pacifism

Concepts of pacifism, including absolute, relative/selective and nuclear pacifism, the role of pacifist movements and pressure groups

absolute/ philosophical pacism

• deontological/ absolutist view of pacifism: violence is always intrinsically wrong

• assumes that people have real moral duties and must always seek to preserve life

• opposition to warfare is thus a consequence

• this argument can be supported through a sanctity of life argument

• if killing is intrinsically wrong on an individual level (i.e. murder), then it must also be on a national or societal level (i.e. war)

• whole point of an absolutist principle is that there are no exceptions, so to say that war is an acceptable form of killing entails a contradiction

relative pacifism

• peaceful solutions should always be the first choice, but w/o having an absolute objection to war

• wars might sometimes (v rarely) be allowed

• nationally orchestrated violence is always an evil, even if it is the lesser of two evils

pragmatic pacifism

• peaceful approaches to conflict should be taken because they work better

• pragmatic pacifists can point to the success of non-violent protest campaigns in bringing about political change (e.g. MLK’s peaceful march on washington)

nuclear pacifism

argued that the use of nuclear weapons can never be justified, through other sorts of violence

christian pacifism

• many modern christians believe that violence of any kind is wrong, especially in an age where nuclear or biochemical weapons might be used

• e.g. Quajers and christian supporters of the campaign for nuclear disarmament support

pacifist pressure group - pax christi

• educates for peace- supports teachers, chaplains and youth workers in promoting a culture of peace in schools and amongst young people

• promotes solidarity between people working non-violently for justice

• pro CND + want to abolish nuclear weapons

practicality of pacifism as a national policy

• Pacifism as national policy for a nation is almost unheard of, as it will only work if no-one wants to attack your country, or the nation with whom you are in dispute is also committed to pacifism. In any other circumstances adopting a pacifist stance will result in your country rapidly being conquered.

• However, the idea of pacifism, and of seeking non-violent solutions to disputes between nations, plays a significant part in international politics, particularly through the work of the United Nations.

practicality of nuclear pacifism

• Nuclear pacifism just seems difficult to initiate because nuclear weapons exist and countries are in a state of mutually assured destruction because of them.

• Denuclearisation leaves a country vulnerable so they wouldn’t be willing to do that.

STRENGTH: moral consistency and SoL

• Pacifism offers a morally consistent stance by upholding the sanctity of human life in all circumstances. It rejects violence categorically, affirming that taking a life is never ok

• Christian pacifists, drawing on Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, argue that Christ’s teachings are incompatible with any form of violence.

• Yoder argues that Jesus not only preached nonviolence but practiced it—even in the face of death. Thus, Christian pacifism becomes not just a moral stance but a way of discipleship.

• Pacifism’s consistent life ethic also aligns with broader Christian commitments to justice, mercy, and human dignity.

COUNTER to moral consistency

While pacifism’s moral consistency is admirable, critics argue it can become morally absolutist and dangerously naive, especially in the face of systemic evil or mass atrocities. Reinhold Niebuhr, in Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932), offers a sharp critique of pacifism as impractical and even irresponsible. He contends that while nonviolence may work at the interpersonal level, collective entities—like nations—often require coercive force to prevent greater evils.

STRENGTH: long term peacemaking + reconcilliation

• Pacifism excels in its commitment to long-term reconciliation and healing, rather than short-term victory. Its rejection of violence fosters conditions for genuine peace—defined not merely as the absence of war but the presence of justice and restored relationships. This is deeply consonant with Christian soteriology, which views reconciliation as the heart of the Gospel

• Secular scholars like Gene Sharp (The Politics of Nonviolent Action) have shown that nonviolent resistance can be more effective than military force in certain political contexts, such as the Indian independence movement or the U.S. civil rights movement

COUNTER to long term peacemaking

• Despite its noble goals, pacifism’s emphasis on reconciliation may be criticized for failing to deliver peace when aggressors are unrepentant or systemic injustice persists. Reconciliation, by definition, requires the cooperation of both parties. But in cases where oppressors refuse dialogue or use nonviolence as a strategic weakness, pacifism may lack leverage.

• For example, in Rwanda (1994), the international community’s passive stance and lack of military intervention enabled one of the worst genocides in modern history. Critics argue that pacifist ethics offer little in the face of such brutality. Even within the Christian tradition, Romans 13 describes the state as "bearing the sword" to punish wrongdoers

• risk of ‘cheap reconcilliation’ (offering forgiveness w/o justice)