Clarence Darrow and Pacifism

In this lecture we examine the pacifism of the famous American lawyer Clarence Darrow. We discuss his interesting views on society, war, and the punishment of criminals.
===================================================
Support us on Patreon: / academyofideas
Recommended Reading:
Resist Not Evil by Clarence Darrow - amzn.to/1VjHCQq (affiliate link)
Visit www.academyofid... for more videos, video transcripts and more!
===================================================

[@Rogethis]

What would Darrow's position be on self-defense? Is it justified to fight back against an attacker?

[@Paredinho1]

Nah he would just die

[@laharl2k]

I'm not sure about his, but if there's no other way, as in someone attacking you because of conflicting morals, then, i think there'd be no other way. It would be stupid just to stand stoic till the attacker gets tire and stops and maybe kills you before that I dont think everything can be fixed with peace but it should be a goal to reach. It's just that you cant teach peace to those that only know war.

[@lifechoices6643]

I follow a simple but powerful spirituality called Nichiren Buddhism which claims it has the answer to war and violence.I am still in the process of finding out.

[@uglee6433]

you find out yet?

[@davidj23]

Ug Lee I doubt it

[@scottkraft1062]

Buddha wasn't a pacifist but the dudes who created Buddhism 100 years later

[@michaelsalas721]

This puts a whole new meaning to what is justice.

[@in2dionysus]

War is a desire for difficult emotions, pacifism is a a need for this desire . . . rule is a deprivement of a situation! The trouble being we all consider situations, vitality is a question of meaning . . . a situation of vitality is not considered as law, mostly it is considered as bearing. Ascertainment is what we need here, everything that is ascertained comes from violence . . . The main purpose here is to define what is reflected . . . and how you do this; a priority of injustice . . .

[@heyassmanx]

I guess I'm not following natural selections connection with violence. You can point the fact that humans are animals but then I would point to the fact that humans are animals that possess reason and logic, which immediately draws a distinction between the two. No other creature can approach a situation with reflective rational thought, which, in certain regards, holds us to a higher standard.

[@fabiankehrer3645]

I come back every few years to this lecture, simply an amazing man.

[@mankypancakes]

Repost this video ASAP we need it now

[@KaosEspada]

why think that justice and vengeance are the same? what distinctions are you making? why think that justice is just a socially accepted word for vengeance?

[@M64936]

Most forms of pacifism don't claim that we shouldn't kill other animals to obtain food. They merely claim that we shouldn't kill or harm human beings. A species can survive and evolve by cooperating with with its own kind, and many have.

[@heyassmanx]

What about ecosystems in which all the denizens unknowingly work harmoniously and complimentary to one another's survival? Animals killing other animals for sustenance and survival doesn't seem like an effective analogy to humans killing other humans on ethical/political/idealogical grounds. I'm not a pacifist but I'm not sure I believe the universe to be innately hostile either...

[@marshallcurtis3251]

Re: soldiers trained to mindlessly kill merely because their commanders order them to: it’s not actually quite that simple. Witness the World War II era documentaries shown to American military recruits called “Why We Fight”, directed by Frank Capra. This series presented a very compelling case for willingly going along with the Allied cause against the axis powers.

[@ane7hud]

If the case for war against the axis powers was so compelling why was so much propaganda necessary in the UK and U.S.?

[@TroglodyteArgleBargl]

I'm a Darrow but I am not directly related to him. I have the more traditional roots of the name in the Hebrides. I do however think that being a pacifist is revolutionary, and also is something the world needs. We behave like children. But if I lost a friend or relative, I would probably push justice aside. But in the end, we need to put our beefs aside and learn to look out for each other, Not only is it safe, but it is FUN!

[@GabrielJunqueira]

An interesting fact to point out is that violence has been an ever present occurrence in human life, even before any of the supposed authoritarians (State, Law and Religion) have come into the scene. I think the necessity to control the violent acts of a few as a means to guard the peaceful lifestyles of most is JUSTIFIED without a doubt. The catch is when we overstep this justification and implement systems of institutional violence under the guise of protectors of personal liberties! To me this fine line can only be fully identified when we reach a new plateau of understanding about human beings, spiritually and physically. Peace!

[@Unethicist]

Would you please have Solipsism in one of your next videos? Thank you for videos!

[@heyassmanx]

I mean humans needing to kill something to survive of course goes without saying, but the video is specifically probing human on human violence that doesn't serve an immediate survival need, which is why i thought you must've been implying something else

[@solodude45]

towardsthesun Ive been vegetarian for a third of my life, I seem to get by fine "surviving" without killing animals, so am I not human? Understandable pre-agricultural revolution, but as for the past 10000 years, I would say your statement is incorrect. "It's obvious humans needed to kill animals in order to survive (most pacifists wouldn't dispute that)." [

[@M64936]

I may be wrong but it doesn't seem possible that the entire population could be sustained on crops alone. The sheer amount of land it would take to produce all the crops necessary to feed a population which doesn't eat animal protein or fish would be enormous. I would think that if the entire population suddenly stopped eating animals/fish many would die of starvation.Therefore I would argue even today it is necessary that humans need to kill animals in order to survive.

[@solodude45]

Well that is what I used to believe aswell, but as John Robbins (son of the creator of Baskin Robbins ice cream) showed us in the book "Food Revolution", If the land used to create raise and "harvest?" animals, and the land used to grow food for them (such as 60% of corn grown is for animals,) we could feed the earths population (6.1billion at the time of the book) three times over. Hope that answers your question. It is not wrong to think that vegetarianism is unsustainable, it is wrong to ignore the fact that it is sustainable. I urge you to research this. Thanks for listening

[@Fishlydavidson]

please do a video on foucault!!

[@heyassmanx]

...nature's war against what?

[@nicholasschroeder3678]

It's kind of hypocritical. Being a lawyer is using the weapons of words to win, even if it's in defense. The law is enforced by violence. He couldn't practice his vocation without those guaranteeing the laws through violence. He was like a guy decrying killing animals as he eats his steak. Still, I agree with him for the most part.

[@lovellkaopua2873]

And where were these "pacifist" beliefs when he defended cold blooded murderers in Hawaii? He argues against all forms of violence, but it seems "honor killing", as he argued, is ok. Oh yeah, it was just a Hawaiian. Many make excuses for his hypocrisy in the Massie trial, but with all of his ethical arguments, in the end he trades in his moral high ground for money. It is a rightfully earned stain that mars an otherwise distinguished career. This is not a comment on pacifism, just one of itʻs champions.

[@KaosEspada]

i am a pacifist but i have difficulty in darrow's view of punishment of criminals. punishment is probably what most pacifists struggle in reasoning for or against. i surely do.

[@jerrypolverino6025]

Patriotism is a social disease. No good ever comes from it.

[@nimahanna1709]

a bit extreme