Collection of Found Objects

Face it – You are a Pacifist

            About once a month, I undertake an impossible job. I stand in front of a group of high school students and try and convince them of the importance of moral thinking. One might think that consists of me trying to convince the students to adopt my morality, but to the contrary I want them to develop their own moral code; what they value and how they choose to treat other people. The conversation topics can be about anything from school to sexuality, but the application always boils down to the same root questions: how do we interact with others in the choices we make, and why does it matter? We all have a moral code, which is both inborn and developed throughout our lives. This moral code is central to our survival instinct, because we rely on others to provide for our own wellbeing. Because of this we naturally trend toward peaceful interactions with others. As professor of philosophy Duane Cady writes, “all of us are pacifists to some degree, since all of us oppose violence as a means of interaction in many aspects of our lives [emphasis added]”. You may not have considered it before, but you are a pacifist.

            Many people will define pacifism as the opposition to war and violence. However, the definition is more nuanced, and there is also an important distinction differentiating pacifism from passivism. 

‘Pacifism’ means ‘peaceloving’. It should not be mistaken for ‘passivism’, which means being passive, suffering acceptance, not resisting evil. Because the two words sound alike, people occasionally confuse one for the other. In fact, pacifists rarely are passivists; more often they are activists, working for peace (Cady, 2014).

The implications of passivism can be applied to our everyday interactions, whether in our personal relationships with our friends and family, or on a global level. If we consider for a moment only our interactions with our family and friends, we can all say that we are peace-loving as we want good interactions and activists as we attempt to maintain good relationships even through conflict. At some point, our desire for justice will outweigh our desire for peace, and that is when we will consider resorting to violence to achieve our goals.

Because it is associated with moral beliefs, pacifism is most commonly associated with religious beliefs such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity. Mohandas Gandhi is the most famous contemporary proponent of non-violence, but one of the first examples of radical pacifism is in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ recorded in the Christian New Testament bible. In the book of Matthew, Jesus is quoted as saying;

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well” (5.38-40).

The middle section regarding physical violence is the primary support that Quakers, Amish, and Mennonites hold in support of radical pacifism. What is noteworthy about this passage is that it prescribes a radical response to two different assaults. The first affront is a physical attack, and the second is the forceful taking of material goods. Most people focus on only parts of this passage, but the key to understanding this teaching is in viewing the whole in context. First, Jesus sets up his audience with some Old Testament law quoting “an eye for an eye” from Exodus 21.23-25. This is law given by Moses to an estimated 2.4 million former slaves who are attempting to create order from chaos and establish a new nation after their newly found freedom leaving Egypt. It is a harsh and bare bones strategy for keeping the peace; if you hurt someone else, you are going to get hurt. In the Matthew passage, Jesus ups the ante. He is telling those listening that it is time to look beyond the present and think about the future. Being slapped is not life threatening, it is being publically dishonored. Being sued for your tunic is not going to spiral you into poverty. Jesus is asking his audience to stop and consider their actions before reacting to perceived or actual affronts, and to consider charity and peaceful deliberation before retaliation. What Jesus is not saying is that we should ignore the wellbeing of others who are being harmed.

            An excellent application of religious-based pacifist belief and its impact on society comes in the story of Desmond Doss, a “conscientious objector” who served in WWII. His story is different than other conscientious objectors, because he would usually be excused from active duty, even when drafted, because supporting war in any fashion would be considered morally wrong. Instead, Doss wanted to participate in the war and serve on the front lines as a medic, but refused to carry weapons or cause harm to others in any way. Such radical beliefs caused him much hardship with his cohort and superiors and an eventual court marshal. Standing before the judge, Doss answered the question as to why he would want to serve if he wasn’t going to fight. Doss replies “With the world so set on tearing itself apart, it don’t seem like such a bad thing to me to want to put a little bit of it back together” (Hacksaw Ridge, 2017). After a particularly heroic effort during the battle for Hacksaw Ridge, he saved the lives of 75 men and was subsequently awarded the Medal of Honor. While he supported the war effort in one context, Doss managed to hold his moral beliefs by saving lives instead of taking them.

            Though morality is often associated with religious beliefs, we are actually born with an innate sense of right and wrong. In the Radiolab podcast entitled “Morality”, hosts Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich investigate the science of morality through brain scanning techniques, animal behavior, and child psychology. Their findings are that humans genetically inherit a sense of what is right and wrong for the sake of survival within their societal group. Brain scans were used on participants to determine what areas of the brain were used while making moral judgments, and the results showed that the amygdala (from an evolutionary perspective, the oldest part of the brain referred to as the “lower” brain) competes with the cerebrum (“higher” brain function, most recently developed during human evolution) during problem solving. The simpler the question of right and wrong, the more the lower brain has control. As questions of morality become more complex, the more the higher brain takes over. In some circumstances, this creates an inconsistency in beliefs. One example of such inconsistency is shown in a thought experiment where the value of human life is compared. The conclusion of the experiment is that it would be wrong to personally kill one person to save the lives of five others, but it would be okay to allow a person to die in order to save the lives of five others. 

Some might argue that if we are born with a sense of right from wrong why do we sometimes still choose what is wrong? A child psychologist was interviewed for the Radiolab podcast to introduce the concept of the “happy victimizer effect” which basically states “it feels good to get what we want” (Morality, 2007). While this answers explains bad behavior by some, it can also be used to answer the question why do people make any of the choices that they make? People make choices based on what they desire. While this can sometimes lead to violence and war, it can also lead to choosing non-violence in response to an affront, because the individual values peace over retaliation.

            Bryan Caplan, an economist, approaches pacifism from a completely different angle. In his article the Common-Sense Case for Pacifism, he uses the language of cost-benefit analysis to determine whether war is an acceptable endeavor. His three main points are “The immediate costs of war are clearly awful”, “The long-run benefits of war are highly uncertain”, and “For a war to be morally justified, its long-run benefits have to be substantially larger than its short-run costs” (Caplan, 2010). His approach is a wise one. Caplan isn’t saying that all war is wrong, only that he would need to be convinced before endorsing or taking part in one. Caplan’s views are more in keeping with the “just war” concept, which is that violence is sometimes required to bring more stable peace.

Just war is a concept by which pacifists draw a line between “turning the other cheek” and defending the vulnerable. William Witt examines that range in the Christian belief system in his paper Christian Pacifism Offers a Strong Challenge to the Just War Theory. He uses the writings of outspoken Christian writers Richard Hays and C.S. Lewis to compare and contrast the two viewpoints. Hays is of the mindset that anyone professing faith in Jesus Christ must fully adhere to his teachings and practice radical and absolute pacifism (the possibility of peace never justifies the use of violence). C.S. Lewis, on the other hand, believes that “natural law” (which is reasoning based on human understanding) should dictate how we respond to injustice. 

“Lewis […] notes that only liberal societies tolerate pacifists, and that the most likely result of a large number of recruits to pacifism in such communities would be the inability of the liberal community to defend itself against those societies that do not tolerate pacifists. The long-term result, then, of a large number of recruits to the pacifist cause would be a world in which there were no pacifists” (Witt, 2011).

It seems to me to be a cynical approach to humanity, but religious and non-religious thinkers alike share it. In an interview, Noam Chomsky was asked about the use of violence in response to an oppressive government to which he responded “I’m not a pure pacifist, but the heavy burden of proof is on those who choose violence” but then tempers his statement later when discussing a particular failed revolution “[the individuals promoting revolution] were marginalized and eliminated, because that’s what happens to people without guns” (Chomsky, 2017). So, even though Chomsky tends toward peace through activism instead of violence, he concedes that self-defense is necessary in self-preservation.

            All critics seem to have the same criticism of pacifism: pacifists who will not defend themselves will be annihilated en masse. The question I would ask in response is why peace works in our small communities but not on a larger scale? Is it not because we have empathy and charity for those closest to us, but we have not yet worked hard enough to understand our global neighbors? If we believe that we are only given the choice between losing our lives and the choice of taking another person’s life, then we have no hope for a better world. And a world without hope and purpose is not worth living in the first place. The third choice, which does not require spiritual beliefs but only more inspired thinking, is to move beyond our impulsive desires and create an enlightened community around ourselves. The irony is that by relinquishing personal freedom, better freedoms are achieved. Like waiting to eat all the ingredients to a delicious dish until the meal is ready, the enjoyment of the composite is worth much more than the immediate enjoyment of the components. When we all work toward peace, we all get what we want.

Works Cited

Abumrad, Jad and Robert Krulwich, hosts. “Morality.” Radiolab, WNYC Studios, 12 Aug. 2007. https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/91508-morality. 

Caplan, Bryan. “The Common-Sense Case for Pacifism.” The Library of Economics and Liberty, 5 Apr 2010, http://www.econlib.org/archives/2010/04/the_common-sens.html. Accessed 28 Mar. 2019.

Cady, Duane. “Pacifism Is Not Passivism.” Philosophy Now | Issue 105 | 2014. https://philosophynow.org/issues/105/Pacifism_Is_Not_Passivism. Accessed 25 Apr. 2019

Chomsky’s Philosophy, creator. “Noam Chomsky – Violent Revolution.” Youtube.com, 29 Jul 2017, https://youtu.be/BmP6d7KPwOw. Accessed 28 Mar. 2019.

English Standard Version. Bible Gateway, http://www.biblegateway.com. Accessed 28 Mar. 2019.

Everitt, Ladd. “Pacifism Based on Anarchism Is Not Workable.” Pacifism, edited by Noah Berlatsky, Greenhaven Press, 2011. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010747219/

OVIC?u=chic13716&sid=OVIC&xid=4f80b13d. Accessed 28 Mar. 2019. Originally published as “Can Peace Be Obtained Through Anarchy?” WagingNonviolence.org, 23 Dec. 2009.

Gibson, Mel, Robert Schenkkan, Andrew Knight, Andrew Garfield, Sam Worthington, Luke Bracey, Teresa Palmer, and Hugo Weaving. Hacksaw Ridge., 2017

Witt, William. “Christian Pacifism Offers a Strong Challenge to the Just War Theory.” Pacifism, edited by Noah Bertlatsky, Greenhaven Press, 2011. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context,http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010747208/

OVIC?u=chic13716&sid=OVIC&xid=1fa60e39. Accessed 28 Mar. 2019. Originally published as “Richard Hays’s Challenge to the Just War Tradition,” willgwitt.org, 23 Nov. 2008.