Skip to main content

Pacifism

In light of Veteran's Day, I thought it would be appropriate to highlight the words of C.S. Lewis in a speech he made in 1940 to a pacifist society at Oxford, titled "Why I am Not a Pacifist." Exploring the foundations of a man's conscientious objection to war--facts, intuition, and reason-- he argues that the pacifist position does not stand up to scrutiny.

Regarding the facts, he addresses the position "Wars do more harm than good," arguing that the claims both for and against this position are speculative. No one can prove whether the consequences of avoiding a war would have been preferable to the consequences of going to war because no one can compare an actual event to one that never happened.

Continuing with a discussion of intuition as a foundation of pacifism, Lewis defines intuition as an unarguable truth, one with which no moral man would disagree. He then claims that the important intuition in the pacifist stance is the idea that helping others is good and hurting others is bad. Moving from this proposition, he asks whether reason allows us to conclude whether war is the greatest evil. While you are helping one man, he argues, it is sometimes necessary not to help--indeed, sometimes to harm--another man. If one man is doing evil to another man, you the observer must either do nothing or help one man and not the other.

Moreover, Lewis continues, war is not the greatest of all evils. Such a position seems materialist in nature, founded on the belief that death and pain are the worst evils. To Lewis, however, the subversion of a relatively moral religion or secular society by a less moral one is a greater evil. Even the deaths of innocent men fighting for something to which they are wholly and unselfishly committed is not the worst evil in our world. Attempting to end war altogether by making men pacifists will not work, either. Since only liberal societies accept pacifists, a liberal state whose pacifists discourage it from war will remain vulnerable to outside (totalitarian) states that care nothing for pacifists.

Finally, here, Lewis concludes his examination of intuition by discussing utopia. There seems to be no evidence that we are able to rid ourselves of suffering. It is better, he explains, to do the best we can to fight each evil as it appears. Thus, limiting the damage done by one specific military campaign does more good than all efforts to promote universal peace.

Discussing authority next, he divides his argument into human and divine authority. First, if we look to human authority, we find that the consensus of human history, current societies, and great human teachers overwhelmingly fall in support of righteous wars. With regard to divine authority, Lewis cites Jesus's words that a man, when struck, must turn the other cheek. Applying these words in support of pacifism, however, is misguided. He was speaking against vengeance, not war, and it was with this perspective--in the daily experience of living village life with others-- that Jesus' audience would have understood his words. That one of the few people Jesus praised was a Roman centurion, and that Lewis's position fits with the words of both Paul and Peter, who approve the use of the sword in Romans and First Peter, further supports his conclusion against pacifism.

Lewis concludes by asking his pacifist audience whether there might be a corrupting passion causing them to adopt pacifism, a fear of losing one's life and lifestyle to war, and I found here the most poignant expression of why we should appreciate veterans:
For let us make no mistake. All that we fear from all the kinds of adversity, severally, is collected together in the life of a soldier on active service. Like sickness, it threatens pain and death. Like poverty, it threatens ill lodging, cold, heat, thirst, and hunger. Like slavery, it threatens toil, humiliation, injustice, and arbitrary rule. Like exile, it separates you from all you love. Like the gallies, it imprisons you at close quarters with uncongenial companions. It threatens every temporal evil--every evil expect dishonour and final perdition....
He reminds his audience that moral questions cannot be proven as can other kinds of questions, so that it is not certain whether pacifism is not the correct position: "It may be, after all, that Pacifism is right. But it seems to me very long odds, longer odds than I would care to take with the voice of almost all humanity against me."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Heroes

Although we have several examples of heroes in our day, one of the best known is of a woman named Agnes Gonxhe Bojaxhiu (“Gonja Bojaju”), who devoted her life to sustaining the “poor, sick, orphaned, and dying.” Her venue was Calcutta, India, where she served as a teacher until she began to take notice of the poverty there. Seeking to do something about it, she began an organization that consisted of just thirteen members at its inception. Called the “Missionaries of Charity,” the organization would eventually burgeon into well over 5,000 members worldwide, running approximately 600 missions, schools and shelters in 120 countries; and caring for the orphaned, blind, aged, disabled, and poor. As her personal work expanded, she traveled to countries like Lebanon, where she rescued 37 children from a hospital by pressing for peace between Israel and Palestine; to Ethiopia, where she traveled to help the hungry; to Chernobyl, Russia, to assist victims of the nuclear meltdown there; and to ...

The Nice Guy Fallacy

I read part of a poem recently by one of my favorite poets. It reads: I envy not in any moods The captive void of noble rage The linnet born within the cage That never knew the summer woods. I envy not the beast that takes His license in the field of time Unfetter'd by the sense of crime To whom a conscience never wakes. Nor what may call itself as bles't The heart that never plighted troth But stagnates in the weeds of sloth Nor any want-begotten rest. I hold it true, whate'er befall I feel it, when I sorrow most 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. At base, Tennyson contrasted a life of risk, and consequent pain, with one of security. He sides conclusively with the life of risk, and says he fails to envy those who have faced no hardship. I agree with him; and, for good or ill, his words are just as relevant today as they were in the nineteenth century. Like then, there are those today who choose to live their lives with as little risk as...

Comparative Medical Care

One thing I'd like to understand is why there is such a difference between medical costs here and those in Haiti. At the time the book Mountains Beyond Mountains was written, in 2003, it often cost $15,000 to $20,000 annually to treat a patient with tuberculosis, while it cost one one-hundredth of that-- $150 to $200-- to treat a patient for the disease in Haiti. Even if the figures aren't completely accurate, the sheer difference would still be there. Indeed, the United States pays more per capita for medical care than any other country on Earth. My first guess for why the disparity exists is that there is a market willing and able to pay more for medical treatment, so suppliers see the demand and respond with higher prices. According to at least one doctor (go to http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/05/what_is_the_cause_of_excess_co.php), part of the reason is administrative prices here. People here have a higher standard of living, and so the cost of care is shifted to ...