It's a valuable commentary, but he slides over certain things.
First, one must consider the difference between the pure pacifist, who refuses to engage in war under any conditions, including, for example, those British pacifists who refused to fight Hitler in WW II, and the situational pacifist, who, for example, declared that the Vietnam War was wrong and wouldn't participate in it, but who would have participated in WW II if called on, or would have fought to defend our nation if it had been invaded.
IMO, pure pacifism is a personal philosophy. I don't see any responsible basis for arguing that total pacifism is a legitimate basis for national policy. Pacifists are perfectly entitled to give up their lives for their beliefs. They are NOT entitled to ask that I give my my life for their beliefs. Therefore, pure pacifists should not be advocating the adoption by government of their principles, but should be content to live their own lives according to their beliefs. Sort of like the Shakers, who were perfectly entitled to be celibate, but who had to recognize that if the entire world were celibate, that would be the end of the human race.
So the only legitimate basis for the "peace" marches going on today, I believe, can be based on situational pacifism. That while war in some situations may be necessary and legitimate, bombing Afghanistan today would not be. That's not so much a pure philosophical position, as a pragmatic argument based on philosophical underpinnings. And those who hold it should be prepared for others to disgree, sometimes vehemently, with their interpretation of the right course of action to take today. |
