There are plenty of ideas in international ethics which indicate how states and
individuals should behave and interact. The belief that the use of violence in contact
with others is wrong, represents one of those. Pacifists, fascinated by a world without
war or violence, formed different moral positions according to that vision. To have a
moral position means that a person or a state must have general kinds of reasons "for
supposing a certain type of act to be his [or its] duty, in a moral sense" (Wasserstrom
R., p. 66). Pacifism describes a duty that might range from non-resistance to any sort of
physical attack, up to the attitude to use force only in case of self-defence. In the first
part of this essay the debate will therefore focus on the individual and whether or not
pacifism can be made a plausible moral principle for our private lives. Passive and
active non-resistance and self-defence will be the main viewpoints discussed in this
section. It will be followed by debatable moral standpoints for a nation as a whole in the
second chapter. We will determine, if it is imaginable and desirable for a state to adopt
perspectives like 'no force at all', 'no war' or 'wars only in the case of self-defence', as its
righteous. To provide evidence for the moral verification of pacifist views, we firstly have
to prove whether or not they can possibly be moral positions and secondly if they are
defensible. However, it will be shown, that moral positions are defensible, if one has
plausible reasons to believe that this specific vision is likely to be realised. [...]
Table of Contents
1. Is pacifism a defensible moral position?
Objectives & Topics
The primary objective of this work is to evaluate whether pacifism can be considered a defensible moral position for both individuals and the state. It examines the ethical implications of non-resistance, self-defence, and state-level pacifism through various philosophical and religious lenses.
- Individual moral duty and non-resistance
- Religious influences on pacifist ideologies
- Active non-violent resistance strategies
- Ethics of self-defence and proportional response
- Challenges of state-level pacifism and the prohibition of war
Excerpt from the Book
The challenges for an individual to live a completely non-violent life are immense.
For a whole state, however, it seems still more demanding. Pacifism as an idea for a whole state developed different notions over the centuries, ranging from 'no force at all', 'no war' to 'war in defence'.
If the state would make no use of force at all, it would be a community in which no citizen could expect institutions to offer sufficient protection as a part of their community responsibilities. It means, for instance, that we would not possess the same possibilities to sentence criminals as we have now. States, first of all, would have to abolish the death penalty as a non-pacifist punishment. Only robbers, murderers and rapists could be captured who voluntarily surrender because the police would be forbidden to employ any sort of violence. As most people believe, the pacifist principle would be misrepresented through violent escalation following forceless penalties. Force used by state institutions is necessary to avoid social disorder and anarchy, otherwise chaos will eventually produce more violence. Ghandi knew "that while a private individual might be able to afford the moral luxury of a puristic attitude to non-violence, a political leader could not" (O´Sullivan N., p. 195). Pacifism needs legal enforcement, a certain amount of strict rules or even violence, to be sustained because an overall consensus to create a pacifist nation is highly unlikely. Realising that some people are not suitable to be part of a pacifist nation because they are not willing to live without attacking others, means that this form of state pacifism cannot be possible. ´No violence at all` used by the official institutions can scarcely be translated into practise. This position is an moral utopia for existing states and, therefore, not defensible.
Summary of Chapters
Is pacifism a defensible moral position?: This introductory section explores the foundational definition of pacifism as a moral duty, contrasting personal non-resistance with state-level responsibilities and the role of religious beliefs in shaping non-violent ethics.
Keywords
Pacifism, Non-resistance, Self-defence, International ethics, Non-violence, Moral duty, State-level pacifism, Conflict resolution, Gandhi, Humanitarian reasons, Consequentialism, Deontology, War, Proportional response.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental subject of this essay?
The essay explores the moral foundations of pacifism and evaluates whether adhering to non-violent principles is a defensible position for individuals and sovereign states.
What are the central thematic areas covered?
The work investigates personal non-resistance, the effectiveness of active non-violent resistance, the ethics of self-defence, and the practical challenges of maintaining a pacifist state.
What is the primary research goal?
The study aims to determine if pacifist views can be logically verified as moral positions and whether they are sustainable in practice when confronted with violence or conflict.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author uses a philosophical analysis, drawing on various ethical theories (consequentialism, deontology) and historical examples to test the legitimacy of pacifist claims.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The body covers religious motivations for non-resistance, the successes and limitations of Ghandi’s non-violent strategies, the moral dilemmas of self-defence, and the institutional challenges faced by pacifist states.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms include pacifism, non-resistance, self-defence, moral duty, war, non-violence, and political autonomy.
How does the author evaluate the "No force at all" approach for states?
The author concludes that absolute state pacifism is a moral utopia because existing states require institutional force to prevent anarchy and protect citizens from harm.
Can a pacifist justify the use of self-defence?
The text argues that while self-defence is a defensible moral position for non-pacifists, it creates an inconsistency for declared pacifists, who are committed to non-violence as a supreme duty.
- Quote paper
- Lucia Schuster (Author), 2002, Is pacifism a defensible moral position, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/13829
