rambling thoughts on pacifism

[naama_gat at hotmail.com]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at y..., "Amy Z" <aiz24 at h...> wrote:
> 
> Hmmm...I have to go into the "would-be pacifist" category.  I have 
a 
> profound respect for pacifism, I do a lot of volunteer work for a 
> pacifist organization (American Friends Service Committee), and in 
> many ways I aspire to it--yet I'm not 100% convinced.  All that 
being 
> said--
> 
> To me the essence of pacifism's merits comes from its view of the 
> inseparability of means and ends.  To kill someone in pursuit of a 
> higher purpose (e.g. protection of another innocent person) is to 
say 
> that you can accomplish good ends via evil means.  Maybe you can--
but 
> the fruit of evil means will always be partly evil, in my view.  
This 
> is not a conclusive argument in favor of pacifism; it may well be 
that 
> we just all have to live with the mixed consequences of our 
actions.  
> We all have dirty hands, and there's no avoiding it.
> 

I want to think more of what you've written, but there is something 
here I'd like to point out. 
I'm not sure that to kill someone in self defense *is* "evil means". 
By assuming that killing is wrong, regardless of context, you're 
begging the question, it seems to me. My point is (and I haven't 
thought about it as much as the issue merits) that killing in self 
defense in *not* "evil means". By putting "killing" in a certain 
context, you don't excuse it, you actually change its moral 
qualification. (For instance, "the vet killed the terminally-ill 
dog".)
"Evil means for good ends" means to me something like, allowing an 
innocent person to die in order to save more innocent people. If an 
action is not wrong, I don't see that it is "evil means". 

To me, again, it seems like the easy way out. By categorically 
deciding that action X, regardless of context, is evil, you make it 
falsely easy to make a moral choice. 

Naama