Pacifism

Pacifism is using peaceful means to end disputes and opposing war. Pacifism is used most often in the context of rejecting war, but its sports a broad definition that includes a rejection of all types of violence. Although the term pacifism was first coined at the turn of the twentieth century, humans have practiced forms of pacifism throughout most of history. Some of the oldest examples of pacifism were related to religious beliefs, which continues to motivate many people’s pacifism.

Overview

The term pacifism was first used about 1901. It originates from the Latin terms pax (meaning “peace”) and facere (meaning “doing, making, or producing”). Hassell points point that the term’s roots are important because these show pacifism is an active term, as in making peace. Hassell indicates that pacifism must not be confused with inaction or passivism, as it is something one engages in rather than something one avoids (Hassell, 2011).

Although the term was not created until the twentieth century, humans have expressed a desire for peace throughout history. One of the oldest-known examples of what could be labeled pacifism came from the early Christian Church. The Church’s scriptures includes stories of a speech by Jesus Christ in which he described actions humans could take that would be pleasing to God. Jesus said that “peacemakers” were blessed. The exact Greek term used in the text was eirenopoios, which is formed from the roots eirene (meaning “peace”) and poiesis (meaning “to make”). For example, one of the Jain religion’s founding principle is ahimsa, which is nonviolence toward all living beings.

These and other origins of pacifism have led to the term’s having multiple meanings and interpretations. When it was first used in the 1900s, it mainly referred to a belief that war and violence in general were not appropriate tools for ending disputes and were not justifiable policies. Even at the time of its first use, the word did not have a clear definition. Therefore, various types of pacifism have developed, although all include the idea of rejecting violence as the best way to achieve peace or order.

People who ascribe to any type of pacifism support their position in a number of ways. Many pacifists, including Jains and some Christians, have religious beliefs that motivate their pacifism. Other people are pacifists because of a philosophical belief in the sanctity of life. Some people embrace pacifism because they see war and violence as ineffective, wasteful endeavors that should be replaced with negotiation and mediation.

One type of pacifism is absolute pacifism. This is the most extreme pacifist position, with adherents believing all forms of violence—including all wars and all types of killing—are morally wrong in all situations. Absolute pacifists believe they are not morally able to engage in any war, including those of self-defense. Absolute pacifists believe that peace is intrinsically good, and people are morally obligated to engage in peaceful activities even in the face of violence.

Absolute pacifists believe that they are personally obligated to reject violence. For that reason, absolute pacifists will not only refuse to fill combat roles, but they will also refuse to fill any roles that support a war effort. They might also take action to oppose wars in which their governments are engaged actively. However, they will engage in peaceful, nonviolent opposition because of their absolute pacifism. Their personal rejection of violence also means that they must deal with conflicts in their personal lives through compromise and arbitration rather than through violence. Ethical questions about self-defense can be difficult for people who practice absolute pacifism. Because they believe that all violence is morally wrong, absolute pacifists would be morally obliged to allow an attacker to kill them if the only way to stop the attack is through violence. Absolute pacifists believe that it is better to be killed than to kill. However, situations in which an attacker might kill another person are more complicated, because engaging in violence could prevent violence against another person. Most absolute pacifists would still argue against using violence to intercede. Instead, they would argue that pacifists need to use other methods to prevent violence.

People who believe in absolute pacifism are often motivated by religious beliefs. In general, they believe that they are obligated to practice nonviolence and peacemaking no matter the outcome. In majority-Christian nations, absolute pacifists are usually motivated by Christian beliefs. In Asia, absolute pacifists are often motivated by the idea of ahimsa. Nevertheless, even many adherents of absolute pacifism say that it is an ideal. It is nearly impossible for people to live up to the ideals of absolute pacifism in all aspects of their lives.

Conditional pacifism encompasses a large set of beliefs that includes nearly all pacifists who are not absolutists. Conditional pacifism is the idea that violence, and especially war, are morally unjustifiable most—but not all—of the time. Conditional pacifism is also known as contingent pacifism. Conditional pacifists admit that war and violence can be justified under some circumstances. However, people who identify as conditional pacifists have various ethical and religious beliefs that help guide their attitudes about which wars are justifiable and which are not. Many conditional pacifists point to the example of World War II as a war that was justifiable because of the Nazi regime’s brutal conquests and genocide. Furthermore, some pacifists of the time—including famous scientist Albert Einstein—supported war against the Nazis because of the atrocities they were committing.

Some people’s beliefs about when war and violence are justifiable are based on the status of modern warfare. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, humans have developed technology and weapons that can kill more people than was possible at any other point in history. Weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, are of special concern to conditional pacifists. Some people support pacifism in any instance of war that uses weapons of mass destruction. Often, people who support this type of pacifism do so because nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction can kill civilians. Such pacifists are often labeled realistic pacifists. They also support trying to find peaceful solutions in the case of other possible wars, but they believe that some wars (fought with conventional weapons and not WMDs) are necessary.

Two groups of thought regarding conditional pacifism are based on deontological and consequentialist ethical principles. Deontology asserts that actions are right and wrong, no matter their outcomes. If an action is ethically justifiable, it is justifiable in all occasions, no matter what may result from the action. Conversely, consequentialism argues that actions are right and wrong based on their outcomes. Therefore, one action might be ethically permissible in one situation but ethically impermissible in other if the action’s outcomes differ. Conditional pacifists with deontological beliefs will most likely state that they have a duty not to engage in violence and war. However, they will also admit that some situations present conflicting duties, with the pacifist believing another duty is as important than their duty as a pacifist. For example, such a pacifist might believe that their duty to prevent or stop genocide is more important than their duty not to engage in violence. Therefore, the deontologist would choose to fight to fulfill the duty to prevent genocide. It is important to point out, however, that an absolute pacificist would most likely argue that violence is not the only method available for stopping or preventing genocide.

Conditional pacifists who have consequential ethical beliefs assert that they must avoid the outcomes of violence may justify using violence when the outcome of using violence will most likely be less harmful than the outcome of not using violence. Again, many proponents of such beliefs argue that World War II is an example of this as the war was less harmful than the potential global takeover of the Nazis.

Further Insights

Pacifism is, among others, an ethical issue that has been defined variously by different ethicists. Ethical discussions about pacifism rely on first defining more general concepts. For example, ethicists interested in discussing pacificism must define the nature of peace. Since pacifists are supposed to make peace or engage in peacemaking, they should have a deep understanding of the nature of peace.

Ethicists have discussed many different views about the nature of peace, and some of them are contradictory to one another. Some people have identified this as submission, claiming that submitting to a higher authority gives one peace. Other people accept definitions of peace that are like a truce, in which two parties are prepared to fight each other but the absence of fighting means there is peace. These two situations are most likely not the peace the pacifists want to achieve. Most likely, pacifists want to achieve either a society that is free from war and strife (Fiala, 2018).

Additionally, ethicists interested in pacifism must define the nature of violence. Since many forms of pacifism include the rejection of violence, pacifists must fully understand violence so they can avoid it and use other means to deal with problems and mediate disagreements. For example, Moseley points out that some types of competitive sports, such as rugby and American football, could be described as violent and players can be seriously injured (n.d.). However, ethicists trying to define the nature of violence would have to determine if these actions constituted true violence. Furthermore, pacifists may also consider whether certain actions could foster violent behavior. For example, they might have to consider whether playing sports with a high level of rough physical contact would be more likely to make a person more likely to engage in violence (Moseley, n.d.).

Viewpoints

Numerous arguments have been made against pacifism, including some logical, some ethical, and some religious. Furthermore, the arguments against pacifism change depending on the type of pacifism being argued against. One of the broadest and most common arguments against pacifism is that pacifism is not an effective system for resolving issue because the world is imperfect and humans engage violence and moral atrocities. Opponents of pacifism often use examples of genocide as evidence that pacifism, and particularly absolute pacifism, is not a morally justifiable position in some situations.

A related argument against pacifism is that any country that practiced pacifism would be overtaken by other countries that were unafraid to employ violence. Some critics further point out that this type of outcome is especially morally problematic because the leaders who conquer the pacifist country would most likely be more violent and aggressive than most other leaders, perpetuating a culture of violence in a society that did not have such a culture before it was taken over.

Some arguments against pacifism attack the personal traits of pacifists. For example, some people claim that pacifists are cowards or freeloaders who want to benefit from the military service of other people while avoiding military service themselves. This argument has been used by individuals and governments since the concepts of pacifism and conscientious objection were first employed. People making such arguments might also accuse pacifists of placating evil people or ignoring human suffering, as their detractors will say that their inaction is lionizing aggressors and harming innocent people.

Some opponents to pacifism argue that not only is pacifism morally flawed, but it is also an ineffective tool for achieving peace. These opponents have argued that having the goal of achieving and maintaining peace is not the same as actually attaining it. They argue that some forms of violence are more effective at achieving peace than pacifism. Some people who make such arguments support their assertions by citing peaceful periods in history that were initiated or maintained through some violence. For example, about 30 BCE, Rome entered what would be called the pax romana, which was a long period of relative peace in Rome and surrounding regions. This period lasted for nearly two centuries. Although the era is named for peace, government officials and roman military forces engaged in state violence numerous times throughout the period. The peace that was experienced during this period was established and perpetuated through violence, as uprisings and revolts were quashed by powerful Roman forces. Opponents of pacifism use the pax romana and similar examples to assert that, because of human nature, violence is inevitable, but people can employ specific uses of violence to maintain an overall peaceful existence. Pacifists argue against such assertions by pointing out that the peace maintained during the pax romana was not true peace. The Roman legions prevented some types of violence, but they perpetuated other types of violence. Pacifists argue that such periods are not worth the suffering they require to achieve.

Pacifists have answered these claims by stating their intentions come from the desire to achieve peace and preserve human life and not from a place of laziness or cowardice. They have argued that pacifists cannot be classified as cowards since many have been harmed, imprisoned, and even killed for their beliefs. Furthermore, pacifists have argued that wars, even wars fought to end other types of violence, have wide-ranging negative effects. Pacifists have argued that these negative effects make waging war in general unjustifiable. Furthermore, pacifists have argued that warism, or the belief that war is justifiable and often useful, pervades modern culture. They also assert that this belief system skews people’s perceptions, preventing them from being able to see nonviolent solutions to conflicts. Pacifists often assert that people cannot imagine a world with violence because they have not experienced it; however, they also assert that it is possible if people try (Cady, 2014).

About the Author

Elizabeth Mohn earned a BS in communications in 2006. She has developed social sciences content for more than a decade.

Bibliography

Biehler, A. (2013). Pacifism. In Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law. Oxford University Press.

Cady, D. (2014). Pacifism is not passivism. Philosophy Now Magazine, philosophynow.org/issues/105/Pacifism‗Is‗Not‗Passivism

Fiala, A. (2018). Pacifism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, plato.stanford.edu/entries/pacifism/

Garver, N. (2001). Pacifism. In Becker L.C., & Becker, C. B. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Ethics, volume 3. Routledge.

Hassell, T.S. (2011). Pacifism. In D. K. Chatterjee (ed.) Encyclopedia of Global Justice. Springer.

Laursen, O. B. (2020). Anarchism, pure and simple. Postcolonial Studies, 23(2), 241–255.

Marshall, T. (2022). Japan’s defensive re-think. Geographical, 94(9), 13.

Moseley, A. (n.d.). Pacifism. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. iep.utm.edu/pacifism/

Pacifism. (2021). Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th Edition.

Somsen, G. (2021). The princess at the conference: Science, pacifism, and Habsburg society. History of Science, 59(4), 434–460.

Thomas, L. (2011). Give pacifism a chance. The New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/opinion/sunday/what-is-pacifism-good-for.html

Vorobej, M. (2014). Is pacifism an extreme view? Peace Research,46(2), 5–29.