This is my contest entry.
How is a pacifist defined? Should they refuse violence in every situation, fight only in self defense, or support war as an inevitable evil but refuse to fight personally?Pacifism is the doctrine that force is never an acceptable means of resolving disputes. This doctrine has its roots historically in ancient Greece, and in the modern age enjoyed a resurgence with the popularity of socialism. In its socialist form, pacifism states that war is a method of class oppression (the capitalist class starts wars, but does not take active part in them, sending the poor and working class to fight on their behalf).
Some religious denominations, like the Quakers, Mennonites, and Amish, are pacifist. Adherents of these sects have historically refused to fight in wars, while some regard war itself as a necessary evil.
Some who call themselves pacifists reserve the right to self-defense, calling themselves "pragmatic pacifists." I believe this is a contradiction in terms, as the proscription of force as such is central to the idea of pacifism. Therefore, for the purpose of this post I will define pacifism as "pure," not pragmatic, pacifism.
I don't agree with pacifism. I think there is an important distinction to make with the use of force:
initiation versus
retaliation.The
initiation of force (that is, starting its use) is always wrong. Unfortunately, there will always be those who regard force as a means of accomplishing their ends (the socialist Russian Bolsheviks, for example).
Hitler initiated the use of force against Poland, taking the first step to starting World War II. The (more or less) pacifist leaders of Europe, the UK's Neville Chamberlain being the typical example, decided to do nothing about this. They thought that giving Hitler what he wanted would make conflict unnecessary. As we all know, this strategy of appeasement only emboldened Hitler to take more of Europe by force. Ultimately, the UK and other countries got involved and used
retaliatory force against the Nazi aggression. This, I would say, was a perfectly just and moral course of action.
Using force in retaliation against those who initiate its use is self-defense. When negotiation and persuasion fails, there is only one option for those who do not wish to be hurt or destroyed, and that is responding in kind.
I would argue that the use of force in self-defense is not only a moral action, but a moral imperative. We should make every effort to resolve our disputes in a peaceful manner, but there are always those who will not respond to reason. In these cases, we owe it to ourselves (and governments owe it to their citizens) to prevent further injury by retaliation.
The world would be a much better place if everyone was a pacifist. Unfortunately, I don't believe this is possible; therefore, I believe pacifism is an impractical and ultimately immoral doctrine.
