On pacifism
02.15.2003I respect pacifists; they have powerful moral convictions. But. If we assume that people are entitled to their own personal, ethical decisions, then pacifism cannot be the determined policy of a political state. There are several reasons.
First, the state, like an individual, must have the right to defend itself. If a state decides to renounce forever the use of force, it won't last long. All the moral principles that coincide w/ pacifism (respect of the individual, freedom of conscience, etc.) are destroyed along w/ the state. All its citizens are then reduced to servitude and slavery. Since this is not a preferred outcome for pacifists, forcing a state to renounce the use of force is counterproductive.
Second, if individuals w/in a state demand the right to be allowed to exercise their moral conscience (and they should have that right), they must extend that right to others as well. That includes those who are willing to use force. For pacifists to demand that others adopt the same strict moral position they have adopted is both immoral and hypocritical. The right of free exercise of conscience demands that pacifists grant those who are willing to fight in their own defense (and also in the defense of the pacifists) that right.
Third, pacifism is an ethic, not a telos (an end). Peace is a telos, pacifism is a means (one of many) to peace. To confuse an ethic for a telos is a serious error. Pacifists' demand that non-pacifists adopt their ethic as a political end is illogical. States do not pursue pacifism, they pursue peace. In the face of aggression, the path to peace is sometimes made w/ a sword. That is, unless peace is preferred over all other options (if you prefer slavery in peace to a conflict to preserve your liberty).
Concerning Iraq, these things must be kept clear. The goal should be one of two things (or both): A) disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction or B) remove Hussein from power. Not attacking Iraq is one of the several possible political solutions. But it shouldn't be confused w/ a political end.
Our states have the right (and duty) to defend us. If you choose not to fight a war to secure your freedom and way of life, that's fine. But at least give me that choice. I'll choose to fight. Yes, I'll end up securing your rights at the same time. I don't care about your ingratitude; I value my freedom too much.
Finally, to argue that it's never acceptable to overthrow another regime -- no matter how brutal that regime is -- is immoral. If we value the rights of individuals -- the freedom of the press, the freedom to think for ourselves, the freedom to choose our own life's course, and all the other associated freedoms -- then it's rather hypocritical to deny them to others on the principle that peace is always the answer and war never is.
Anti-war arguments don't have to be reduced to universalisms about peace. Those arguments are hypocritical at best, knee-jerk reactionism at its unthinking worse, and shallow. If you want to protest the war in Iraq, come up w/ better reasons. Don't reduce yourself to slogans and turning protest marches into the new ultra-hip social events, complete w/ crazy costumes, stilt walkers, and papier-mache puppets. Questions of war and peace are too serious for that petty bullshit.
Posted by Miguel at 03:53 PM
Comments