to be confused by what being a Pacifist actually means?

[Mimstar]

I assumed it meant 'totally against violence/war in any circumstances'.

I know a girl, friend of a friend, who claims to be a pacifist, she has a peace symbol tattoo etc. However last night this girl said that she is against war, except WWII ... because there was 'no choice'. Now, just for the record, my grandfather fought in WWII - so I am not questioning the actual war.

But I thought being a pacifist meant totally not supporting any war - not picking and choosing which ones seemed 'fair'.

She also has a Hunger Games tattoo - possibly irrelevant but just

You're both right actually. Like all moral standpoints there's often some relativism. A hardline pacifist would refuse to take a combative part in any conflict, even under duress, even to the point of being imprisoned. A more moderate pacifist might agree to take an ancilliary, non-combative role (such as medic) in a war they deemed to be justified.

My Great Uncle was a consciencious protestor in WWII due to religeous grounds (Quaker). He told the first court, who laughed, told him he hadn't a chance, and referred him to the higher court.
At the higher court he said he was a Quaker, and was prepared to do war work if it was peaceful, not connected with fighting. They immediately signed him off. He did firewatching, ambulance driving, firefighting etc.
He would have said he was a pacifist and supporting the war effort as best he could.

That's a really interesting view Cogito thank you. You're right, it's all relative. I don't consider myself a true pacifist, as I do feel that if there is no other choice (as in WWII) you have to fight. But, I don't agree with unnecessary wars - but again, what might be unnecessary to me is completely necessary to others.

Difficult one, isn't it?!

Ah that's really interesting DeWe I guess it isn't completely black & white, is it? Very interesting really.

Moral/philosphical questions often are.

True Cogito - it is interesting, I consider myself a peaceful person and I'd never want to harm anybody but if I had to fight to protect my family, I would without a doubt. Just as I would be disgusted at the thought of hunting etc, but if my daughter was starving I'd do it in a second. I guess it's all about circumstance?

Back to moral relativism. We can all justify breaking the law or reneging on our principles when it suits .... :) Takes either huge integrity or rank stupidity to stick to a principle regardless of the outcome.