I thought about your reply. To me, Gandhi was fighting a society (the British Empire) that upheld law as its defining value. In his context, when overwhelming British arms could have slaughtered his people, nonviolent resistance was a sensible choice.

What I grapple with is situations where pacifist resistance is untenable. Genocide is a key case that for me defies an easy solution. When I think of the Holocaust I believe that overwhelming force of arms was a better choice than peaceful resistance. Because of judiciously applied force, Europe is moving towards a somewhat peaceful union.

I don’t believe in context-free strengths. Orwell might have had it right when he said “Peace is War”. Even the Dalai Lama has said that you can be violently forceful, without being hateful. In Ethics for the New Millenium by the DL, he gave as example a policeman subduing a subject with force.

Your article was good food for thought.

This is in reply to your message to me in Sherri’s article.

Think about Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, or Bishop Desmond Tutu. They peacefully led their oppressed peoples out of oppression.

They had to work at it, being peaceful. Have you ever heard of the stories of Mandela in prison for 27 years? He treated the prison guards like equal human beings, without disdain.

I believe that it is a character strength that can be cultivated, and is something other than a personality trait or a combination of other character strengths.

Maybe I should post more about it to flush out my thoughts more fully. Thanks for your response!

Nick

I was reminded of a buddhist teacher I had many years ago, Chogyam Trungpa, saying that peace could be cultivated in the individaul. One thing he said frequently to teach this cultivation was “Generosity is the virtue that produces peace.” There is a dynamic in operation in human character where the virtues work together.

Thanks again