Pacifism. Pacific-ism. Passivism. Political Pacifism. Absolute vs. Contingent Pacifism. Maximal vs. Minimal Pacifism. Universal vs. Particular Pacifism. Skeptical and Prima Facie Pacifism. Transformational Pacifism. Consequentialist Pacifism. Active Nonviolence. Deontological Pacifism. Non-violence. Peace making. Just war. Self defense. Proactive strikes. Vengeance. Justice. Pro life. Pacification.
And the list goes on. Not surprisingly, when people talk about pacifism, they tend to paint with broad strokes. They either use “pacifism” to refer to their concept of peace making (a mistake I often make), or they criticize all forms of pacifism by refuting one particular interpretation of it (usually the extreme version, which is one of the least held).
I’m trying to find my place on the continuum. I’ve done a lot of my thinking “out loud” here on this blog. And I’ll continue to do so. I look forward to you helping me find my way, even though I doubt I’ll end up in a unmovable position until I enter the eternal shalom.
Tim,
“Skeptical and Prima Facie Pacifism.”
This was the only distinction i’d never heard of before. Where does this one come from? What’s the difference between the 2?
Also, i’m actually have trouble finding any particular pacifists who hold the sort of caricatured “extreme” view. i take is this extreme view is something like “It is always wrong and never justifiable to use physical force on another person.” But none of the ‘extremists’ i can’t think of would refuse to grab their child who’s running into the street, or grab someone’s arm to keep them from walking across a dangerous bridge, or who would perform CPR on someone.
Tolstoy seems the most extreme i can find. Would you consider anyone to hold a more restrictive view than his?
–guy
Guy,
I got a lot of these from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pacifism/#2.4
Grace and peace,
Tim
Tim,
Ah, okay, so they’re not incompatible positions necessarily. Gandhi uses this skeptical argument, and so does Eric Reitan when he argues for “personal pacifism.”
i don’t know that i’ve heard of prima facie pacifism (except of course from Fiala who writes the SEP entry). –though i have to say, i’m not sure i’m inclined to think of Fiala’s position as a pacifism. Isn’t it really just a modified just war theory?–perhaps one might reject the particular scholastic/Aquinian criteria for a just war, but still think there is such a think as just war given some other set of criteria. If that counts as pacifism, i guess i don’t see why just war theory doesn’t (which clearly in the literature it doesn’t).
–guy
If just war theory were ever truly used to evaluate war (rather than merely justify it), then I could see it as a type of pacifism.
Tim,
Perhaps you agree with Duane Cady who argues that all the various kinds of pacifism differ only in degree?
i know Yoder argues that Just War, if applied, would rule out any war that’s occurred in the last 100 years if not more. There are what are known as “just war pacifists”–the position that the criteria set out by Aquinas is right, and a war is justifiable if it were to meet such criteria; however, no war (at least, not any more) will ever meet such criteria. Therefore, war is never justifiable.
i agree that’s a kind of pacifism. i just don’t know about the prima facie pacifism mentioned by Fiala. And if someone were to hold that the Just War criteria in fact justified any of the wars that have happened since the American Civil war, i guess i don’t see why i would call that person a pacifist.
It seems like we need some sort of qualitative rather than quantitative distinction in order to sort out a pacifist from a non-pacifist. i mean, if Jones approves 10 wars, and i only approve of 4, does that make me a pacifist relative to Jones? Seems like we have an arbitrary line issue if we go that route.
But even more tricky is that some types of pacifism specify a position on war but not self-defense, and vice-versa. Jenny Teichman seems to think war is very nearly always wrong, but she thinks violence in self-defense is perfectly acceptable. Augustine appears to have thought that state violence was permissible, but personal violence was not (not in self-defense or in defense of a 3rd party).
i’m trying to sort this mess out. It’s really sticky and hard to make clear and consistent distinctions.
–guy
Guy,
I agree that the issues of self-defense and defense of others (on a personal scale) make this matter tricky. I’m more open to the use of force in defending my neighbor than I am in the use of force by one state “defending” another. As you said, some pacifists make a distinction; others don’t.
Grace and peace,
Tim