Sucks.

Pacifism is terrible.

Well, I tend to be a pacifist, but I recognize there are times when pacifism is not appropriate, eg. when we are being attacked, or when one of our close allies is being attacked or victimized.

As an ideology, this generally works better in the observance than the breach.

I see other reviewers pointing to the success of Gandhi, and the civil rights movement in the early sixties as examples of success, but I regard those as special cases, and they are more examples of cleverly orchestrated civil disobedience than pacifism.

Try Gandhi or King's methods against a Stalin, a Pol Pot, or a Pinochet, and see where it gets you.

Human beings are flawed, dangerous, avaricious animals. Civilization places restraint on these tendencies and uses force to do so. The same concepts are at work in international affairs. Pacifism is wishful thinking that shall never work.

On the other hand, a nation should only use force when it is in its national interest.

Very well intentioned, but we have to stick up for ourselves. sometimes that means war.
"Si vis pacem parabellum"

This is a perfectly viable ideology for individuals or religious sects. Contrary to what RebelYell claims below, Pacifism is not primarily a Buddhist idea, but rather a Christian one; world-wide, most pacifists belong to various Christian sects (e.g. Quakers, Amish). Aside from the more radical Pacifists-who deny the right to self-defense-Pacifism presents few problems within states. It is at the level of anarchial international politics that Pacifism breaks down. Still, Pacifism and Pacifists have helped dispell the once-romanticized image of warfare. They have also pioneered various laws and organizations (the Red Cross, Geneva Convention) limiting the destructiveness and cruelty of war in recent years. Sadly, the age of terrorism has seen a reversion to an earlier style of 'barbarian' warfare-characterized by hostage taking, attacks on civilians, the mistreatment of prisoners and other atrocities.

imagine if no one had been willing to fight against hitler

Well intentioned idea.In an ideal world,this would be the rule.The problem with most pacifists is that they are naive about certain segments of human nature.Look at the war on terror.Oh,in a dream world,maybe they are right insofar as if we are nice to,say,bin Laden,Saddam,etc they will reciprocate.The reality is that there are savages in the world that take kindness for weakness.MOST people take kindness for kindness.Some do not,however and that is what many pacifists do not understand.

Traditionally I would take a realist view and dismiss pacifism as wishful thinking and merely an ideal, but recently the world has become a more complicated place. We see that the powers nations have over one another is no longer just military. The world seems so close knit nowadays that a nation can have a pacifist attitude towards events and still be a superpower by cultural or economic means. I still can't doubt the power of military so this is by no means a perfect approach...which is of course a pity

Can you really trust someone that isn't willing to kill? I say we keep the guns away from them because they probably are not very stable!

Outstanding, provided you feel you have the luxury.

I don't think that pacifism is a form of government. A pacifict nation wouldn't maintain it's sovereignty very long.

Pacifism breeds violence, and devalues human life. What one is not willing to defend, one encourages others to violate, because one is not raising the risk and cost of doing so...ergo one does not truly value that thing. If one does not defend one's life and well-being, and make its violation risky and dangerous, then one does not value it.

Albert Einstein once said The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it. Pacifists are those who don't do anything about it. As normal people see a problem and rise up to stop it, the pacifists accuse them of being aggressive, murderers and jingoistic. To any of you with alot of time on your hands, I suggest digging up some of the words of people before WWII about why America shouldn't get involved and realize that if they were in charge we'd all be speaking German by now.

This is what is needed for world peace so no-one should dissapprove of it. but for it to work everyone needs to abide to it.

Grossly naive at best. Unfortunately, many pacifists are driven by an anti western agenda and use their ideology as a way to attack the civilization that they don't like. Anyone of moderate intelligence and awareness of history should be able to see that if it wasn't for U.S. military involvement, the attrocities that took place in Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Irag...etc. would have gone unchallenged and the world would be a much more brutal place.

Sounds good, but, humans are agressive and taking the passive direction would only lead to the bullies rule.

I think we should try to work for peace and go to war when only necessary, but I'll never subscribe to pacifist philosophy. If we didn't go to World War II, the Jewish population would've easily been wiped out and the nazis had Americans on their target list next. War is a necessary evil at times.

just an illusion....

Sounds good on paper...

i think it's an utopic ideal. it should be. violence solves nothing, and we're always doomed to repeat hisotry because of violence (i can think of 2 world wars and 2 gulf wars). anyway, folks who don't strive for pacifism in the world and in their life, are generally fools.

I guess like Mr Political, Ansgard and their like have never served in the military otherwise they wouldn't be spouting all this gung-ho b/s.

Yep, peace sure did stop that Hitler and Hussein! lol.

Oh, come on.

Go hug a tree

There's evil in the world and Pacifism just doesn't combat it.

This will be a great philosophy when desires are limitless, people are perfect, everyone agrees about everything and perceptions are all consistent. Until then principles must be defended by force and pacifists are a the most dangerous form of naif on the planet.

Love your neighbor, but keep the S.O.B. in your sights.

While I certainly admire the ideals of the pacifist, I don't believe that it is exactly very realistic to espouse. We should all strive for the ideals of non-violence in society whenever we can. War occurs in large part because of political and diplomatic failures on the part of world actors; to those ends, it should be fairly infrequent. Unfortunately many wars are fought not in self-defense but rather for aggression or greed on the part of various economic elites within any given nation. Yet, to these ends, there is absolutely nothing wrong with defensive war. Many pacifists advocate outright disarmament, but these idealists fail to realize that arms do indeed give a semblance of credibility to a nation. A strong military is indeed a deterrant to attack and gives any nation huge leverage in dealing with others. Force and violence will always be one of the tools that nations use to coerce other nations. Aggressor nations must be isolated politically so as to prevent further action on their part, to those ends, it would be very foolish indeed to unilaterally disarm. We all have to acknowledge that not everyone lives with the best of intentions. The key is picking the right battles that matter strategically.

Pacifism: An idiology that says it's O.K. for someone to stomp you in your face with an iron boot.

It takes a lot more courage to face an attacker with empty hands than with an Uzi.

I don't really care about Pacifism, but ANSGARD, again, you are AN IDIOT!

Pacifism is for silly people. people that dont understand anything about history or politics. Pacifism is only a way to be cowards

Pacifism is immoral when it violates the biblical standard regarding idly standing by while the blood of your neighbor is shed. It's a form of snobby pseudo morality when someone like the moral giant of pacifism, Gandhi said that Jews should protest Hitler by committing mass suicide-and stuck with his comments when the results of The Holocaust were clear.

Peace is definitely neccessary for the betterment and progress of all mankind, but if some war-like nation invades your territory, if you follow pacifism, you're unlikely to have a military. This would probably lead to the total obliteration of the country and the rulers may even say it's OK because they're pacifist and they wouldn't believe in self-defence of any kind. It's a nice idea but it wouldn't work in the real world.

Pacifism is the act of not creating war and trying to work things out peacefully, instead of, say, a preemptive strike. You try to hurt me, and there's a high chance I'll hit you hard. Guess what? I'm a pacifist. It's not necessarily pure. As for America, we won freedom, but where is it now? We're this close to Marshall law. Instead of sneering at pacifists, let's try to dislike things that are actually amoral.

So, you're a pascifist, huh? Well then, give me your wallet and don't make a fuss. Wouldn't want anyone to get hurt.

A good idea, mostly. Peace should be attempted to be maintained at all costs. When there are no threats to the nation or government, this is a noble goal. However, when there are potential threats to the nation or the nation comes under attack, self-defense is necessary to preserve the nation. However, on a personal scale, this is a great philosophy to follow. No individuals should physically fight each other. Unless its self-defense with a life at stake, its a great thing to not attempt to instigate fisticuffs.

It may not have been the way that America won its independence, but it is precisely how the country of India (with four times the population) won it's independence from the largest empire the world has ever known (British Empire). They won their independence by NOT fighting, by refusing to use violence against their oppressors. Gandhi is one of history's greatest men, and he would rather have died than kill a single person in defense of his country. But India is a special case. Personally I think that pacifism is a good way to get pushed around by people who aren't necessarily superior to you, just more aggressive. If someone injures a loved one of mine, I'm going to do everything in my power to cripple the bastard.

Looks good on paper, but it can never be achieved. Pacifism is only wishful thinking.

In terms of morality, it is probably the best. In terms of pragmatic application, it is probably the worst. We just aren't ready for Pacifism as a species. . .we still haven't managed to stop killing each other over money, religion, et.al.

I think it is important to seek the good in all things,and the good of Pacifism is blatently obvious.Pacifists don't kill people.To all you "Christians" who are anti-Pacifist,hear this."Thou shalt not kill."Ex.20:13,the sixth commandment.The only reason that Pacifists and Buddhists and Liberals make you people angry is because they do the same thing that they say.They don't say they want peace and then start wars,or start wars in the name of peace.I'm not sure I know which is right,but I do know that pacifists do what they truly believe is right,unlike the majority of people that oppose them.

A truly beautiful, utopian idea that will never be practical. Many have said if most people were pacifists the world would be better. Well not really, if most people were pacifists they would be utterly annihlated within 50 years. It would take the entire world to pull pacifisim off. There will always be wolves ready to eat the sheep, "like they were at a banquet" which is why there is always a shepard there to protect any succesful herd. The U.S.A. has played that role since wwII, and undoubtably the world has progressed signifigantly. The fact that we have stood up for what is right has prevented imperialism and any major war, which is why we now have time to try to feed the starving countries.

Rather than express my opinion of the idea of pacifism (peace for all), I would like to leave you with a speech on peace delivered by President John F. Kennedy on June 10, 1963. Through his words, he reminds us that peace is not unattainable when looked at realistically. "What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time. I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war--and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task. Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable--that mankind is doomed--that we are gripped by forces we cannot control. We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade--therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable--and we believe they can do it again. I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal. Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace-- based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions--on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace--no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process--a way of solving problems. With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor--it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it. So, let us not be blind to our differences--but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal. The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough--more than enough--of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we labor on--not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace."

This idea is an example of an individual willfully rejecting the right to defend himself. Those practicing pacifism are cattle waiting to be rounded up by the next robber, thief, or dictator who comes along.

Mindless, make-believe Buddhist rubbish.

Admirable when based in a philosophy of non-violence rather than on fear. I would call it hopeful rather than utopian. While allowing for debate and difference, this way of life seeks to avoid war and its profoundly negative short-term and long-term consequences. If more people lived according to true pacifism (as opposed to sometimes violent anti-everything rallying,) civility in this world would be greatly enhanced.

It's good to be tolerant and pick your battles wisely, but when that's all done and you and/or your loved ones are being mistreated, if someone's rights are being violated, then there's a point where you have to stand up and fight for what you believe in. I'm not saying we should constantly fight over everything, but when you're getting stepped all over, then the only one who's going to protect you is yourself. Of course, you shouldn't fight over little measly things, and peaceful protests are excellent ways to object to something, but there are limits.

To many commies pretending to be pacifists.