Pacifism

The Appeal to Individual Morality

According to thinkers privileging an individual conception of peace, violence and war are inherent to human nature but are morally wrong and can be reduced by promoting individual virtues and morality. This conception is shared by many political and religious thinkers.

Major religions advocate peace and mutual respect among human beings. However, both historical circumstances and religious exclusiveness have exacerbated tensions between and within religious communities and greatly influenced theological dogmas. No religion has been exempted from violence justified by religious purpose, and their positions range from absolute pacifism and nonviolence to just and even holy war.

All dharmic religions promote nonviolence (ahimsa), embodied by Gandhi, but to different extents. Buddhism and Jainism condemn killing in any form, be it human or not, and Buddhism defends nonresistance through tolerance to the enemy. Hinduism—and later Sikhism—justify war in defense of good, justice, and righteousness. When order and law have failed to maintain peace and security, just war (dharma yuddha) is to be [Page 1758]waged against those responsible, either Hindus or non-Hindus, in order to maintain peace and security within cosmic order. Warriors must belong to specific castes devoted to military action and have to respect the laws of war designed to ensure that warfare is conducted in a fair way. The use of weapons that cause unnecessary pain is prohibited, civilians shall not be harmed, and territory shall not be annexed.

Taoist religions do not rely on an absolute precept of nonviolence but rather consider violence to be a form of weakness that induces more violence and is thus counterproductive. Inaction (wu wei) is hence privileged, and if conflict cannot be avoided, one should try to resolve it without a direct confrontation. War can, however, be justified in self-defense or when a morally evil leader must be punished to deliver oppressed and exploited people.

...