|
|
|
|
||
|
|
The Problem with Pacifism |
|
|
The problem with pacifism is that it has no answer to aggression. The only form of resistance that
is acceptable to a pacifist is non-violent civil disobedience, but that only works against regimes
that have scruples about using violence. For example, Gandhi's campaigns in India were highly effective
because the British were reluctant to use force unless they could justify it to themselves. Gandhi
challenged them by forcing the British government to choose between enforcing its will or conforming
to its own higher principles. A tyrant like Saddam Hussein, Stalin or Hitler would just have
killed Gandhi and all his supporters and then had their friends and relatives tortured to death to
ensure that everyone in the country understood the price of dissent.
But any nation that adopts a policy of complete pacifism will eventually be threatened by just such an aggressor. There is no shortage of fanatics and dictators who are willing to use any means to increase their power. In the face of such a threat, there are three options. One is to surrender, in which case all the things that pacifists value - such as peace and non-violence - will be utterly obliterated. Another is to fight, which means abandoning pacifism. The third is to rely on the protection of non-pacifist allies, which is deeply hypocritical because it means benefiting from their willingness to use force whilst condemning it as immoral. Anyone who claims to be a pacifist but accepts that war is acceptable under certain circumstances - e.g. anyone who opposed the war in Iraq but accepts that it was right to fight Hitler - is not a true pacifist at all. Whatever they may pretend, they are part of the mainstream debate about whether war is justified in each individual case rather than being opposed to war itself. It is a debate about whether the potential benefits of a war, e.g. liberating the oppressed or removing a threat, are sufficient to justify the suffering it will inevitably create. A person who believes that his or her own country should never initiate hostilities is part of that debate. So is a person who finds war so repugnant that he or she could not countenance the use of force unless the country was actually being invaded. They differ from their opponents in their view of when war can be justified, but still concede the principle that it can be. To be a true pacifist means believing that it is better to see everything you believe in destroyed by the first aggressor to come along than to fight to defend it. Ultimately, that would mean letting the whole world fall under the shadow of whatever tyranny was most effective at eliminating its rivals rather than use violence to oppose it. It is a complete disregard for the fate of the whole world, and can only be justified if you assume that the world is irrelevant anyway. The only moral basis for such a position is to claim that the physical world is a trivial interlude before the afterlife, and that as a consequence nothing is more important than keeping your own soul free from impurities. True pacifism can only be justified by religious fanaticism. Of course there are many people who would describe themselves as pacifists but who have no sympathy with such extreme religious positions. But pacifism without that foundation lacks any moral basis. If those who espouse it genuinely have a complete disregard for the fate of the world then their position is one of nihilism or total selfishness. If they don't really want to let the most ruthless aggressor take everything, then they have not thought through the consequences of their own position. Perhaps that is because they find war so horrific that they cannot imagine ever supporting one, in which case they are treating their own feelings as more important than anything else. Those who simply haven't bothered to think about the consequences of their position are not treating the issue seriously, and are striking a pose rather than taking a principled stand. It's also important to remember that deciding whether war is justified in any given case means dealing with uncertain outcomes and weighing up different potential harms. For example, whether the human cost of deposing a tyrant would be worse than the suffering he would cause to his people if left in power. Taking a position for or against means accepting the risk that you will be proven wrong, and that the course of action you favour may lead to quite unexpected results. It means accepting that every choice is imperfect, and that whichever one you advocate will have consequences for other people that your conscience must bear. One way to avoid this psychological burden is to have no opinion. Let other people decide and trust their judgement. Another way is to use one absolute principle as the answer to every question. By deciding that war is the ultimate evil a person can dismiss any arguments in favour of a war without having to think about them, thus avoiding any painful doubts about whether they're doing the right thing. Pacifism can be political Prozac, taken to quieten the mind. But whatever the motive, pacifism is wrong in principle and suicidal in practice. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Last Updated: 1 Oct 07 |  |
|
|||
 |
|
|
|
|
|||
