rambling thoughts on pacifism

[Kimberly]

As I'm the one who got this ball rolling, and some of the comments 
have been in my general direction, I spent the afternoon considering 
the situation and trying to come to a fuller understanding of what I 
feel and why I feel that way, so I can explain my position.

First though, I want to respond to a few things that I think are 
important.  

Naama said:
                 <<First, I don't think there is any questin that 
Harry will use AK to kill Voldemort. It's an Unforgivable curse, and 
from the disapproving way that Sirius said that Crouch allowed using 
Unforgivable curses on DE, I gather that it's not considered a 
legitimate way to fight evil - at least by Sirius and probably by all 
the "really good" guys (Dumbledore, Sirius, Lupin, James, Lily, .. 
etc.). If Harry somehow gets to learn how to use the curse, the only 
reason I can see for it to happen, is to show him *not* using an 
Unforgivable curse, no matter what the stakes are. BUT, that's not to 
say that he will not destroy Voldy by other means, that are 
considered legitimate. But then, unlike Kimberley and Scot, I do not 
have a problem with killing in self defense. >>

The thing is, AK is an unforgivable curse because of it's effect, not 
because it's called AK, involves green light or is difficult to 
master.  Avada Kedavra may be the only one we know that's called the 
killing curse, but a rose by any other name...
For example, say a wizard tortured another non-magically, instead of 
using Crucio.  Would it be any less wrong?  Would it merit less 
severe punishment in the eyes of the law?  In my eyes AK is not so 
much the issue.  It's the killing that's the issue.

Naama again:
<<In parenthesis I'd like to add that I've always found it hard to 
take pacifist positions seriously. Would you really not kill an enemy 
that threatens your life and the life of your family or friends? I 
would.  I don't even see the moral dilemma of it. I might feel 
terrible afterwards, I might not recover from having killed a human 
being, but a moral dilemma? No. When I do take pacifist position 
seriously, they seem to me like an evasion of the responsibility of 
actually dealing with reality as part of that reality. To a-priory 
refuse to kill anybody, including those who wish to kill you, you 
avoid the really difficult part of living as a moral being - actully 
looking reality in the face, and deciding, in each particular case, 
what the right moral choice is. But that's just another kind of fear -
 the fear of making mistakes.>>

I'm not taking offense, as I'm sure that wasn't meant toward Scott 
and I directly, but  I just wanted to mention that there are almost 
*always* other options that do not involve the ending of someone's 
life.  I confess, as I did before, that I have not come to a complete 
understanding of the issue, nor are my views set in stone.  If I ever 
have children, I may change my mind completely, but as it stands now, 
my answer to your question would be yes.  I would really not kill any 
enemy that threatened my life and the life of my family or friends.  
I might jump on their back and stick a handy wand-like object up 
their nose, or any of dozens of other possibilities, but I would not 
purposely and knowingly kill them. I'm not sure what is irresponsible 
or unrealistic about that.

Amy said:
<<I just want to note that most of the pacifists I've known, whether 
in person or through their writings, far from operating from a fear 
of mistakes, do look reality in the face and are making extremely 
brave and difficult choices.>>

I think you're right, Amy.  The reason I can't say definatively what 
I think is that I haven't taken the time to do the soul-searching and 
make the considered decision.  I'm really starting to think that's 
the easy way.  Not choosing.  It means that if I were in the 
situation, and did kill someone, I could console myself with 
society's view that killing is ok under the right circumstances, and 
if I *didn't* kill, and there were really bad consequences, I could 
console myself the other way.  I really admire those who know their 
hearts and have made the decision.  I don't think that anyone who 
takes that time to do the soul-searching and make a considered 
decision ahead of time is taking the easy way out.  I still don't 
know how I'll come out of this, but I am learning more about who I am 
and what I expect of myself while I struggle with the concept.  What 
I mentioned on the main list I really do believe applies here.  The 
choice to use evil to achieve good ends is both a slippery slope (who 
defines the good ends?  good for whom?  when is it ok and when is it 
not?  where's the line?), and often an easy fix for personal, 
societal and global problems.  I think it's far easier to say 'it's 
ok to kill someone as long as it meets X criteria (it's self-defense, 
it's for the greater good, whatever)' than it is to say 'it's not ok 
to kill, but something has to be done.  How do we handle this 
situation?'.

As I've been considering this, I started thinking about the hundreds 
of thousands of people that the US killed off-hand with a couple of 
bombs in Japan.  I don't think anyone really expected it to come to 
that, but it started long before anyone had ever heard of Japan or 
the US.  I know it's silly, but maybe it started with the concept of 
self-defense.  Maybe one caveman came at another caveman in a 
threatening manner, and caveman #2 decided to protect himself and/or 
his family by killing.  From there maybe the first caveman's family 
or pack or whatever came after that of the second, and war was 
created, who knows?  One way or another, the concept of war and the 
decision to kill in order to win a war came about, and somehow both 
sides in any war feel justified in killing.  First it was nothing but 
fists and feet and maybe rocks and sticks.  From there weapons were 
invented that allowed killing to become easier, then more efficient, 
and then less personal, and then...
Once neuclear weapons were concieved of, a step was taken and they 
were developed.  Once they were developed, it was not that big of a 
step to test them, and find out exactly what they could do.  Once 
that was known chests were thumped and threats were made, to show the 
world that 'we mean business' so you'd better not mess with us.  Even 
then, it might seem inconceiveable that they were ever put to use, 
but they were.  
I know that simplifies the whole of human history, but in all 
honesty, I can't justify to myself the taking of one human life 
without it making it a little bit more okay for things like Hiroshima 
and Nagasaki to have happened, and to continue happening.  That's my 
very subjective reasoning for myself, and is not meant to apply to 
anyone outside of my little corner in my little chair.  I haven't yet 
dealt with how it all fits together, or how the idea of euthanasia 
comes into it, or probably a million other things, but it's a start 
for me.

kimberly
Sorry that my first post on OT is such a downer