But the ideal of nonviolence might be extended to include the idea of controlling rough and intense emotions. Related to this is the charge that pacifism is unpatriotic and even treasonous. On the vague side, pacificism falls back onto similar problems that general consequentialism faces, namely the inability to propose a rule or guiding principle that is not affected by either new events or alternative interpretations A study of pacifism the same event.
The adjective violent applies to many situations that the nominal pacifist would not necessarily oppose, from its uses to describe agitated or passionate behavior to morally legitimately violent actions against the self or another person. Contingent pacifism can also be a principled rejection of a particular military system or set of military policies.
A second sort of contingent pacifism holds that if a particular war or military policy is prudentially unwise it should be resisted. A similar idea about the A study of pacifism impact of violence or nonviolence is found in the Indian traditions.
While it is true that in such conditions, there is no overt damage done, the opponents have not been reconciled and hostile intentions have not been eliminated.
Few would admit that a dangerous person should not be restrained in some form or other, and most pacifists would accept injuring or even killing a dangerous criminal if the circumstances admit it, although the argument for retaining a moral purity can be deployed here, leaving the pacifist to justify permitting aggression to flourish.
Pacifists will tend to think that most intentionally caused harms are unjustifiable. Most pacifists will reject nuclear war and full-fledged inter-state conflict. But pacifism as anti-warism will argue that the violence of war is of a different kind. In this sense, pacifism is a supererogatory obligation.
Yes, from two possible perspectives. There are deontological concerns behind this sort of pacifism—with regard to concern for noncombatants. The clean hands objection holds that pacifists are so committed to keeping their hands clean that they fail to act on other requirements of life.
The persistent nagging of bellicosity, of adventure, personal and collective glory, whether it derives from something genetic or culturally deeply embedded in most societies, remains an easily revitalized clarion call to war.
This objection shares something with those defenders of the just war idea who, like George Weigel, are inspired by the Augustinian ideal of using war to defend a tranquil and just social order. Euripides also expressed strong anti-war ideas in his work, especially The Trojan Women.
Pacifists might reply to this sort of objection by delving deeper into the requirements of both religious faith and ethics. Empirical research into the consequences of war provides mixed results depending upon contexts and circumstances in which wars are fought and the range of consequences considered whether short-term or long-term.
Related to this is the faith that God will provide both the strength to endure suffering and a final reward for those who remain committed to principles of nonviolence. The sort of pacifism that is derived from this claim is contingent upon the fact that modern warfare involves a hierarchically organized military system and mass conscription.
Killing an aggressor in self-defense may be permitted, if the death of the aggressor is not the primary intention of the defensive act. This reaches into some intriguing territory, for its remit is vague but also flexible. The ethical positions described in the essay divide between deontological and consequentialist positions, but virtue theory is also highly applicable: Consequentialist defenders of pacifism will also argue that creative and coordinated nonviolent action can produce good consequences that are at least as good as the consequences of war.
And Anscombe thought that pacifists were wrong to ignore the distinction between shedding innocent blood and shedding blood in just warfare.
Most pacifists will reject nuclear war and full-fledged inter-state conflict. A more subtle argument along these lines will claim that it is wrong to kill enemy combatants because enemy combatants are occasionally or usually—depending on the strength of this particular claim not responsible for their participation in war.
A more subtle argument along these lines will claim that it is wrong to kill enemy combatants because enemy combatants are occasionally or usually—depending on the strength of this particular claim not responsible for their participation in war.
So, absolute pacifism holds that war and violence are always wrong. And pacifists will argue that the peace of deterrence and detente are not really peace either, because they are the result of an increase in armaments and the threat of escalating violence.
It is important to note that, unlike deontological pacifism, consequentialist pacifism is not opposed to killing per se.
A study of pacifism version of pacifism can thus be derived from this principle of the just war tradition by arguing against wars that do in fact end up killing innocent noncombatants.
Particular Pacifism This distinction has to do with the issue of whether everyone is required to be a pacifist or whether pacifism can be a moral choice of some particular individuals.
Transformational pacifism articulates a broad framework of cultural criticism and includes an effort to reform educational and cultural practices that tend to support violence and war.
The idea of justice is at the heart of the just war tradition, which claims that we are entitled to fight back against injustice. The claim that war produces more harm than good is disputable; at least, it requires empirical research to decide if it is true. In light of such skepticism, the burden of proof for the justification of war is placed upon the government, who must prove that the dangerous and presumptively immoral activity of war can in fact be justified.
Start studying Pacifism. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. Note: Citations are based on reference standards.
However, formatting rules can vary widely between applications and fields of interest or study. The specific requirements or preferences of your reviewing publisher, classroom teacher, institution or organization should be applied.
Albert Einstein Study Guide - Pacifism and Zionism deliberately used general terms in order to appeal to a broad audience, the manifesto received very few signatures. Peace and pacifism are notable parts of our modern moral beliefs, but what exactly do these terms mean? Explore these ideas and test your understanding with a brief quiz.
Pacifism. Pacifism is the theory that peaceful rather than violent or belligerent relations should govern human intercourse and that arbitration, surrender, or migration should be used to resolve disputes.
Pacifism does not involve turning a blind eye and actually, most schools of pacifism teach that you have a moral obligation to actively campaign for peace everywhere you go.A study of pacifism