Fink (2017). Nonviolence and Tolstoy's Hard Question

Abstract

• Discussion of the pacifist stance against violence in defense of innocents.

• The article seeks to answer whether it is wrong to respond to violence with violence.

• Argues that maintaining a commitment to nonviolence is permissible even in dire situations.

Introduction to Pacifism

• Pacifists advocate for nonviolence as a principle and way of life.

• Many people oppose violence yet engage in it, often unknowingly.

• Questions about the necessity of certain violent acts arise:

  • Is spanking children necessary?

  • Are violent entertainments necessary?

  • Is killing animals for food necessary?

The Hard Question

• Tolstoy's challenge to pacifism:

  • How should one act if a criminal threatens a child, and violence is the only way to save the child?

• This question confronts strict pacifists who reject all violence.

Arguments Against Violence

• Defenders of violence bear the burden of proof to justify its use.

• Tolstoy's critique of consequentialism:

  • Uncertainty about the outcomes of violence makes justification complex.

  • Predictions of consequences are fraught with uncertainty.

• An understanding of God’s providence suggests that outcomes would work out for good.

Moral and Ethical Considerations

• Ethical stance adopted by both Tolstoy and Christ:

  • Non-resistance to evil is fundamental to Christian beliefs.

  • Violent retaliation is unacceptable from a moral standpoint.

• The complexity of valuing lives is questioned:

  • How can one assume a child’s life is more valuable than a criminal’s?

Rights and Defenses

• Rights imply a moral obligation to protect the innocent:

  • Killing a criminal could be seen as a duty if it's life-saving.

• The Kantian view of human dignity:

  • Failing to act to save a child undermines that child’s worth.

  • A moral obligation exists, but the act of violence isn't necessarily the only solution.

Emotional and Psychological Factors

• Many are inherently incapable of violence, raising questions of morality:

  • Can someone be blamed for their inability to resort to violence?

  • Spiritual disciplines should not render individuals less capable of just actions.

The Role of Nonviolence

• Nonviolent interventions can be critical:

  • Examples of preventing violence without resorting to it exist.

• Historical figures like Gandhi outlined pathways to protecting without violence:

  • Interposing oneself, pleading, or taking nonviolent actions.

The Conceptualization of Violence

• Two definitions of violence are explored:

  • Intention to harm for harm's sake (retaliation).

  • Acting from hatred or malice that results in harm.

• The importance of intention versus outcome is elaborated:

  • Non-retaliatory actions that aim to protect may not equate to violence in a strict sense.

Distinction between Intention and Action

• Consideration of moral dilemmas like the „trolley problem“ illustrates the importance of intention in defining violence.

• The nature of an action (like killing for a protective purpose) plays a critical role in moral evaluations.

Violations of Dignity

• Use of violence typically represents a violation of human dignity, akin to treating someone as an object.

• A moral distinction is made between harmful actions taken out of hatred versus those driven by compassion to protect.

Conclusion on Pacifism

• Arguments affirming nonviolence are multiple and compelling.

• Understanding violence and its consequences should encourage pacifism, framing high moral standards instead of justifications for violence.

• Love and dignity must guide actions, underscoring the negative implications of violence even in defense scenarios.

• The commitment to agapeic love must guide moral choices, preventing harm universally, including to those deemed antagonistic.

Final Thoughts

• The article argues firmly for a pacifist stance, calling for moral integrity and consideration of universal dignity over violence.