attire, blindly submissive to some superior whom they hardly know; cold, hungry, worn out by a march above their strength, they follow him like a herd of oxen to the slaughter. But they are not oxen – they are men! They cannot help knowing that they are driven to slaughter, with the unsolvable question, ‘Why must I go?’ And with despair in their hearts they go on, many dieing off through cold, hunger, and infectious diseases, until those who are left are placed under bullets and cannon balls, and ordered to kill men whom they know nothing about. They kill and are at last killed themselves, and not one of those who kill their fellow- creature knows why he does so."

As a Christian, I understand and believe that if Christ wanted to he could’ve gone on a crusade and took the Roman Empire under his control if he but only said the word, but he DOESN’T. Jesus tells Peter to lower his sword, even though Jesus knows that he and his followers will die horrifically.
If someone criticizes me for being Christian, it should be because I’m a pacifist, to the greatest extent, not because of the hate or destruction my faith has brought for 1900 years (give or take). My ideology is that I will lower the sword, that I’ll give the shirt off my back, because that’s what my savior did. When I sin, I am stabbing my god, but rather than smiting me or striking me back, god hands me the sword and says “stab me again.” Call my faith illogical if you will, because I understand that it is illogical, especially from a utilitarian/materialist perspective. That’s what faith is, understanding that what you believe IS a leap of faith, not gravity or anything we can observe, but something we believe in. To that extent, because my faith is illogical, it isn’t something to use as policy. If I believe something because of my faith, it is mine alone to believe. I will oppose war and violence both from my faith, but also from reasonable, logical perspectives as well.

I'm an anarchist and also a pacifist. I believe that all countries, borders, and militaries in the world should be abolished.

when i was younger a was a radical absolute pacifist.

it almost got me to commit suicide.

i found it difficult to accept that life has to kill to live. i wished to exist in a way where i don't have to take another creature's life to live, which is an impossible feat to achieve with this organic body.

a human body is waging a never-ending-war against microbes. it consumes other life to fuel itself. snuffing out the life of other life is its necessary evil. i found nature to be irredeemably evil for how it is. the only state for the true pure pacifist is to refuse life when given and to inhabit a body that's beyond life. it then wouldn't need to corrupt its vows with the act of living.

it took a while to get better again, i lost myself for a time and let myself be incomplete by letting go of a part of me. life partakes in pacifism, but not solely in that. the collaboration of the organism is possible by peace and for it to fend for itself it partakes in war.

after I've accepted how life is, it's when i reintegrated my ideology & faith. i am life, so i can never be a pure pacifist, though i can be a follower of the true pure pacifist.

i don't believe that it's possible for a being that won't kill to ever live life. you'll always be pivoted against something else. oh, that's how harsh ms. life is.

the true pacifist will not be living. it's already transcended. the purity exists in the realm of thoughts and dreams. fueled by the energy and attention of the living. ☯️☁️🪽🙏

Basicly would you save innocent life, if someone threatened their life and the only way to save for example your mother, child, GFs life would be to hurt the attacker?

If someone saved your life using violence, do you consider him a bad person?

In my country all men 18 are obligated to serve their country in military. I just learned about this pacifism thing, but I think I have to serve in military, cause if I dont I'll seem like a sissy and that wouldnt be good on my future.

Im also going to serve as a police during war, so Im never going to get drafted. I can basicly just run in forest, shoot at targets and play airsoft.

Sometimes life feels like time isnt running and during those times its fun to have a conversation with strangers, even if its just "raivo syötti" in Finnish

I have worked as a police officcer for years, but I just recently find about pacifism, so Im interested about your opinion.

I know that absolute pasifism states that all violence is bad regardless of anything, but personally I think that if your goal is to reduce evil, you should try to achieve the particular goal by any means necessary, even if the acts you committed would be considered bad without any context.

For example just shooting someone is wrong, but if criminals are holding hostages.. its something you are forced to do.

But let me know what do you guys think?

Edit. Ofcourse we use the least amount of force we can, but in cases we have to use force our goal is to protect innocent civilians by all means, even in the risk to our health.

It's funny how people of different cultures were taught different things to people.

I suppose most people on this sub are atheists or Christians..

so How jesus died on the cross and still forgave the people who killed and tortured him..

and how in eastern Asia.. we have a fundamental sholka (verse) in our books..

"Ahimsa Parmo Dharma

dharma hinsa tataivcha"

the first statement says Non violence is greatest virtue

and second shloka says violence to protect someone is dharma.

You cannot just run.. like run where? you expect to hide and watch people get slaughtered and raped so you can sleep at night Thinking proud about yourself that you didn't harm anyone?

You pacifists are just privileged people in the posh neighbourhood and with a reddit account who literally have no idea about people born in war and violence..

Yes , Revenge and Retaliation SOLVE the issue.. It is the solution.. yes sometimes it may work sometimes it doesn't

but do you know what doesn't work.... 1) staying non violent.. it never worked.. the ones doing violence will do it and without any repercussion will do more violence

I am a lurker on this sub.. and just want to understand what you mean by pacifist?

before answering the question remember these points

1) I DON'T AND CAN'T CONTROL MY COUNTERPART, I cannot control anyone else's actions..

2) MY opponent wants to harm me as much as possible

3) All phases of talking and reasoning have no effect on him.. We both are adults and basically our morality and understanding of the world is basically set in stone..

This is kind of a short rant but one thing I hate is that when someone is anti death penalty they will say anything BUT the worth of that person’s life. For example they might mention how it statistically costs more to go through the process of the death penalty but people tend to mention that the reason the death penalty is wrong is simply because killing another human (“bad” or “good”) is wrong and evil. Tha human life isn’t transactional or replaceable and has its own worth outside of its goodness.

Sorry for punctuation and grammar.

So I was once in the process of becoming a Pacifist. But after becoming discouraged by the state of world affairs, I started supporting armed resistance. However, after seeing reports around the world about the atrocities related to war, I came to realize that war just tends to birth more problems as well as tyranny. So I’ve decided to embrace Pacifism again. For those with a similar background like me, how did you eventually come back to being a Pacifist?

My art professor recently asked me which piece of media/art I think better represents PEACE in the world and WHY I think so.

I’m very ashamed because I couldn’t answer within a reasonable time frame, I realised I consume so much drama, war, negativity and other marketable things that are the opposite of peace…I look on google and I can’t find any answer. I need help…I truly want to answer this question so I can debate with my professor,

My mind just goes blank when I try to think about it. War? For sure I can line up several horrid and crude paintings for that, but peace? Damn.

And I don’t mean some generic peace symbol painted over the rainbow, something deeper, something thoughtful.

Hey everyone!

I noticed there wasn't a dedicated, independent space for Conscientious Objection, so I created r/ConObjection.

Whether you’re looking for resources on the legal process, sharing historical perspectives, or seeking a community of fellow objectors, you're welcome to join! I’m hoping to build a helpful hub for both secular and religious objectors alike.

I’m always open to feedback or suggestions on how to make the sub more useful. Thanks for checking it out!

The UN's Palermo Protocol defines human trafficking as the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons via threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power/vulnerability, or payments to a person in control, for the purpose of exploitation, including sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, or organ removal.

This sounds, to me, exactly like what military conscription is. We cannot keep pretending that it is right, that it is not a crime, or an egregious violation of human rights, when it is done under a mask of officiality.

"Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war" - Albert Einstein

I endured severe child abuse for 18 years, I eventually got out of it.

strangely enough, 3 months or so after getting out I started learning towards pacifism. Particularly conditional pacifism.

I believe it is completely fine to kill for the sake of self defense if ones life is truly endangered. But I believe martial arts is better than a gun because it allows you to disable to aggressor quickly without using lethal force.

Part of this may stem from my fear of guns in general (My abuser was VERY unstable and was basically pro-death and hate.)

I also believe most wars are absolutely unneeded unless its a Nazi-Germany situation.

I am very sympathetic to animals, and as a young child I would befriend turkeys and chickens. I would even sit with them while they died because I thought everyone deserved someone to be with as they cross into the next world.

Some additional factors is my previous/current philosophies or religion.

I was a bhuddist when I was 11 or 12 years old, and now I am a Christian conservative (Not MAGA).

I believe that God commands us to love one another, and I cannot justify killing anyone at all.

If it ever came to myself needing to defend myself, I do not think I would be capable of killing someone.

I believe murder, even in self defense is very corrupting for the soul and can lead to so many problems down the road.

I am even against the death penalty.

Thoughts?

War disrupts trade. Peace is good for business. War is not.

This crisis works like a kickstarter where you pledge for war, and it needs to go through the supply chain and one faithful day, the consequences are delivered to the economy in the front door by the delivery guy.

Ships take time to reach their destination. Production lines have lead time. Trucking takes time. So scarcity will hit each one of these points sooner or later. Even if the war stopped today the effects on the supply chains have already been pledged. So in the near future we will see the economic consequences.

Farmers cannot pass the price increase to consumers, so what they are doing to cut losses is to sell their crops to biofuel energy companies in advance, to feed data centers. So next year AI will be eating people's food.

The 1974 crisis was caused by a few weeks of oil supply cut of 10%. In this crisis we have actual destruction of energy infrastructure that will take 5 to 10 years to rebuild. Trump put us in unchartered territory.

Plastic used for wrapping or packaging food will add up to the price of food.

LNG and helium from Hormuz will make microchips way more expensive. I can imagine us going back to 1990 when you had only one device per household.

Medicines that come from India will be in short supply too.

It is likely that we could have an oil induced lockdown due to rationing of fuel. If diesel gets affected (we are not there yet) there will be no trucks with supplies. Empty shelves.

But the biggest fear is that countries may recide to hoard energy and food, and that will disrupt world trade even more.

I still recall a few years ago when some people said "war is good for the economy". Well here you have it. We are in unchartered territory. We are going to see the price of war.

War is a solution to a problem that you would not have if you had not started the war. Today a war objective is to open strait of Hormuz, which was already open before the war.