4 ms·

It's more than that. Their very existence is predicated on subsidence within a larger society that repudiates their values. A society that actually lives their

It's more than that. Their very existence is predicated on subsidence within a larger society that repudiates their values. A society that actually lives their values would be both out competed and quite possibly have lost their territory to those willing to move forward. Their attitude towards technology is as lacking in virtue as absolute pacifism. Pacifism that can only exist through others violence isn't a rejection of violence it is merely abdicating responsibility for deciding when to use that violence to others. In a way its more odious than violence.

newt_slowly 5y ago
You are basically acknowledging that technological development is a force that happens outside of our control, and that we are forced to keep up lest we be conquered by our neighbors. This is true, and it's what I believe also, but I don't see how you come to the conclusion that there is anything desirable or moral about this state of affairs. Without us keeping the Amish way of life "subsidized", perhaps they would indeed have perished. And they would have gone willing, due to their belief system. It's remarkable that you can try to spin not being willing to participate in the technological-industrial system as "more odious than violence".
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  Absolute pacifism is more odious than violence because violence in the course of human history has been from the perspective of an individual player been inevitable and necessary to prevent subjugation and murder. It is the statement that I know violence may be needed in some occasions but in order that I may imagine my own hands clean I am going to abstain from making the choice forcing someone else to. It neither stops your fellows from becoming nazis and hurting others nor being marched to concentration camps. The simplest moral test one can apply is what would happen if everyone applied the same thought rules for behavior. It would be great right. More realistically what would happen if most people did? If they weren't willing to apply at least minimal defensive violence then a minority of defectors enslaves everyone else.
lurquer 5y ago
> In a way its more odious than violence. You have very little understanding of the Amish perspective. If your assumptions of their beliefs lead you to a conclusion that their pacifism is more odious than violence, it should be a red flag that perhaps you are mistaken in your assumptions. Their security, in their view, rests with God. The Bible demonstrates repeatedly that, at times, God uses evil men to keep other evil men from harming His people. For example, God used the evil Babylonians to conquer the evil Assyrians, to the benefit of his chosen people who were commanded to keep a low profile and stay out of it. Likewise, the evil Persians conquered the evil Babylonians, leading to the release of the Jews from captivity: once again, the Jews in captivity were to lay low and let God seek vengeance in the Babylonians. The Amish are quite aware that one group of evil people (let’s say cops and the state) are doing evil and violent things to another group of evil people (namely, criminals.) The Amish stay out of it, keep a low profile, and rely on Providence. In short, their views are more subtle than you think. Instead of concluding they are ‘odious’ you would do well to understand them.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  The problem is that their god doesn't exist any more than the ancient Egyptian's gods or the ancient Greeks gods. There isn't any such thing as divine providence. The losers of history aren't here to give voice to their opinions and the winners desperately want to believe their life and times are the result of their virtue instead of chance. The Amish in America are able to live their life as is because Americans have absolutely been willing and able to do violence to would be conquerors and aggressors not because of virtue and providence.
klausnrooster 5y ago
The other 2 replies notwithstanding, I find your comment very interesting. Reminds me of "memory leak", the definition of which seems so completely backwards ... at first. As to whether absolute pacifism is more odious than violence, well, that's something to think about too. Hmmm, if everyone was A.P., the bar for "violence" would shift way downward, then ...
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  If everyone did yes but a small number of defectors could easily destroy everyone else as the proportion of defectors goes down it gets more and more effective its not a stable state.

newt_slowly 5y ago

You are basically acknowledging that technological development is a force that happens outside of our control, and that we are forced to keep up lest we be conquered by our neighbors. This is true, and it's what I believe also, but I don't see how you come to the conclusion that there is anything desirable or moral about this state of affairs. Without us keeping the Amish way of life "subsidized", perhaps they would indeed have perished. And they would have gone willing, due to their belief system. It's remarkable that you can try to spin not being willing to participate in the technological-industrial system as "more odious than violence".

michaelmrose 5y ago
Absolute pacifism is more odious than violence because violence in the course of human history has been from the perspective of an individual player been inevitable and necessary to prevent subjugation and murder. It is the statement that I know violence may be needed in some occasions but in order that I may imagine my own hands clean I am going to abstain from making the choice forcing someone else to. It neither stops your fellows from becoming nazis and hurting others nor being marched to concentration camps. The simplest moral test one can apply is what would happen if everyone applied the same thought rules for behavior. It would be great right. More realistically what would happen if most people did? If they weren't willing to apply at least minimal defensive violence then a minority of defectors enslaves everyone else.

lurquer 5y ago

> In a way its more odious than violence. You have very little understanding of the Amish perspective. If your assumptions of their beliefs lead you to a conclusion that their pacifism is more odious than violence, it should be a red flag that perhaps you are mistaken in your assumptions. Their security, in their view, rests with God. The Bible demonstrates repeatedly that, at times, God uses evil men to keep other evil men from harming His people. For example, God used the evil Babylonians to conquer the evil Assyrians, to the benefit of his chosen people who were commanded to keep a low profile and stay out of it. Likewise, the evil Persians conquered the evil Babylonians, leading to the release of the Jews from captivity: once again, the Jews in captivity were to lay low and let God seek vengeance in the Babylonians. The Amish are quite aware that one group of evil people (let’s say cops and the state) are doing evil and violent things to another group of evil people (namely, criminals.) The Amish stay out of it, keep a low profile, and rely on Providence. In short, their views are more subtle than you think. Instead of concluding they are ‘odious’ you would do well to understand them.

michaelmrose 5y ago
The problem is that their god doesn't exist any more than the ancient Egyptian's gods or the ancient Greeks gods. There isn't any such thing as divine providence. The losers of history aren't here to give voice to their opinions and the winners desperately want to believe their life and times are the result of their virtue instead of chance. The Amish in America are able to live their life as is because Americans have absolutely been willing and able to do violence to would be conquerors and aggressors not because of virtue and providence.

klausnrooster 5y ago

The other 2 replies notwithstanding, I find your comment very interesting. Reminds me of "memory leak", the definition of which seems so completely backwards ... at first. As to whether absolute pacifism is more odious than violence, well, that's something to think about too. Hmmm, if everyone was A.P., the bar for "violence" would shift way downward, then ...

michaelmrose 5y ago
If everyone did yes but a small number of defectors could easily destroy everyone else as the proportion of defectors goes down it gets more and more effective its not a stable state.