pacifiers
Pacifiers - Today MSNBC says that “pacifists are evil”. As much as I enjoy seeing polemic turned against someone other than Microsoft, and as much as I disagree with some pacifist notions, I think the article is seriously logically flawed. A pacifist is someone who believes that violence is an ineffective method of solving problems. This belief manifests itself in two major ways: First, the pacifist refuses to participate in military or violent actions against others. Second, the pacifist will sometimes attempt to dissuade others from using violence, or perhaps even actively work to thwart the use of violence by others. The article makes the mistake of lumping all pacifist behaviors into the category of “actively thwarting” attempts of others to use force, and further assumes that pacifists only attempt to sabotage their own nations’ use of force. If this were true, pacifists would indeed be evil.
Fortunately, nothing in the pacifist credo says that pacifists must actively sabotage their own nations’ military efforts, and in fact there are plenty of ways that pacifists can (and do) contribute to their nations’ defenses. Many members of the American Red Cross are pacifists, and everyone can agree that the Red Cross have already played a significant role in protecting Americans. Nobody would call the work of the American Red Cross “evil”, although the work is clearly non-violent.
On the face, the author’s arguments seem logical:
- Premise: The terrorists used violence against innocent people who could not possibly have wronged them, so we cannot be safe unless we eliminate the terrorists.
- Premise: Pacifists do not want us to kill the terrorists.
- Conclusion: Therefore, pacifists want more people to be killed by terrorists.
It’s not very difficult to find the flaws in this proposition, though. The conclusion assumes that pacifists believe the first premise the same way that we do. In fact, the pacifists may believe that eliminating the terrorists will make things worse, and therefore they believe that they are in favor of saving American lives. Essentially, all the article does is point out that pacifists and non-pacifists have different beliefs. And there is no logical basis whatsoever for claiming that pacifists support more American deaths; they clearly think that we support more American deaths. And finally, even if we think that the pacifists are completely foolish, that does not “de facto” mean that they are “evil” or “the enemy”. In fact, someone once said “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” This is the very first freedom listed in the American Bill of Rights, and is what we are trying to defend. People have a right to believe what they want and say what they want, no matter how wrong they are. The author of the MSNBC article seems to think that free speech is the enemy, and not the thing that we are fighting to defend.
Now, the author tries dilligently to make the case that pacifists are somehow sabotaging those of us who believe that violence is necessary. I am sometimes annoyed by the apparent illogic of certain pacifists, but I am also smart enough to realize that other people’s annoying rhetoric is not the same as those people attempting to sabotage what I do. It is undoubtedly the case that some pacifists throughout history have worked actively to foil their own governments’ war efforts “in the name of pacifism”. But such treason is a completely orthogonal issue to pacifism. What if these pacifists put their efforts instead into convincing Bin Laden that violence was not an answer? What if they had begun ten years ago to work on Bin Laden and encouraged him to accept non-violence? Would we then call them traitors? When the pacifists provide humanitarian aid to the Americans harmed by the terrorists, do we call them traitors? Of course not! Someone who refuses to hold a gun is nonetheless capable of being a friend to those who do. If that friend also nags constantly for you to put down your gun, then at least you know that he feels free to share his opinions. On the other hand, if he tosses your gun into the river while you sleep; he is an enemy, and you are right to slide your knife between his ribs. But contrary to what MSNBC’s commentator would have you believe, pacifists aren’t all trying to take away your freedom to defend yourself. Some small number of pathological pacifists may be, but there are just as many non-pacifists who want to disarm you and sabotage your ability to defend yourself. The picture painted by the author is not a picture of a pacifist, but a picture of someone who would be evil regardless of whether or not they professed pacifism.