Is Peace Pacifism?

Goken mentioned this in the Topic "Hardest part of the Doctrine". I did not want to derail that thread so I am bringing his question/statement here for discussion. Thank you Goken for mentioning this and bringing my struggles with it back to mind.

Lets look at the Doctrine.

The Doctrine mentions peace in multiple places.

The Code states:
"There is no Emotion, there is Peace."

To me this sounds more about "Inner peace" here than say "World peace".

The Creed states:
"I am a Jedi, an instrument of peace;"

This is where it gets a little confusing I think. I am what I call a "sheepdog". I run towards the gunfire and not away from it. I have been a part of the military longer than any other thing in my life. That does not mean I am against peace. It is one of the driving forces that led me in this direction. I want peace. I am armed, most every moment of every day, not for me, but for you. When and if a bad thing happens, I am there to safeguard others and hopefully resolve the conflict as peacefully as possible.

The 16 Teachings state:

"Jedi understand their limitations." To me this allows one to be a pacifist if one is unable to be a sheepdog. Some may not be capable to be the "sheepdog". That is fine.

"Jedi serve in many ways." Again this shows that there are many "roles" for a Jedi to serve. For example, I am also a volunteer firefighter and a police officer, I will do my best to help you. I am not an EMT/Paramedic. The whole, medic/Corpsman thing, I just don;t have that in me. I know CPR and I know emergency/trauma skills, but I will always move aside for someone else to do that "role".

"Jedi believe that love and compassion are central to their lives." This is one of the main reasons why I am a sheepdog, because I care deeply for others. I value your life to the point that I will step in front of hostility to protect you from it, to shield you.

"Jedi are guardians of peace. We believe in helping all those that are in need, in whatever form, to the best of our ability." This sums up a lot of what I have said previously. We should strive to defuse conflict, the best way we can and to the best of our ability.

The 21 Maxims state:

"Conflict: To know when to fight." This tells me that I do not have to be a Pacifist. By no means does this mean I should be a vigilante and seek out conflict. But when it arises I should be ready and do the most I can to defuse/fight it.

"Intervention: To know when not to act." I should know when to stand in the face of adversity/hostility and when not to.

Are we sending mixed messages? Do you have to be a Pacifist to be a Jedi? I say no. Some may say yes.

So what do you think? What does it mean "To be an instrument of Peace?

Thank you Karn. I love the Sheepdog idea. Your post has greatly helped me make peace ( ) with the doctrine when it comes to my capacity for violence.

I too believe that one does not have to be a pacifist to be a Jedi, I had just never gone through and made it work with the doctrine so well.

No i am an instrument of peace but if people are being butchered in war i cannot say i am a Pascifist and not act in even the smallest way that i can , that would be against the honour , because a Jedi is also meant to be brave and sworn to valour ? So even if it seems to contradict , i want to maintain peace in every form but not in a pascifistic way , if that makes sense. Standing up for the weak is also maintaining peace in a way, in my opinion.

I've seen and heard pacifism defined as one of two ways: (1) the opposition to war or violence, (2) the belief that violence in any way or under any circumstances is unjustifiable. I like the first, more generalized idea. I don't agree with war for war's sake, but I do believe in the right to defend oneself and one's family, and friends, and in altruism.

If, for example, someone were to break into our house and threaten my parents, siblings, or children, do I not have the right - no, more simple, the moral obligation - to take forceful action to stop them? Can I trust that the conflict can be resolved peacefully? I doubt it, and even if it could, can I believe that I have the time and opportunity to try?

One day, when I was ten years old, some kid who was perhaps three times my size (I was a really small boy), was picking fights on the playground. A circle had gathered to watch. He was punching his opponents hard, and wanted to fight me next. Well, having taken the velociraptor as my 'totem creature', so to say, I charged at him and screamed like one (I can do a very good raptor-screech!) He ran away, his fighting ended then and there that day, and I was never bullied again. I may not have used physical violence, but I did take aggressive action that made the point that I was prepared to.

I believe that aggression, when used to protect others or to avoid greater conflict, is justified, the question becomes is that really the motive at work? And, will you always know when best to fight and when not to? I love the goal of peace, but I can rarely harmonize with inaction.

Peace is a state of mind you cultivate. Weeds will always sprout up. Especial if the garden is fertile. You need to be diligent weeding your garden. As soon as you stop the weeds take over.

Karn wrote: Are we sending mixed messages? Do you have to be a Pacifist to be a Jedi? I say no. Some may say yes.

So what do you think? What does it mean "To be an instrument of Peace?

Crikey, what a tough question

When your in the proverbial breach, is there any room to be anything else then a weapon (sorry for mixing up my metaphors!). While in theory it might be ideal to assert that the measures which shape restraint of action have priority in decision making, I think in reality the will to survive might override any other factors, whether its oneself or ones mates.

But I guess that is THE purpose of each part of the entire team and its chain of command, to ensure the required tools and resourcing are available to enable the trigger puller to be able to make the proper lawful and effective decisions.

So in my opinion, as I usually say, the proportionality, distinction and necessity required for legal conduct in war does (or could) give room for a pacifist to be a warfighter, but it would be up to the individual pacifist to know whether they have that capacity to do the required job. It's just I do not think they have to be mutually exclusive as a requirement for the job in all cases. I think without those things they are a criminal, but that is a tough call to make and one I'm not in a position to fairly make.

But we can only really focus on so many things at once, and for me then I'd say what makes a pacifist is someone who wants peace and is open to understand there are different expressions and experiences of peace, AND acts to promote, maintain and create peace. If you can be a warfighter and maintain all that then I think it would make a person a better warfighter, not a worse one.

labels; bleh

i have great respect for the sincere commitment to do no harm

i have less respect for the willingness to allow barbarians to savage the helpless, and much less for the claim that this is the result of some high moral principle

maybe things will be peaceful after the brutal have killed off the rest of the world, but why should they be allowed to do it?

Pacifism is the absence of violence.
Peace is not the absence of conflict.

"Jedi understand their limitations." To me this allows one to be a pacifist if one is unable to be a sheepdog. Some may not be capable to be the "sheepdog". That is fine.

I would think that it means to know what you can and can not do. The way I interpret that particular teaching is that we should not only know our physical limitations but know our options.

"Conflict: To know when to fight." This tells me that I do not have to be a Pacifist. By no means does this mean I should be a vigilante and seek out conflict. But when it arises I should be ready and do the most I can to defuse/fight it.

What I think a lot of the so-called pacifist fail to understand is that not acting is not pacifism. Not acting, not doing something when something is needed borderlines on cowardice. If a week person, unable to harm or defend themselves, does nothing then it is because nothing is what they are capable of. Doing nothing by these people is not pacifism, it’s hoping someone else will come alone and do what they can’t. And not acting when you do not possess the ability to act is not noble or honorable or anything.

Pacifism is having the ability to act and choosing not to. People often use Gandhi as there example of a pacifist. And that is a good example. He had the ability to incite an entire nation to rise up and attack if he wanted. But he did not. That is what pacifism is. The choice to not fight when you have every means to.

Pacifism is a means to combat conflict or an aggressor. Just one of many methods. And it is not the only or the right one. It is just a method.

Do you have to be Pacifist to be Jedi? I guess that depends on your personal definition of pacifism. To you, if a pacifist is someone that avoids war, violence, and conflict even at the expense of the helpless and innocent, then I would say a pacifist cannot be a Jedi and a Jedi cannot be a Pacifist. If to you; a pacifist is one who exhausts all other options before resorting to violence, war and conflict, I would say pacifism runs very congruent to the Jedi way.

I tend to think of pacifism as the former not the latter, I view a pacifist as one who believes so strongly that violence is wrong that they would rather be killed then raise fist or pick up a weapon in their own defense. In my belief one cannot be selectively pacifist – “I believe in this fight but not this one.” A pacifist believes all violence is wrong, violence begets more violence and that peace cannot be achieved through war.

In my opinion, a Jedi cannot be a pacifist, but a Jedi does seek peace. In a perfect world a Jedi could be a pacifist, but we do not live in a perfect world.
I would rather be a warrior in a garden, then a gardener in a war.
Si vis pacem, para bellum