If Mort Divine ruled the world

o_O Why do so many people here think this?

Anyway, I thought you at least had some respect for a cultural phenomenon that we find everywhere we look. Too bad.

I thought you had double majored or at least minored in it in undergrad. You do know more than a lot of philosophy majors so no one is completely off base in guessing this. I have respect for cultural phenomena broadly speaking. I use something approximating Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs to assign importance. The things at the top of the pyramid are nice, but it's the base that I would deem important - maybe important isn't the right word. Vital? Producing and consuming products of culture are the capstone. Worthy goals and things that enrich life to be sure, but many can still live a happy life without them, and many a person chases the capstone while neglecting the foundations.
 
I thought you had double majored or at least minored in it in undergrad. You do know more than a lot of philosophy majors so no one is completely off base in guessing this. I have respect for cultural phenomena broadly speaking. I use something approximating Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs to assign importance. The things at the top of the pyramid are nice, but it's the base that I would deem important - maybe important isn't the right word. Vital? Producing and consuming products of culture are the capstone. Worthy goals and things that enrich life to be sure, but many can still live a happy life without them, and many a person chases the capstone while neglecting the foundations.

History and Literature, not philosophy.

I appreciate the comment, but it's not that art is vital in a biological sense; it's just that it's a ubiquitous cultural phenomenon.
 
Pacifism dictates that you can't even physically defend yourself though.

No it doesn't. Even devout Jainists might occasionally use self-defense under dire circumstances. In the context of hippies promoting pacifism to oppose unending drafts and war, I see no problem.
 
Gandhi recommended the Jews of Germany to oppose Hitler with non-violence: that's pacifism.

The smart ones did; they created boycotts and left the country. Fighting when you lack the numbers isn't always viable. Every attempt at self-defense and/or assassination by a Jew under Nazi Germany led to hundred-fold persecution.

That's just one form of pacifism regardless.
 
Well, looking it up I did forget about how extreme Gandhi was so I'll grant your point with respect to him particularly, but that's still one man and one pacifist movement. He no more represents all pro-pacifism views than Rothbard represents all libertarian views or Lenin all communist views.
 
Pacifism sounds nice but it's utterly useless in the face of oncoming violence and to the degree in which pacifists are able to face violence with violent resistance it's just them breaking their own rules of pacifism. And pacifism that wields violence in dire circumstances is basically just libertarianism with its NAP that also allows one to defend themselves against violence.

It's basically useless.
 
On what basis do you define their rules for them?

I value uselessness more than I value short-term utilitarianist violence.