Matt posed a hard question to me in my last blog:
"...you mentioned that we all sin even in doing good. Assuming that pacifism is the moral alternative to war, doesn't it follow that pacifists will be judged as well for alterior motives in their pacifism?"
Let me elucidate some of my reasoning to date as well as some of the tacit reasoning within Matt's question and show its logical end before I address the question in full.
Proposition in question: Pacifists are morally superior to aggressors.
Premise 1: Every non divine person sins to some extent, even when doing good.
Premise 2: Pacifists are non divine.
Conclusion 1: Pacifists sin to some extent when doing good.
Premise 1: In any given moment of time when a person sins he is incapable of being morally superior to other people.
Premise 2: Pacifists sin to some extent when doing good.
Conclusion 2: When Pacifists do good they are not morally superior to other people.
Defeater: Pacifists are not morally superior to aggressors, even when they do good.
This is sound logic. However, one might object and say that while the pacifist is not morally superior, pacifism is a morally superior action compared to aggression. The premise here is that pacifism is morally superior in that it does not take human life, liberty, or health. On the other hand, aggression ends life and ruins limb without the ability to restore such things. (As a side note pertaining to YHWH and His action in the world, this objection does not rule out the idea that a morally perfect being could justifiably carry out aggression or that an omnipotent being could carry out aggression with the ability of future restoration. ) The objection points to the reality that pacifism can be a morally good option available to morally imperfect people. While the pacifist will no doubt sin while carrying out his pacifist actions, his sin will have not been pacifism. It will have been some vice such as cowardice or negligence. On the other hand, the violent aggressor will no doubt sin while carrying out his actions; his sin will have been violent aggression.
Matt has shown that unless the action of violent human aggression is innately evil, then pacifism cannot be a morally commendable course of action when compared to aggression. As Matt also pointed out, a pacifist is not exempt from judgment for moral wrong doing while she is partaking in a morally good pacifist action.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
That makes a lot of sense. The question remaining in my head is, when is "necessary evil" (i.e. ends justify means) necessary, to the exclusion of the morally superior choice of nonviolence?
Thanks for your comments, Matt. Your questions are really helping me engage the issue of national aggression at a deeper level than before. Cheers.
War is never justified. I am willing to grant that one may correctly consider it necessary, but I am unwilling to grant that one can correctly consider it to be justified by the ends. It is always wrong and sometimes necessary. By that statement you can tell that I am not a pacifist. Unlike me, the pacifist would say that necessity is never a factor and therefore aggression is never to be adopted.
You ask when necessary evil is necessary? It is necessary when every last option has been pursued to pave the way for international peace accords or to stand up on behalf of the weak. Currently I am examining Darfur and the possible role of US international policy in preventing the exploitation of the weak.
Stay tuned for when I look into Japanese-American diplomatic relations leading up to the American involvement in WWII.
Nice!
Looking forward to it.
I like it......helps me organize some of my thoughts on the issue.
Post a Comment