Pacifism, Fault, and Veganism

[Purple Knight]

If a society of pacifists allows a gang of bandits to exploit them, bandits who would have otherwise died, are the pacifists partly to blame when the fattened and pampered bandits go out again, to another society, and have greater success?

If so, if part of the blame falls on a pacifist for his pampering of brutes, then I fail to see the ethical merit of pacifism.

However, if not, because presumably people are never responsible for what others do even if they knowingly caused or enabled it, then I fail to see the ethical merit of veganism, since you can easily buy meat without killing the animal yourself.

To my mind, at least one of these things doesn't work.

[Purple Knight]

eating meat,

Eating meat isn't cognitively dissonant if pacifism is sound. Pacifists will not kill a murderer even to stop him from murdering many. Clearly, if his view is right, it only matters if you engage in the act of killing, and it absolutely does not matter if your actions (like letting murderers roam free or buying meat at the store) result in more killing. All that matters is whether you kill or not, and for the vast majority of people, you don't.

[marke]

If a society of pacifists allows a gang of bandits to exploit them, bandits who would have otherwise died, are the pacifists partly to blame when the fattened and pampered bandits go out again, to another society, and have greater success?

If so, if part of the blame falls on a pacifist for his pampering of brutes, then I fail to see the ethical merit of pacifism.

However, if not, because presumably people are never responsible for what others do even if they knowingly caused or enabled it, then I fail to see the ethical merit of veganism, since you can easily buy meat without killing the animal yourself.

To my mind, at least one of these things doesn't work.

Resisting looting and violence by force if necessary is right and failing to condemn wickedness is wrong.