Making sense of pacifism
By Longtime readers surely know that none of us here find principled pacifism to be a useful philosophy or guide to foreign policy. I must admit I’ve never really felt like I understand pacifism as a personal philosophy, let alone a guide for policy. In that spirit I was delighted to see Hugo Schyzter, a progressive Christian blogger and devotee of an Anabaptist-inflected pacifism, offer a defense of his approach in light of the Amish school shootings last week. The post is here. It strikes me as more about what pacifism isn’t than what pacifism is, some of which seems reasonable and correct (I’m quite certain the equation of pacifism with cowardice isn’t reasonable) some of which isn’t as persuasive. But that isn’t what interests me. The post leaves a great deal about pacifism unanswered, and Hugo is pressed from the left and the right for more details in comments. After reading some of Hugo’s comments in this thread, I’m more confused than ever about pacifism:
Pacifists are allowed to get angry. Pacifists can even push someone. We can’t use lethal force.
Oh, and a pacifist could definitely tackle the gunman. We could try and wrestle the gun away. But we can’t use the gun, no matter what.
And, most tellingly, in response to a question about pacifists’ attitudes toward non-lethal incapacitating devices:
Col Steve, you ask the very sort of question many of us are asking these days; the answer is “I don’t know.” Within the peace church community, there’s been intense discussion of this sort of thing. I think we can work closely with the powers and principalities to help create a less-lethal way of fighting. I won’t let the best (total non-violence) be the enemy of the good (concrete steps towards lowering lethality).
Like I said, all this leaves me more confused than ever. Too much work is being done by the lethal/non-lethal distinction–I don’t know this for certain, but I’d imagine that if you tackle a hundred unstable gunmen in a 100 rooms full of children, there are going to be X amount of deaths as an result, where X is solidly more than one. Furthermore, shooting the gunman will not result in deaths 100% of the time. So pacifists are cheating if they just say that lethal force is always banned, but non-lethal force may be acceptable under certain circumstances. What we’re really talking about is the likelihood of lethality. Does principled pacifism allow us to do something that has a 20% chance of lethality? 10? 30? I don’t see how it could provide an answer. Distinguishing between the physical act (shooting, tackling) doesn’t get us as far as Hugo needs it to.
Which is, of course, fine. The real world of violence is remarkably muddled and complex and muddling through as best we can with our conscience and wisdom as our guides is all any of us can really do. But in this sense, how is pacifism really any different than a boring approach like mine, which suggests that 1) violence is really bad and should be avoided whenever possible, and 2) when violence is absolutely necessary, we should opt for the least-likely-to-be-lethal approach possible. I’d never dream of calling this a pacifist ethic, as I’m pretty sure it’s not.
What bugs me about all this is there’s a sort of moral smugness to the tone and tenor of pacifist arguments (not calling Hugo smug per se; he’s just channelling a position that’s inherently smug) when at the end of the day, they’re through all sorts of second best options just like everyone else.