Comments on: A discussion of means, not ends.

By: A Discussion Of Means, Not Ends | Trying to follow

A Discussion Of Means, Not Ends | Trying to follow — Mon, 11 May 2009 09:33:41 +0000

[...] post was adapted from one I wrote a while back, that has an interesting comment thread worth checking out). [photo credit] Have you subscribed to Trying To Follow yet? We offer three [...]

By: Mop

Mop — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 12:38:56 +0000

Good job.

By: Religion, Faith, Life and me at Trying to follow

Religion, Faith, Life and me at Trying to follow — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 22:52:38 +0000

[...] From A discussion of means, not ends. at Trying to follow [...]

By: Thoughts on the Journey » Blog Archive » A Discussion of Means, not ends.

Fri, 17 Feb 2006 14:23:31 +0000

[...] A discussion of means, not ends. [...]

By: Ariah

Ariah — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:51:12 +0000

Thanks for the comment Stuart. I’ve been trying to deal with a bunch of spam comments recently and that’s taken up my time over the weekend. I’ll get into the 1st Peter discussion soon, but I think we’ll get into some of it in the Romans 13 passage I started talking about as well.

By: Stuart

Stuart — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 05:48:08 +0000

It appears not much has been being added.

Here’s a question I have: How do pacifists believe a gov’t is supposed to fulfill its duties mentioned in 1 peter 2:14 of punishing those who do wrong and (of lesser interest to me, though still interesting) reward those who do what is right? The gov’t isn’t in the wrong when it does these things, is it?

This isn’t a “answer that one, punk.” It’s a “hey, I’m curious.”

Another thing that is in my head is this: can we really condemn a worldly gov’t for not meeting up to our moral standards? does that make sense?

anyway, just some thoughts, later for now

By: Ariah

Ariah — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:50:34 +0000

Stuart,

Thank you for your comments, they are well put and I hope I will address the things that you are asking. I’ll certainly get to the Romans 13 passage, but you’ll have to bear with me. Also, I hope to address your concerns about people protesting war as well, but that’ll come much later.

For now thanks for tuning in, and I hope you’ll subscribe, or at least keep checking back for my future post, that way we can keep the dialogue going. thanks.

By: stuart

stuart — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:53:56 +0000

so…
i agree with this statement: ends do not justify means.
some things i think that are worth considering (in no ways is this enough to reach a final conclusion, just things to keep in mind):
-God has ordained authority in regard to the church (Christ is the ultimate head, elders are the earthly leaders), family (man is the head), and state (political leaders are the heads)
-each body instituted by God has a different purpose
-God has ordained the gov’t to keep the peace-they punish wrongdoers (romans 13;4-For he [head of state] is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.)
-to a certain degree (i’m not declaring the extent), the gov’t is ordained by God to exact justice
-we do not need to confuse the church’s role or way of doing things with the gov’t’s
-i’m not sure a gov’t that never used force would be doing it’s God-ordained job
-a Christian whose conscience is offended by working in a position that requires force shouldn’t join in

i don’t think i’ve spoken for or against pacifism; i’m hoping this comes across unbiased

i would also like to add this, i am bothered by pacifist groups protesting war, the gov’t is not the church, and i think a double standard may be in place when a war is protested but not police arresting a bankrobber or some such, besides, wouldn’t their energies be spent better elsewhere? oh well, just some thoughts

By: SR

SR — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 07:41:10 +0000

I think what I was trying to say is that you cannot divorce pacifism as a purely “biblical” doctrine from real life politics and real life states. If you are going to confine pacifism to merely inter-personal conflict (like a thief and me), then yes, my criticism is misguided. However, once you start talking about inter-state conflict, you must think much more deeply about the principles of governance, confidence, representation and culpability.

To say that no political defense will suffice to dissuade you from your view that pacifism is legitimate I assume means that you are confining it to inter-personal, and not inter-state conflict?

By: Brian Kirchner

Brian Kirchner — Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:40:05 +0000

SR,
Yeah I completely agree with you (although I couldn’t have put it nearly so succinctly or eloquently), but I do think we’re talking about 2 different issues. The issue you addressed seems to be the political side – does it make sense for our nation to go to war as a political action? Your third paragraph is right on, I think Ariah needs to argue that war is not justified in any situation, but the rest seems like a different issue. You mention God’s desires, but then go on to talk about the morals of the state. It’s a good argument, but I don’t see how the two are connected.

Plus I’m with Ariah – I’m just a lowly computer science major. If we start talking deep politics my idiocy will be quickly revealed :)

By: Ariah

Ariah — Sun, 11 Sep 2005 04:34:46 +0000

Okay, wow, Stephen sure laid it out there.

I hope Stephen and others don’t mind but at least for a while, I’m not really going to address what he said.

There is one main reason, I don’t know nearly as much about politics. And second, like I said earlier, this is not a political argument. We can get into the politics at some point, but Stephen, all your political defenses (and you did a heck of a good job above) are not going to change my opinion one bit. Please understand I don’t mean that rudely, I simply mean that those things have nothing to do with why I am a pacifist or not.

Hope that’s okay, let me know if it’s not.

By: SR

SR — Sun, 11 Sep 2005 04:16:26 +0000

Thanks for the heads-up via email. Here is what I mean:

There are no politics that are divorced from people. In the global context, there are no politics that are divorced from States. In other words, we cannot develop a political doctrine that is divorced from the real world of States and people.

I assume that there are no political doctrines that are divorced from real States and real people. I argue that firstly we must establish that God calls States not to use violence in any situation.

We must assume that pacifism is a workable political doctrine: in other words, can pacifism ensure that the people it purports to protect are not annihilated via violence? if it cannot, then it has no business in the State.

If there is a counter-example that suggests that it would be OK to use violence in order to protect people, OR that the State has a vested interest in not seeing its citizens annihilated and property rights violated OR if in a society someone in the State might decide that pacifism is morally attractive and thereby incurs the death of others OR if there is ever, ever a situation in which it is acceptable for the State to employ violence, and Hitler, Rwanda and Darfur are worthy of discussion, not extremes to be avoided, THEN pacifism is an unworkable political doctrine with no place in the State.

I argue that there are situations in which States may use violence and coercion towards each other. I argue that there is no biblical prohibition on States employing the sword. I argue that pacifism cannot ensure that the people, the vulnerable, it is supposed to protect in a State or in a foreign policy, will not be annihilated. I argue that pacifism is a fantastic idea insofar as men are angels and no coercion is ever necessary; they are not, it is. I argue that pacifism is an unworkable, un-Real political doctrine, and the 21st century’s democratization of violence, proliferation of dangerous weapons, ease of travel and communication, and breadth and depth of the hatred that humans possess towards one another, make pacifism not just unrealistic or unpractical, something I am sure you have heard, but downright dangerous and morally questionable.

By: Ariah

Ariah — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 20:30:30 +0000

Your gonna have to break that one down for me a little more Stephen. Somethings I need defined: “the Real of politics”; why are “means” and “intentions” theoretical; and what exactly do you mean by “political doctrine?

By: SR

SR — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 08:10:04 +0000

the only problem is that he hasn’t begun to establish that God has called us to pacifism as a political doctrine. and to divorce the Real of politics from the theoretical of “means” or “intentions” is to be obtuse beyond recognition.

By: Brian Kirchner

Brian Kirchner — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 02:08:43 +0000

100% right on! As you say, refusing to obey God was also “the only way” Daniel had a prayer (pun intended) of surviving the lion’s den, but we see what the outcome of that story was. God does not always call us to do the seemingly logical thing, and we should base our decision on what God says, not on what our intuition says.

P.S. Mad props for the VeggieTales reference :)