"Lie Down and Take It": Problems with Pacifism

"Lie Down and Take It": Problems with Pacifism

Everybody reading this surely agrees with the old saying that "war is hell." The same goes for any act that results in damage to property or life. To some over the history of mankind, the response to these kinds of ills in human society has been pacifism. While often noble in its roots, I have unfortunately seen many cases where pacifism is implemented in a way that is illogical if not inconsistent and occasionally even more harmful than an openly non-pacifistic stance. I have identified three main mistakes that can turn a well-intentioned pacifistic philosophy into a dangerous weapon: verbal violence, "blame the victim" mentality, and pacifism as an accessory to evil (knowingly and unknowingly). After I have covered these three pitfalls, I will pose the question of whether a purely pacifistic life is possible without falling into these traps.


Pitfall #1: Verbal Violence

This first pitfall may seem trivial when first considered. "So he called someone a name--so what? Boo-hoo." This is a pitfall that I often see in a much more mundane setting than the political front: the classroom. From the time children are tiny, they are taught that fighting is a far worse offense than belittling a fellow student. By the time these children reach high school, this results in a situation where a cafeteria food fight triggers automatic suspension for all involved yet outright verbal harassment and character assassination abound without check. Is it any wonder that when these children get to the workplace, there are so many incidents of sexual harassment and the like? It's not as if these people ever learned that there were consequences for that sort of thing!

The naked truth is, verbal violence has terrible</I> consequences. Irresponsible and/or hurtful words can never be called back after they have been unleashed. Even if the aggressor apologizes, the memory of the original offense cannot simply be purged at the push of a button. Remember also that a person who is bombarded over and over with a hateful message may eventually come to believe that message--and if that person lashes out against others or him- or herself, then the person who engaged in the harassment is in morally an accessory to the crime even if the ultimate choice rested with the victim.

However, the most compelling case to name verbal violence as a pitfall of the pacifistic philosophy is to consider the effect on the harasser. The aim of a pacifistic philosophy, at its core, is to purge all violent tendencies from the practitioner. The very person that many pacifists look to as their example, however, warns that to simply avoid physical confrontation is nowhere near enough. After delivering the Sermon on the Mount, Christ warns that mere thought places a person in just as much danger as action. Therefore when He spoke of murder, He said, "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brotherwill be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell" (Matthew 5:21-22).

The hierarchy of sin that some try to establish where physical killing is somehow worse than the destruction of the spirit through cruel words is quite simply nonexistent. The book of Proverbs, too, conveys the same message, that an intemperate mouth can bring endless trouble to the one who speaks so rashly or hatefully. And there is sense in this. One's words guide one's thoughts, and this can eventually guide one's actions. Even if not ever acted upon physically, this sort of spitefulness defeats the purpose of pacifism by breeding contempt in the so-called pacifist. There are few things more hypocritical than a person who cries out against war yet demonizes and verbally assaults his or her debate opponent.


Pitfall #2: "Blame the Victim"

This second potential problem in living a pacifistic philosophy complements the third, but should be discussed separately for simplicity's sake. This pitfall is commonly known as the "blame the victim" mentality. Outside of this context, "blame the victim" can take many other shapes, but I restrict my discussion now to how this mentality sometimes interacts with pacifism. How many of you remember being tormented in elementary school to the point where you went to tell the teacher--yet being told by the teacher that "tattling is a very bad thing to do" and being sent back to take more abuse? Provided you lived a normal childhood, this is probably the first time you encountered a "blame the victim" pacifists. Unless you were very fortunate to have the kind of proactive teacher who wouldn't hesitate to step in to prevent bullying, the truth is many teachers are only concerned with keeping sticky matters away from them. They say they want peace in the classroom, but think the best way to get there is to discourage children from reporting misbehavior.

Growing up, some people seem to take this unfortunate lesson to mean that if someone attacks, it is even more wrong to take defensive actions to try and stop the aggression, whether that be going to the authorities or retaliating on the spot if there is no feasible way to get outside intervention. This kind of pacifist can often be seen watching a dangerous situation about to unfold, and while they may shake their heads at the initial aggressor, it's when the victim has enough of it and strikes back that they are so quick to say, "Oh! Thou shalt not kill! Thou shalt not this or that! Oh, they MUST be punished; they're dangerous renegades!" Just like the complacent schoolteacher, getting to the bottom of the problem is the last thing from their minds; pushing the problem out of sight for awhile so they can feel good about themselves is their real concern.

This is unacceptable. For a time in some states, the laws used to be such that if a person broke into their home and they retaliated in self-defense, the victim who took such action (with whatever weapon or their bare fists as the case may be) risked even worse legal sanctions than the one who initially did the breaking and entering. This is another example of the same mentality. In the eyes of this kind of pacifist, there is no right to self defense. If a woman is being raped, how dare she fight back--how dare she do anything but lie down and take it? Or so that logic goes.

Put simply, "Thou shalt not murder" (the correct translation) does not mean "Thou shalt not kill under any circumstances". It means something more like, "Thou shalt not take life with abandon," which generally makes self-defense the one legitimate exception.


Pitfall #3: Game Theory and Pacifism as an Accessory to Evil

This last pitfall may be a little tough to swallow at first, but it is intended to demonstrate why total pacifism simply will not work in the long run in every circumstance. There are certain pairs and groups of individuals who will be able to avoid this problem, depending on group composition and luck, but such cases are definitely not a rule by any means. In fact, when it comes to human nature, the exact opposite case tends to be true.

Consider the prisoner's dilemma described in game theory, as described in Wikipedia: "Two suspects, A and B, are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal: if one testifies for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent, the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both stay silent, the police can sentence both prisoners to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each will receive a two-year sentence. Each prisoner must make the choice of whether to betray the other or to remain silent. However, neither prisoner knows for sure what choice the other prisoner will make. So the question this dilemma poses is: What will happen? How will the prisoners act?"

The altruistic solution would be for both parties to stay silent and take a light sentence. However, each prisoner wants the larger payoff (total freedom) gained by betraying his fellow prisoner. So, one prisoner's thought process goes something like this: "If I stay silent and my former partner betrays me, I get screwed--I get the full ten years. If I betray him, and maybe he doesn't say anything, I'm free and he gets ten." Ultimately what happens is that both betray each other because neither can abide by the risk that comes with remaining loyal. A similar phenomenon to this occurs when two or more nations get into an arms race: it's the nation that tries to back down first and sign a nonproliferation agreement that ties its own hands when someone else breaks the treaty. As we can see from this, the fundamental facts of human nature present a major hindrance when it comes to actually acting on a well-meant pacifistic philosophy. While this will not always be the case, there are certainly enough cases where greater danger results from the altruistic course of action.

However, there is yet another moral impediment to this kind of total pacifism: the responsibility borne by the pacifist who fails to intervene when others are at risk of being hurt or killed. To willingly lay down one's own life as Christ did, and those who followed His example of passive resistance to injustice, is one matter. However, what about a case where refusing to fight means that someone else pays with his or her life? Take draft-dodging. For each person who dodges the draft, someone else is sent away to fight...and if that person dies, then it is absolutely legitimate to say that the draft-dodger is an accessory to the crime. A selfish fixation on keeping one's own hands "clean" at the expense of others is inexcusable. This is morally irresponsible to say the very least; thus it can be said that while self-defense is an optional right, defense of others is a duty.


Can There Be a Responsible Pacifism?

Given these three potential pitfalls in a pacifistic philosophy, is there a such thing as responsible, total pacifism?

Test #1: The pacifist must abstain from verbal as well as physical attacks, regardless of how vehemently he or she may disagree with or dislike others. Tough to do, but with great effort, this can mostly be accomplished.

Test #2: The pacifist must not apply his philsophy selectively, entering into the "victim-blame" mentality in which aggressors are allowed free rein and defenders punished further than they already have been by the aggressor. Aggressors are to be held more responsible than a defender who takes action to stop the aggression, because without this action the defender would not have had a need to strike back. Even if not this, at the very least, any condemnation must be perfectly even-handed; one party cannot be condemned without equally condemning the actions of the other. Solutions must be adequate for both sides to live in peace in the long term.

Test #3: The pacifist must not fail in his or her moral duties as a result of enacting such a philosophy. To knowingly lay down one's own life through non-resistance is acceptable. To allow others to suffer because of one's inaction is a failure in the duty to defend others.

As you can see from this, it is really only the third test where a fundamental failure in the philosophy of total pacifism occurs, while the first two can be remedied through strict attention to one's behavior and mindset. In the end, it seems that while near-total pacifism is morally acceptable if a person wishes to adopt it, the duty to defend others who are in danger cannot be walked away from as this makes the pacifist an accomplice: failure to act in this case is just as deadly as striking out against someone.

Therefore, I conclude that a morally-acceptable, responsible pacifism can be held--as long as the single exception for defense of others (even if not oneself) is made.

There is only One who has ever followed such a path to perfection, but I have respect for those who make the effort to attempt that sort of philosophy. I also respect non-pacifists who are open and responsible in their philosophies...but when someone falls into one of the three traps I outlined above, I have to hope that no damage to others will result.