First discourse on 13 words:
Conscientious, Pacifism, Passive, Aggressive, Assertive, Violence, Ethics, Axiological, Deontological, Integrity, Mercy, Compassion, and Kindness:
These hotlinks are provided to help understand how these words apply to the post. If you have any questions just click on a word, then click your back button to come back to the Blog.
Namaste
What does it mean to be a Pacifist? I have come to realize that despite the definition, there are many subjective understandings; at least among those people I have contact with on a regular basis. For me Pacifism is the result of an astute understanding that violence begets violence. Violence in response to violence creates a vortex of negativity that only ends when a positive choice is made to stop participating in the cycle. Pacifism is a personal dedication not to participate in such activity, not only on a global scale but also on a personal scale… to a degree, and here is where things start to become paradoxical.
If you were to be a practicing pacifist, and the serenity of your peaceful home was disrupted by the violent actions of a home invasion, and you found yourself, and your family threatened with almost certain death; how would you react? At this point prayer is only helpful for you to stay focused, it is no substitute for action. Would you turn the other cheek; at the expense of those who are dependant upon you for safety and security in their lives? If you did choose this path, would you not have crossed over from Pacifism, to being Passive? After all, Pacifism, and being Passive, are not synonymous contrary to many peoples understanding.
Would violent action in defense of your family be a compromise of ethics as a practicing pacifist? Given a practice of pacifism, would taking violent action against such a threat as I have described be axiological, or deontological? That is the really tough question… I personally believe it to be axiological to take deontological action in this given scenario, but then I spent eight years as an Airborne Light Infantry soldier, and though I am a practicing pacifist, I cannot un-learn the survival skills I have been taught. That is what happens when you eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge, you can never regain the innocence lost... and though I may not ever want to take a persons life, I have to live with the fact that I not only know how, but I know I can if necessary.
The harsh reality is ethics are defined by the individual, cultures, groups, professions, societies, organizations, clubs, corporations, religions and even the different sects within a given religion, etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseam… The bottom line is - objectively ethics are subjective; what is one mans ethical principles, morals, and integrity may very well be another mans crime… It is merely a matter of a given perspective and the framework upon which it is based.
No matter how assiduously conscientious I am about pacifism I have to accept that it will always be subject to interpretation of those far less familiar with the philosophy… I am by no means a passive person. In fact I am quite the opposite… especially professionally. I am very assertive… I have even been accused of being aggressive, to which I typically take offense given my principles of pacifism…
For me it is very black and white… I am assertive in that I have little tolerance for bullshit, and backstabbing passive-aggressive chickenshits. I am a results oriented professional, and I expect forthright honesty, and candor tempered with tact. I have no problem taking someone to task in this regard, but I am never threatening, derogatory, or belittling, which I equate to aggression (and a low self-esteem). I think Teddy Roosevelt hit the nail on the head with his analogy to “walk softly and carry a big stick”. The problem is corporate America is full of whining little-minded self-important passive-aggressive blow-hard poseurs, who have no problem trying to bullshit there way along their career path. It is only when these types are held accountable for results by people like me that they get culled from the herd…
For example I may sit across the table from someone in a conference room and tell them they are wrong when they are, hold them accountable, or call bullshit when I hear it. That is being assertive, but what I won’t do is reach across the table and slap them across the face and call them a dumb ass, as that is being aggressive, belittling, and insulting… not to mention physically abusive, despite however effective such action may be.
I find it interesting that upon close examination of words like passive, assertive, aggressive, insulting, belittling, they are all subjective… Even abusive is a subjective word, and yet our current societal acceptance has gone soft on these ideas… We have let the line slip as to what is acceptable and what is not and become a nation of crybabies, and cannot understand why we are weak. Strength comes from within and without… It is both inverse and overt... a careful balance. Consistency implies strength through Integrity. Decisiveness implies strength by being Resolute…
Conversely does Mercy imply strength or weakness? Is Compassion a strength or weakness? Is unconditional Love strength or a weakness? Upon careful consideration, and astute examination it becomes irrefutably true that though these ideals are considered soft and perhaps even weak they are in fact the greatest of human strengths… These innately human ideals are central to our survival and key to the expansion of humanity… This is irrefutable.
Whenever I consider this I am reminded of a line from the song “I Know It’s Over” by the Smiths… I am certain that Morrissey & Johnny Marr recognized the profound sublimity of the line “It takes strength to be gentle and kind…” when they penned that song. For the unfamiliar the record is “The Queen is Dead” by the Smiths. It is a great record, yes record this is before CD’s, however I digress…
So what does it mean to be a “strong” human being? Is it a dedication to the Middle Path; which in-and-of-its-self requires consummate inner strength? It is a forgone conclusion that an inclination to bully people and push the meek around so as to get your way, even when you can bench press a Freightliner Truck is certainly not strength, and most certainly overcompensation for a weak self-image.
It would seem then that great strength takes an assertive Integrity, and fearless Decisiveness, that is tempered with Compassion, Mercy, and Kindness. All of which can only be maintained through resolute personal dedication… self-discipline. However, most people are not this conscientious and are easily intimidated by someone as forthright and honest as this ethic implies. Having mercy on these weakened individuals is a necessity though these are the very types who will stab you in the back… What is that rule? Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice shame on me.
The point I am getting at here is the ethical dilemma presented here is the same as the previous but on a less overt level… In the workplace when is it appropriate to stop being merciful and take decisive action with a poor performer? When is it appropriate to call bullshit on the self-aggrandizing posturing, and demand results? More importantly this begs to question, is mercy, compassion, or kindness even appropriate in the workplace? It certainly is at conflict with business, as decisiveness is always the primary modifier in all situations impacting the bottom line directly or indirectly.
What do you think?
