re after years can we say that christian morality is in article r hkv horus ap mchp sni de frank d s uucp frank o dwyer writes in article r ls mo fido asd sgi com livesey solntze wpd sgi com jon livesey writes this is quite different from saying employing force on other people is immoral period unfortunately from time to time we are obliged to do this immoral thing for reasons of self preservation and so we have to bear the moral consequences of that since both statements to all intents and purposes say effectively the same thing are you serious two statements one of which says that use of force in the given situation is moral and the other of which says it is not moral say effectively the same thing yes when you tag on the unfortunately then to all intents and purposes you are saying the same thing then delete the unfortunately now tell me that the two statement say effectively the same thing and to save everyone a couple of trips round this loop please notice that we are only obliged to use force to preserve self we can choose not to preserve self which is the point of pacifism would you say this of any two statements one saying x is moral and the other saying x is immoral how would you decided when two statements x is moral x is immoral actually conflict and when they say effectively the same thing what they prescribe that one should do is a pretty good indicator and in this case they don t prescribe the same things so and lead one to do precisely the same thing then either both statements are doublespeak or none they might lead you to do the same thing but the difference is what motivates pacifism so they obviously don t lead pacifists to to the same thing that s not true you could formulate a pragmatic belief in minimum force and still be a pacifist if the minimum is great but one is always trying to get as close to force as possible under that belief not the same as force is immoral period but still tending to pacifism if you don t think the use of force is immoral why minimise its use jon
