Pacifism

Theory that peaceful rather than violent relations should govern human behavior and that disputes should be resolved through negotiation. Pacifism is not only a response to war but also a response to domestic injustices and government repression.

Pacifist Theory

Philosophers draw a distinction between two forms of pacifism: absolute pacifism and conditional pacifism. Each of these forms of pacifist theory has two basic expressions based upon the individual's motivation for pacifist behavior. For some people, pacifism is driven by a moral imperative; for others, it is based on more practical considerations.

The basic premise of absolute pacifism is that one must never use or support the use of force, regardless of circumstances. In deontological pacifism, this is an absolute moral duty, regardless of the immediate consequences of refraining from violence. For example, deontological pacifism might involve refusing to inflict harm on someone to prevent another person (or even oneself) from being injured or killed. Consequentialist pacifism also absolutely forbids the use of violence, but not from an abstract moral or ethical perspective. The consequentialist opposes violence because he or she believes that the evil resulting from it outweighs any good that it might achieve.

Absolute pacifism is an exceedingly difficult philosophy to put into practice. Very few people are willing to passively submit to a violent assault or stand by while a friend or loved one is attacked. Historically, absolute pacifism has a mixed record of success. The charismatic Indian leader Mohandas K. Gandhi successfully used nonviolent resistance to lead India to independence from Great Britain in 1947. However, his campaign took years and led to the death and injury of many Indians at the hands of British colonial troops and police. Civil-rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. led a successful nonviolent crusade for African American rights in the 1950s and 1960s. However, throughout most of history, significant political or social change has been accomplished through or accompanied by force.

In contrast to absolute pacifists, conditional pacifists believe that violence is necessary and permissible under certain circumstances. Conditional pacifists hold that a violent response is sometimes needed to prevent or redress a greater evil, such as threats to one's own or another person's life or health. In conditional deontological pacifism, however, one must consider whether the duty to use violence to right a wrong conflicts with other moral duties. For example, some people argue that aggressors forfeit their rights when they attack others, so any measures to prevent their aggression are justified. The conditional deontological pacifist would disagree with this position, asserting that even aggressors have basic rights that must be respected and that restrain one's actions toward them.

Conditional utilitarian pacifism, on the other hand, examines the use of violence from a results-oriented perspective. That is, it asks whether using violence will produce more morally favorable results than refraining from violent behavior. The utilitarian pacifist believes that the use of force is justified if it results [Page 566]in a greater good. Examples would include self-defense or intervening to prevent an innocent person or persons from being harmed. Conditional pacifism is more common than absolute pacifism and much easier to put into practice. For example, many people opposed to violence in the course of daily life have felt the need to take up arms to defend themselves and their country in times of war.

...