Comment by sebastiennight
7 days ago
Thanks for sharing your perspective and the events that shaped this view.
> But, if it came to that, I would give my life for peace as much as I would give my life for my people.
Staging a nonviolent protest to make the British leave or to let an authoritarian government you're refusing to go fight their war of choice, or trying to help a woman getting mugged by masked militia and getting shot as a result is "giving your life for peace".
But if you'd had the choice of leaving the place before the invadors massacred your family, or fighting back with "all the weapons at your disposal", and chose the killing, I don't see why you are so attached to this "pacifist" label.
I'd summarize your stance as "if somebody declares war on my nation, I will fight with all my strength". Am I getting it right?
This sounds more like non-aggressive nationalism to me. I'm not criticizing it, it's just the mismatch that I find surprising.
Pacifism is:
> The conviction that it is morally wrong to settle disputes (especially between countries) by war or other violent means
> The ethical avoidance of inflicting harm on others in one's daily life.
That's also, more or less, exactly what I was thinking. For instance I don't eat foie gras because I find it inhumane, but I would never call myself an animal rights activist because of that.
I think in modern times we are, for some reason, attached to labels when in reality people's positions are, if they're thinking for themselves, going to be nuanced enough that there will be no appropriate label. Not wanting to participate in the development of autonomous killing machines, let alone ones that inevitably will be abused, is a perfectly reasonable position, but does not at all make one a pacifist in and of itself.