The US tradition, especially among the "educated elite" holds pacifism to a very high moral standard. Historical figures such as Jesus and Ghandi are put forth as ideals to live toward.

But is pacifism really moral or is it, when one analyzes it, immoral?

I give you an example for the purposes of discussion.

Lets say that a close family loved one (a wife, child, sibling, parent, etc.) becomes involved in a dispute against a non family member and that this dispute suddenly escalates into a situation that becomes life threatening for the family member involved. In this scenario, you have to act quickly. There is no time to "call the police" or otherwise defer your own personal involvement in this crises.

Would the moral choice be:

1. Declare one's pacifistic status, say that we're "against all violence", and stand by and do nothing and see one's family member seriously injured or even killed?

2. Declare that you *would* defend this family member but that you didn't like the way the dispute started, think it's stupid, and even think your family member was wrong and started it.... and stand by and do nothing and see one's family member seriously injured or even killed?

3. Defend the family member using the force required to repel the threat and save the life of the family member and then, after the fact, take whatever corrective actions were required to ensure that such a conflict was less prone to happen in the future?


Questions for debate:

Given the scenarios presented above, what is the "morality" associated with each choice?

Given the practical end result of pacifism, do you consider such a belief system to be "moral"? If so, why? If not, why not?

This is an excellent question, and one which is not easy to answer. Before choosing one of the scenarios offered, there are some factors that must be considered.

Is the perceived threat real? This may be obvious, or it may not be.

What are the likely consequences of whatever action one may choose? Under some circumstances, it may make things worse rather than better.

What is the absolute minimum amount of force which can be used to defuse the situation? This may not always be easy to tell.

Given these complications, the best answer I can come up with is that one must try to use the minimum amount of force which is required to ensure the safety of the intended victim of a crime. If you have time and opportunity to incapacitate an attacker without killing, that is the better choice.

I am aware that there are circumstances in which one does not have the luxury to make such a choice. In a genuine emergency, one may be forced to act very quickly, without ethical considerations.

So what should one do, in the real world? It seems to me that the following measures, in this order, should be taken.

1. Do whatever is reasonable and possible to avoid such situations. This would include passive defensive measures such as locked doors.

2. When such situations occur, remove the intended victim from danger if at all possible.

3. When absolutely necessary, use force to defend the intended victim. When possible, choose the minimum amount of force required.

(There are also practical matters to consider which fall outside of the realm of ethics. Since I am clumsy, weak, and a coward, it's impossible to imagine any situation in which I would could be of any help to any intended victim.)

I do not claim to be an absolute pacifist, but, when in doubt, it is better to err on the side of pacifism.

What is the practical end result? Please define.

If your example were the only case possible,EVER, it would clearly place pacifism in the position you, Lord Helmet, wish it to be, as wrong. You couldn't at least try and be subtle with your attempt to trap responses to your terms, why not try "wants to harm a crippled wheelchair bound deaf dumb and mute baby who is the key to humaity's continued survival"

Yet many times in life you are presented with situations where you can respond violently or find other options.
What if your relative has been in the habit of harming others and someone declares a pre emptive strike on him to save others from his predations, Are you STILL moral for harming others to defend him?

As for the example can I use the answer to What If a President so ineptly ran his foreign policy while invading Iraq that he destabilized a whole region and helped INCREASE the number of terrorists intent on attacking?

How about if you can resolve the situation through negotiation and instead use Violence, are you still MORAL Lord Helmet?

How about if you can allow law enforcement to solve the situation and instead resort to violence, are you still moral?

How about if your plans have simply failed and you keep stubbornly trying it over and over and over again, ignoring the consistent failure, are you still Moral --or even sane?


1. Declare one's pacifistic status, say that we're "against all violence", and stand by and do nothing and see one's family member seriously injured or even killed?
As always in life there are levels of pacifism in life LH, some take the extreme NEVER EVER response and some declare only in direct self defense as the exception. Personally I would label this one as Immoral.


2. Declare that you *would* defend this family member but that you didn't like the way the dispute started, think it's stupid, and even think your family member was wrong and started it.... and stand by and do nothing and see one's family member seriously injured or even killed?
Personally I am a very big supporter of 'You reap as you sow'. Even for family members. I would probably protect them--so I could kill them for putting their family in that postion to begin with.

3. Defend the family member using the force required to repel the threat and save the life of the family member and then, after the fact, take whatever corrective actions were required to ensure that such a conflict was less prone to happen in the future?
More logical of course--with the added reality of taking steps to make sure if they (my family member) had contributed to it starting in any way to begin with, I would so harsh in dealing with it that no one else in my family would ever even consider repeating my family members action.
Examples do sometimes need to be made.

I am not sure that this opening statement is valid. Pacifism, like conservatism or liberalism, is not one animal but instead an entire zoo. I believe you are confusing the two main types.

Extreme Pacifism, of the variety Mahatma Ghandi espoused, indicates a non-violent response to every situation, including cases where one's own life or the life of one's friends are at risk. It should be noted that despite being non-violent, Ghandi was still and exceptional activist, finding other ways of disrupting his opposition through marches, strikes and non-violent but effective means of resistance. Pacifism does not necessarily mean passivity, it this case means non-violent response.

I do not believe the educated elite do hold pacifism to some very high moral standard, I see no evidence of waves of pacifism amongst the educated or any other sector of society. In my time amongst these people, for though not elite, I am educated, I saw no evidence that active pacifism was more common at an Ivy league school than in the corner market. I believe this is a false assumption that underlies your entire premise. The educated elite was as much behind the war as the uneducated farmers in 1941 following Pearl Harbour, and in fact prior to pearl Harbour the primary inon-involvement pressure came not from the Universities but from Rural America.

However, even those who do espouse pacifism in America rarely espouse the extremist pacifism advocated by Ghandi. Pacifism in the United States tends towards finding non-violent political solutions to international problems, and discrediting the use of national violence: a force they claim has been used far too easily and far too often in our history. These pacifists would, on the whole, fight tooth and nail to defend their family or themselves if threatened, and many would in fact likely advocate a violent response if the nation was directly attacked. Obviously that does not apply to all, but likely to a majority.



Regardless of all these problems with your basic argument, I think the second example among your list of three moral choices clearly demonstrates that this is an attempt to draw a comparative scenario between someone breaking into your home and threatening one's family, and the mass response to Americas's curent wars. Obviously there is no comparison in these two diametrically different situations, and attempting to equate one-sided truistic arguments for one as being evidence for the other is ineffective at best.

There is nothing inheraiantly “immoral” about any of the choices. The pacifist I assume is willing to live with the consequences of same when faced with violence. To use violence to defend the family member would be inconsistent with the persons pacifist beliefs but not immoral.

The family member, if not a pacifist, can do whatever is required to prevent injury.



Yes. Some religions are “pacifist” in nature and this is no more “immoral” than the opposite belief. The “practical end result” you describe does not invalidate the belief or practice of pacifism. If this is practiced on a large scale (like a country), that country can expect to be ruled by others who do not share this belief.