|
Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, to absolute opposition to the use of violence, or even force, under any circumstances. Pacifism may be based on principle or pragmatism. Principled (or Deontological) pacifism is based on beliefs that either war, deliberate lethal force, violence or any force or coercion is morally wrong. Pragmatic (or Consequential) pacifism does not hold to such an absolute principle but considers there to be better ways of resolving a dispute than war or considers the benefits of a war to be outweighed by the costs. Dove or dovish are informal terms used, usually in politics, for people who prefer to avoid war or prefer war as a last resort. Some people termed dovish would not view their position as pacifist as they would consider war to be justifiable in some circumstances (see just war theory). The description refers to the story of Noah's Ark in which the dove came to symbolise the hope of salvation and peace. The opposite of a dove is a hawk or war hawk. Some persons, who consider themselves pacifists, while opposing war, are not opposed to all use of coercion, physical force against people or destruction of property. Antimilitarists, for example, are specifically opposed to the modern nation-states' military institutions rather than to "violence" in general. Other pacifists follow principles of nonviolence, believing that only non-violent action is justifiable. History
Pragmatic pacifism "Pacifist" often less technically describes a person who accepts risks to her or himself and others, or prefers the penalties which might accompany a non-aggressive stance even in extreme circumstances, for the sake of avoiding a violent or military solution especially in politics. A pacifist person may be distinguished as more than usually confident in peaceful means for the resolution of any conflict, more of a pacifist than others, earning the reputation as a "dove" or a "peacemaker". Pacifism also describes a stance in particular circumstances, in contrast with those who believe that the circumstances justify violence. An advocate of a pacifist strategy may be more optimistic or opposed to violence in the situation, differing from her or his non-pacifist counterpart only in her or his assessment of the means the situation calls for. Positions which advise non-aggression under normal circumstances but reserve the right to self-defense under crisis, while not pacifist in an ideal sense, may be called pacifist in a pragmatic sense, reflecting strong commitment to the natural and nearly universal preference of peace over war. The political theory of Green parties lists "non-violence" and "decentralization" towards anarchist co-operatives or minimalist village government, as two of their ten key values. However, in power, Greens like all politicians often compromise, e.g. German Greens in the cabinet of Social Democrat Gerhard Schröder supported an intervention by German troops in Afghanistan in 2001, but on condition that they host the peace conference in Berlin — and during the 2002 election campaign forced Schröder to swear that no German troops would invade Iraq. This suggests that many who advocate "non-violence" or pacifism, especially political parties that participate in government, actually advocate what is more properly called de-escalation or even arms reduction (on a very large scale) rather than outright disarmament (which is advocated by many pacifists). Many outstanding pacifists of this sort have taken part in defensive military actions when their countries were attacked, but others prefer to leave their country if it is preparing for aggressive war (such as Germany in the 1930s). Clearly a party that writes and enforces law is not non-violent. It can be pacifist, however, by refusing participation in external conflicts, refusing to supply weapons, and sheltering refugees but not combatants. There are many definitions of such "pragmatic pacifism". Principled or radical pacifism While those who believe that war is normally preferable to peace are rare indeed, pacifism as a distinctive belief is not at all common. The distinction of pacifism is not only an extraordinary faith in the effectiveness or benefits of peaceful means of resolution of conflict, but the principled rejection of all justification of violent means under any circumstances. At a minimum, this stance is adopted as a matter of personal conviction limited to one's own choices, which sometimes leaves the individual conscientiously free to serve in a war effort as a non-combatant if required to do so. Some people who felt they could not in good conscience fight in a war served as ambulance drivers during World War I, but pacifists have often been jailed, the American pacifist agitator David Dellinger being one example. The ultimate pragmatic argument that may be offered by pacifists is that violent resistance to violence always fails to bring about peace, that war can only be expected to establish a realignment of forces under principles of violence. Besides, pacifists may argue, war frequently fails to accomplish the political or economic ends to which it is supposedly directed, nor do the benefits usually outweigh the cost, and rarely in actuality is war motivated by the high ideals that its supporters use to justify it. Not all forms of radical pacifism make pragmatic assumptions, and rather simply oppose violence as such. Radical pacifism is controversial, and only a few religions (such as Jainism, several Buddhist traditions and the peace churches of Christianity) advocate it. Pacifism has both a passive component (refusing to fight) and an active component (working for peace). Many pacifists may seek to be recognized conscientious objectors by their government, and may actively seek other ways to avoid all participation in their nation's maintenance or use of military forces. Pacifists believe that if their community is threatened by a crisis of aggressive opposition, all aggression as such should be opposed, including self-defensive "aggression". Those who advocate a philosophy of total non-violence at all levels may offer pragmatic arguments for the benefits of non-violent resistance; however, a radical pacifistic position is in the final analysis a moral, spiritual or religious principle intended to be maintained at all cost, and therefore does not necessarily imply any optimistic expectation for the material benefits of this policy. Radical pacifists would believe that it is better to be killed while sticking firmly to their principles of nonviolence than to fight back and survive (principle over practicality). They would consider submitting to violence against them the only morally acceptable option, and consider their death noble martyrdom. Today, some countries (for example, Switzerland, Norway and Germany) offer civilian service in order to allow pacifists not to go into the military. Pacifism and international aggressions Some pacifists and multilateralists are in favor of the establishment of a world government as a means to prevent and control international aggression without the UN veto problem. Many large regions (such as the United States, India and Europe) have banded (or have been banded) together to form a political entity. Groups of people within the organization may not like or agree with each other. However war between themselves is considered very unlikely. A world government, however, is less likely when different regions are separated by culture, language and economic development. These give rise to frictions due to different perspectives on laws and on social equality. There is less of a feeling of 'us'. It is also easier for politicians to divide up such separated people by appealing to tribal feelings. Pacifism and religion A commitment to pacifism is often based on religious beliefs. In particular, many Buddhists, Hindus and Jains are pacifist, as are Unitarian Universalists and some Christian groups including Religious Society of Friends, Mennonites, Church of the Brethren. Strictly speaking, Jehovah's Witnesses espouse neutrality rather than pacifism, a complete rejection of any type of participation in war, but do not consider themselves pacifists. There have also been non-violent movements in Islam, in the 20th century the Khudai Khidmatgar movement being a classic example of non-violence being used successfully in combination against a colonial ruler. Though Jesus clearly espoused a philosophy of peace, there is some disagreement as to the extent of Jesus' pacifism. Certain Christian denominations, known as peace churches, have taken the position that he was constant in his pacifist aims, and believe further that early Christianity was essentially pacifist in nature. The Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy was a Christian pacifist. He argued that Christians were obliged to be pacifists, and that pacifists, in turn, were obliged to be anarchists — since government is based on the use of force. Tolstoy was influenced by Henry David Thoreau's writings on civil disobedience. Tolstoy's own writings on pacifism and nonresistance influenced Gandhi's nonviolent resistance movement in the 1930's. In the modern era, theologians such as Mennonite John Howard Yoder and United Methodist Stanley Hauerwas have been strong advocates for Christian pacifism. Both have strengthened the pacifist argument with sophisticated philosophical underpinnings, grounded in the Bible and the life, words, and person of Jesus. Non-pacifistic religions, including Judaism, many variants of Christianity, and of Islam, have usually made no pretense of meaning "pacifism" when they teach that there exists an obligation to pursue peace: typically constructing rules, sometimes very elaborately defined, under which the use of aggression for the establishment and maintenance of justice may be legitimate. Non-pacifist Christians typically interpret Christ to have taught patience under even extreme religious persecution, but do not directly extend the teaching as a rule for the governance of nations or the strategies of police forces. Most (the Roman Catholic Church in particular) adopt some formulation of the Just War Theory, by which the use of violence or force is deemed legitimate and necessary under certain circumstances, on which occasions non-participation may be judged morally wrong. Most modern Born again and charismatic Christian faith traditions hold to this Catholic theory on what constitutes a just war. Religions without a pacifist stance usually emphasize the inherent limitations of aggression, but do not teach that force is in fundamental contradiction of their basic principles. However, nearly all religions reject violence as a means of proselytism although there are notable cases in which this principle has been ignored, such as the massacre of the Thessalonicans under Roman Emperor Theodosius I. Some members of the pacifist religions and philosophies have sometimes approved the use of force in apparent contradiction of their principles, although not always by taking up weapons themselves. During World War II some members of Quaker and Mennonite churches in the United States served as medical workers in the army or put aside their pacifist beliefs altogether and fought in the battlefield. Pacifist social movements in Buddhism In Buddhism, leaders of pacifist movements often go to great lengths to effect change. For example, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is a nonviolent pro-democracy activist and leader of the National League for Democracy in Myanmar (Burma). A devout Buddhist, Suu Kyi won the Rafto Prize and the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought in 1990 and in 1991 was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her peaceful and non-violent struggle under a repressive military dictatorship. One of her most famous speeches is the "Freedom From Fear" speech, which begins "It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it." Also famous for leading a pacifist movement, Tenzin Gyatso is the fourteenth and current Dalai Lama, and as such, is often referred to in Western media as simply The Dalai Lama. On November 17 1950, at the age of fifteen, he was enthroned as Tibet's Head of State and most important political ruler, while Tibet faced occupation by the forces of the People's Republic of China. After the collapse of the Tibetan resistance movement in 1959, Tenzin Gyatso fled to India, where he was active in establishing the Central Tibetan Administration (the Tibetan government in exile) and preserving Tibetan culture and education among the thousands of refugees who accompanied him. A charismatic figure and noted public speaker, Tenzin Gyatso is the first Dalai Lama to travel to the West, where he has helped to spread Buddhism and to publicise the cause of Free Tibet. In 1989, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Christian peace churches Peace churches are Christian denominations explicitly advocating pacifism. The term historic peace churches refers specifically to three church traditions: the Brethren, Anabaptist (comprising Mennonites, Amish, and Hutterites), and the Quakers (Society of Friends). The historic peace churches have, from their origins as far back as the 16th century, always taken the position that Jesus was himself a pacifist who explicitly taught and practiced pacifism, and that his followers must do likewise. Some pacifist churches vary on whether physical force can ever be justified in self-defense or protecting others, as many adhere strictly to nonresistance when confronted by violence, but all would traditionally agree that violence on behalf of a country or a government is proscribed for Christians. Pacifism in mainstream Christian denominations The origins of the mainstream Christian pacifist movements can be traced back to the 1930s, when, in the wake of the First World War, modern pacifism emerged. It was first seen in predominantly intellectual circles, both religious and secular, initially in the United Kingdom. In previous decades in that nation it had been associated with other radical movements, such as the suffragettes. In the backlash after the war, many writers, such as Virginia Woolf, Olaf Stapledon and Aldous Huxley brought pacifism to the forefront of intellectual thought. This caused many theologians and clergy to reassess their previously held positions. Possibly the key figure in making pacifism "respectable" to the general public was Richard "Dick" Sheppard, an Anglican priest prominent due to his position as broadcaster of the BBC's first religious program. Sheppard, a former army chaplain, had come to believe that war, militarism and nationalism was blatantly counter to Christ's teachings. He thus founded the hugely successful "Peace Pledge Union," a secular organisation committed to "No More War!" The "Pledge" was as follows: "I renounce war and never again, directly or indirectly, will I support or sanction another." Within one year, Sheppard had 100 000 signatories to his cause, though the many were to later break this oath and fight in the Second World War. Sheppard's Christian philosophy can perhaps best be summarised by this quote, "Not peace at any price, but love at all costs. At all costs...Though my enemy slay me, I will die rather than hate him." Sheppard died in 1937, the loss of his charismatic presence being a huge blow to his organisation, occurring as it did at a time when the faith of some members was wavering due to the rise of Nazism in mainland Europe. That same year, a specifically Anglican offshoot of the Peace Pledge Union, the Anglican Pacifist Fellowship, emerged. Both the PPU and APF are still in existence and are highly active in "constructive" or "positive" efforts towards peace (a contrast to the earlier "negative" pacifism, which defined itself as "anti-military" and "anti-war" without offering any pragmatic solutions to support this ideology.) Also see War Resisters' International and Fellowship of Reconciliation. In 2005, the APF had approximately 1500 members worldwide, both clergy and laymen. Prominent early members of the APF included former British Labour Party leader (and Nobel Prize nominee) George Lansbury, literary figure Vera Brittain and Anglican theologian Evelyn Underhill. These were involved in a number of campaigns in the late 1930s, the most prominent being a drive to ban bomber aircraft (due to their ability to inflict huge numbers of civilian casualties). This latter cause has been likened to today's anti-nuclear rallies. The most notable Anglican of this period not to be a pacifist was the academic and writer C. S. Lewis. Lewis, in fact, denounced the movement on his radio show during the war years. (It must be noted that many other theologians and clergy were blacklisted from broadcasting in this period by the authorities precisely due to their pacifist beliefs.) It should also be noted that, whilst hugely influential as a populariser of religion, Lewis' pronouncedly conservative views on many issues are not those of mainstream Anglican theologians today. Perhaps the greatest success of APF has been the ratification of the pacifist position at two successive Lambeth Conferences, though some Anglicans still would not regard themselves as pacifists. Amongst modern Anglican pacifists, Desmond Tutu is a prominent example. Rowan Williams led an almost united Anglican Church in Britain in opposition to the 2003 Iraq War, mirrored by Peter Carnley, who similarly led a front of bishops opposed to the Australian Government's involvement in the invasion. Again, though, this was as the result of the circumstances of this particular attack. Whether opposition would occur to a more popularly supported war remains to be seen. Within the Roman Catholic Church, the Pax Christi organisation is the premiere pacifist lobby group. It holds positions similar to APF and indeed, the two organisations are known to work together on ecumenical projects. Within the Roman Catholic world, there has been a discerible move towards a more pacifist position through the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Indeed, the Popes Benedict XV, John XXIII and John Paul II were all vocal in their opposition to specific wars. However, the Roman Church has not declared itself to be specifically pacifist, nor has it returned to the practice of its pre-Augustinian days, whereby those who served in the military were barred from the Eucharist. Since the nineteenth century there has been a notable trend among prominent lay Roman Catholics towards pacifism. Individuals such as Dorothy Day and Henri Nouwen stand out among them. In addition, martyred El Salvadorian Bishop Oscar Romero was notable for using non-violent resistance tactics and wrote meditative sermons focusing on the power of prayer and peace. By taking the name Benedict XVI, some suspect that Joseph Ratzinger will continue the strong emphasis upon non-violent conflict resolution of his predecessor. Whether this means a further move towards support for pacifist ideology remains to be seen. It is significant that representatives from both conservative and liberal factions of the Roman Catholic communion are giving expression to pacifist ideology. Pacifism in the Baháí Faith The Bahá'í Faith has a pacifist view in establishing world peace and the spreading of their religion;• Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahá'í Faith abolished holy war, and noted it as a central teaching of his faith.• However, the Bahá'í Faith does not have an absolute pacifistic position. For example Bahá'ís are advised to do social service instead of active army service, but when this is not possible due to obligations in certain countries, the Bahá'í law of loyalty to one's government is preferred and the individual should perform the army service.•• Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith, noted that in the Bahá'í view, absolute pacifists are anti-social and exalt the individual over society which could lead to anarchy; instead he noted that the Bahá'í conception of social life follows a moderate view where the individual is not supressed or exalted.• On the level of society, Bahá'u'lláh promotes the principle of collective security, which does not abolish the use of force, but prescribes "a system in which Force is made the servant of Justice." • The idea of collective security from the Bahá'í teachings states that if a government violates a fundamental norm of international law or provision of a future world constitution which Bahá'ís believe will be established by all nations, then the other governments should step in.• Peace and democracy The controversial democratic peace theory states that liberal democracies have never (or rarely) made war on one another. Furthermore, also lesser conflicts and internal violence is rare between and in democracies. It has also been argued that relatively rapid growth in the number of democratic states will in the not so distant future end warfare. Criticisms/paradoxes of Pacifism In some cases, it is possible that committing an act of violence might actually prevent further acts of violence (and reduce the "net-sum" of violence). This argument against pacifism hinges on the idea that the ends justify the means—i.e., that an otherwise morally objectionable action can be justified if it results in a positive outcome. For example, military action to end to a dictator's violent oppression may save millions of lives, even if many thousands died in the war. However, most pacifists would be against taking such violent action. Some think situations of this type—World War II is often cited as an example—provide an argument against pacifism: If the Nazis had not been challenged militarily, the argument goes, many more would have died under their oppressive rule. Critical to this belief is the idea that there are evil people in the world and violent conflict is sometimes unavoidable. Edmund Burke may have captured this sentiment in his famous quote "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing", although pacifists would point out that the "something" good men must do is not necessarily violent. The ideology and political practice of pacifism has been criticized by the liberal American activist Ward Churchill, in his essay, Pacifism as Pathology. Churchill argues that the social and political advancements cited by pacifists as examples of non-violent action at work have always been made possible by concurrent violent struggles. Some commentators, including Jan Narveson, argue that pacifism is a self-contradictory doctrine. Narveson claims that everyone has rights and corresponding responsibilities not to violate others' rights. Since pacifists give up their ability to protect themselves from violation of their right not to be harmed, then other people thus have no corresponding responsibility, thus creating a paradox of rights. As Narveson puts it, “the prevention of infractions of that right is precisely what one has a right to when one has a right at all." Narveson then discusses how rational persuasion is a good but often inadequate method of discouraging an aggressor. He considers that everyone has the right to use any means necessary to prevent deprivation of their civil liberties and force could be necessary. Quotes See also Footnotes | |||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
 |
|
| |