There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
| Thinking hard|
or hardly thinking?
|Major trains of thought|
|The good, the bad|
and the brain fart
|Come to think of it|
| What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!|
|Don't believe us?|
Pacifism is the opposition to violence as a means of settling disputes. This opposition may range from the belief in peaceful resolution of international conflicts to personal rejection of a tradition of violent activity.
While pacifism is defined as "opposition to war" or "opposition to violence," some militarists have attempted to say that they are pacifists because they prevent violence by being violent, e.g. the U.S. Air Force motto "Peace is Our Profession." (See Nineteen Eighty-Four.)
A common question that is used in attempt to trip up pacifists is "What would you do if you found a man raping your wife?" It is widely and erroneously believed that the "correct" pacifist answer to this gotcha question would be to either do nothing or to try to interpose oneself between the parties. Some pacifists, therefore, choose a different self-definition where pacifism is the refusal to prepare for war or for acts of violence. This definition addresses the attempt to trap people into the culture of violence by giving a different answer to the old draft board question, namely "I don't know. But I do know this: I will not own a gun or make other preparations to do violence to another human being." This kind of pacifism is, probably, more widespread and palatable to the masses than the classic definition.
Pacifism does not necessarily imply nonresistance. Nonviolent activists did not, for example, do nothing while the Nazis rounded up Jews for the concentration camps and, in fact, Quakers (see below) helped many Jews flee Germany before the beginning of hostilities between the United States and Germany. The use of the Holocaust as a rebuttal point against pacifism becomes, in this context, a straw man argument: pacifists do not endorse doing nothing; they create resistance without guns or other tools of manslaughter.
Politicians who apply pacifism to situations such as conflict are frequently know as having 'Dovish' policies as apposed to the opposite term. 'Hawkish'
Some well-known pacifists
- Mohandas Gandhi
- Tenzin Gyatso: Current Dalai Lama.
- Jesus: But you wouldn't know it today from some of His purported followers.
- Robert LeFevre: An otherwise influential early libertarian theorist whose pacifism has not particularly carried over into the modern libertarian movement.
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
- Bertrand Russell
- Aung San Suu Kyi
- Dennis Kucinich has proposed a new US Department of Peace.
- Norman Thomas: several-time Socialist Party candidate for President of the United States
- Leo Tolstoy: Russian writer and anarchist, who influenced the development of Gandhi's passive resistance.
- Guillermo del Toro: Atheist, writer, and film producer/director. Wears some huge irony blinkers because of the violent nature of some of his movies.
- Buddhism is known for its strong emphasis on pacifism. Thich Nhat Hanh, the Vietnamese Buddhist monk, was a member of the Buddhist delegation to the Paris Peace Accords and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
- The Society of Friends (aka Quakers) are the most well-known pacifist Christian group. Some Quakers have been prosecuted for their opposition to war and militarism. In the United States, they had great influence on the creation of conscientious objector provisions in the now-abolished draft laws, and many of the Quakers and other pacifists drafted for the Vietnam War consequently either served their commitments in non-military organizations or in nonviolent military roles, e.g. as combat medics.
- Jehovah's Witnesses have been jailed throughout their history for rejecting conscription of any form, even as noncombatant conscientious objectors. In addition they don't believe in blood transfusions, so they can't be medics.
- Christian pacifism in general.
- Jainism is so peace-loving that its adherents refuse to kill the smallest animal, even a mowse. They are even afraid of farming because it might kill organisms in the soil. Aww. :)
- Sikhs might be considered pacifists. Though their faith requires them (the men, anyway) to carry at least a ceremonial weapon at all times, they adhere to the same principle of ahimsa (nonviolence) as the Jains, though in a utilitarian interpretation rather than the Jains' deontological one. The Sikh view of nonviolence rests on minimizing the consequences of violence that actually occurs, rather than absolutely avoiding a particular individual's participation in it.
- The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament was the major anti-nuclear weapons movement in the West during the Cold War.
- Welsh v. United States (1970) decided that atheists could claim conscientious objector status.
Pacifists in War
Historically, pacifists have not been unwilling to walk the battlefields. During World War I, for example, Quakers and other pacifists organized ambulance corps that patrolled no man's land and took the wounded to the hospital. This kind of activity was thwarted during World War II by the Starnes Rider which prohibited pacifists from participating in battlefield rescue efforts.
“”Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs… It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany… As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions.
|—Gandhi, 1946, Interview with Louis Fischer|
“”Pacifism is not something to hide behind.
Pacifism, though often considered an unassailable position on morality, is not without its critics. Sam Harris believes pacifism is a system which allows millions to die for the hope that they might receive some benefit in the next life or that one day their murderers might doubt the goodness of their actions. Such a system of course only gets worse as it becomes more prevalent, and those without moral scruples have more opportunity to continue their actions unopposed. In this way, a single sociopath with a knife could, in a world of pacifists, kill or force into hiding every other being on the planet without meeting any material opposition.
It has also been criticized as an inadvertent tool in the oppression of minorities, specifically being criticized as a system which advocates that those suffering under racism, sexism, or other forms of oppression in a society should merely peacefully protest and wait for their overlords to give them equal rights. World War II was an especially difficult time for pacifists, leaving them in the position to either support a conflict that would lead to the deaths of nearly a hundred million people, or let the Nazis have a carte blanche.
Even Gene Sharp, a major academic figure usually associated with pacifism, has expressed qualms about the very terminology itself, preferring to use terms like "non-violent conflict" instead. The criticism here being that pacifism is more often than not presented as a moralistic and ethical principle that tends to conjure up feel-good idealism (if not utopian visions). And yet according to him, such a worldview disregards the socio-cultural contexts on the ground, the nature of power and pragmatic realities like logistics, planning, organizing and so on; in other words, one doesn't have to even believe in pacifist ideals to use non-violence.
“”...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
In what should come as no surprise, anti-pacificism is sometimes taken to absurd levels, especially by those eager to go to war, for whatever reason. A favorite past-time of "pacifist bashers" is to treat pacifists like boogeymen who want to weaken the nation to both foreign and domestic threats. This is fairly common in authoritarian governments but it may happen in open democracies as well, especially among the hard-right. The political influence of pacifists may also be exaggerated, which is a cowardly tactic since pacifists do not have all that much influence in politics. In America it is common for wingnuts to conflate liberalism with "pacifism," which ignores the fact that most, if not nearly all liberals are not pacifists, they're just less hawkish than neoconservatives.
One may also notice that those that foam at the mouth over pacifists often forget to mention many of the above listed pacifists (especially MLK); and that many pacifists who were drafted in both World Wars served as medics, one of the most dangerous jobs in the field. Also, Ike.
- There is some controversy whether he is pacifist. Some critics say that he wants to enslave Tibet if it got free (Penn & Teller: Bullshit!). However, he has acknowledged that the Lamas' "getting their corrupt asses kicked out of Tibet" was a karmic correction, to be welcomed by the Sangha (lost in the mists of absfg, a Usenet "alt" newsgroup).
- This is hilarious in many ways: When War and Peace was published in 1869 it was largely criticized by the Russian left for romanticizing the Tsars, and at the same time praised by military generals for depicting an artful depiction of war. Neither of them probably read the full thousand pages.
- Gandhi, his Grandson, Israel, and the Jews
- Harris, Sam (2004). The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. W.W. Norton & Company.
- "In Defense of Revolutionary Violence"
- Take Albert Einstein, also well-known for his pacifist beliefs, who was mocked by those who believed he engaged in a double standard by warning the US of what Hitler represented.
- According to him, there would still be struggles and wars even in a world without violence
- Which for Sharp is less Mahatma Gandhi and more Machiavelli.
- Though ironically, he had a harder time convincing pacifists themselves on this.
- The full quote on Snopes