Pacifism and Nonviolence

Pacifism is the family of positions opposing war and violence, ranging from absolute rejection of all killing to contingent objections that war can rarely if ever meet moral standards.

Definition

The set of moral positions opposing participation in war or the use of violence, together with the theory and practice of nonviolent action.

Scope

This topic covers varieties of pacifism (absolute and contingent, principled and pragmatic), philosophical arguments for and against the use of force, the ethics and strategy of nonviolent resistance, and the relation between pacifism and just war theory. It surveys the positions and their supporting reasons, including critiques charging that pacifism is self-undermining or fails the vulnerable, describing the debate rather than advocating a stance.

Core questions

• Is all war and violence morally impermissible, or only most actual wars?
• Can the prohibition on violence be defended without abandoning the victims of aggression?
• How does nonviolent resistance function as an alternative to armed force?
• Is pacifism consistent, or does it collapse under cases of defensive necessity?

Key theories

Contingent (or pragmatic) pacifism

The view that, while war is not impossible to justify in principle, the conditions for a just war are in practice almost never met, so opposition to actual wars is generally warranted.

The prohibition on intentional killing of the innocent

Anscombe argues that intentionally killing the innocent is absolutely forbidden, a principle that constrains the conduct of war and informs both just-war and pacifist reasoning.

History

Pacifist and nonviolent traditions have deep religious and philosophical roots, articulated in the twentieth century by figures such as Tolstoy and Gandhi and in nonviolent civil-rights movements. Academic philosophy of war, including Holmes's defense of pacifism and Anscombe's critique of consequentialist permissions to kill the innocent, sharpened the contemporary debate.

Debates

Pacifism versus the duty to protect

Critics argue that refusing all force can abandon victims of aggression, while pacifists respond that violence tends to produce greater harm and that nonviolent means are both more effective and more defensible than commonly supposed.

Key figures

• Robert L. Holmes
• G. E. M. Anscombe
• Mohandas Gandhi
• Leo Tolstoy

Seminal works

• holmes1989
• anscombe1958

Frequently asked questions

Is pacifism the same as passivity?

No. Many pacifists advocate active nonviolent resistance—such as civil disobedience and noncooperation—as a means of confronting injustice without resorting to violence.

What is the difference between absolute and contingent pacifism?

Absolute pacifism rejects all war and violence as inherently wrong, while contingent pacifism holds that war could in principle be justified but that real wars almost never satisfy the moral conditions.