Transformative pacifism was described by Joseph J. Fahey—who also calls it “reconstructivist” pacifism—as follows: “Transformative pacifists emphasize the spiritual unity of all human beings. they seek not only the abolition of war, but also the creation of an international legal, political and economic order that promotes rights of all kinds” (Fahey 1997, 393). Resistance to war can be placed under this general rubric – insofar as resistance to war is associated with a general critique of the structures of authority, economic and political decisions, and institutional frameworks that support what is often referred to as the “war system” (see Atack 2001). The Spanish Civil War proved to be a great test for international pacifism, and the work of peace organizations (such as War Resisters` International and the Community of Reconciliation) and individuals (such as José Brocca and Amparo Poch) in this field has until recently been ignored or forgotten by historians. overshadowed by the memory of the International Brigades and other militarist interventions. Shortly after the end of the war, Simone Weil, although she had volunteered to serve on the Republican side, published The Iliad or the Poem of Power, a work described as a pacifist manifesto. [61] In response to the threat of fascism, some pacifist thinkers, such as Richard B. Gregg, developed plans for a campaign of nonviolent resistance in the event of a fascist invasion or seizure of power. [62] Indeed, some pacifists may also argue that since we know that war will kill noncombatants, it is dishonest to claim that the death of innocent noncombatants is unintentional.
Pacifists may argue that the real problem with war is that non-combatants are deliberately killed as a means of warfare. Although Anscombe argued against pacifism, she similarly argued in her criticism of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki: “It is absurd to pretend that you do not intend to do the means you use for the purpose you have chosen” (1981a). Anscombe thought the war could be justified – if he did not directly intend to kill non-combatants. And Anscombe thought pacifists were wrong when they ignored the difference between shedding innocent blood and shedding blood in a just war. But pacifists might respond that war is bad because innocent noncombatants are killed, intentionally or unintentionally. In the 1960s, some pacifists associated with the New Left supported wars of national liberation and supported groups such as the Vietcong and the Algerian FLN, arguing that peaceful attempts to liberate such nations were no longer feasible and that war was therefore the only option. [14] Absolute pacifism is often associated with a religious viewpoint in which nonviolence is seen as a religious imperative. Thomas Merton explains that Gandhi and most other absolute pacifists have a broader metaphysical view: “As Gandhi saw, the fully consistent practice of nonviolence requires a solid metaphysical foundation in both being and God” (Merton 1971, 209). In the West, absolute pacifism is often derived from the Christian ideal of non-resistance to evil, as required by Jesus` statements about non-resistance in the Sermon on the Mount (in Matthew) or the Sermon on the Plain (in Luke). In Indian traditions, it is based on commitment to ahimsa, or non-violence, derived from a larger metaphysical image that emphasizes karmic interdependence, ascetic self-denial, and compassion.
The religious basis of absolute pacifism is often tied to the idea that it makes sense to suffer violence without retaliation. As Martin Luther King Jr. says, “unmerited suffering is redemptive” (King 1986, 18). This distinction can be understood by examining whether pacifism is morally necessary or simply morally permissible. The universalist answer to this question is that if war and violence are bad, then pacifism is morally necessary and those who fight are wrong. But some pacifists seem to think that there is nothing wrong with fighting (or that certain individuals are allowed to fight), even if pacifists themselves choose (or are bound by a professional commitment) not to fight. A conscientious objector can therefore choose not to fight without condemning those who do. Refusal of conscience can be articulated as a personal belief about pacifism that does not apply to others. This is a way for pacifists who refuse to fight to avoid the charge that they are traitors who are against their fellow fighters: they can deny that their refusal has universal moral significance or application. Eric Reitan has argued that one can assume a kind of “personal pacifism” that does not need to be universally applied. One way to understand this is to relate it to the idea of tolerance. A personal pacifist may believe that pacifism is the right choice; But she can choose to tolerate others who don`t make the same choice.
A personal pacifist may also advocate a kind of relativism, which states that a commitment to pacifism is only a personal commitment that cannot be used to condemn others who make other commitments. Subscribe to America`s largest dictionary and get thousands of other definitions and an advanced search – ad-free! As a veteran hawk, Prime Minister Abe wants to strengthen Japan and even revise its pacifist constitution. The sudden outbreak of the First World War in July 1914 dismayed the peace movement. Socialist parties in all industrialized countries had engaged in anti-war policies, but when the war came, all but Russia and the United States supported their own governments. There have been high-profile dissidents, some of whom have been jailed for opposing bills, such as Eugene Debs in the United States. [47] In Britain, prominent activist Stephen Henry Hobhouse was imprisoned for refusing military service and citing his beliefs as a “socialist and Christian.” [48] Many socialist groups and movements were antimilitarist, arguing that war was by its very nature a form of state coercion of the working class for the benefit of capitalist elites. French pacifist socialist leader Jean Jaurès was assassinated by a nationalist fanatic on July 31, 1914. The national parties of the Second International increasingly supported their respective nations in the war, and the International was dissolved in 1916. Contingent pacifism is often based on empirical and historical judgments about how wars are fought. These judgments vary according to changing circumstances.
And these judgments also depend on the availability of information about why and how wars are fought. It is therefore possible that contingent pacifists may admit that there may be contradictory judgments about the justice of a particular war.