G.C.Field Pacifism and Conscientious Objection pub 1944 for arguments against pacifism

.

DEFINITION

Pacifism The doctrine or belief that it is desirable and possible to settle international disputes by peaceful means 1905 OED

More useful What do people commonly thought of as Pacifists say?

*Is it possible to settle all disputes by Peaceful means?

Wm Penn 17^th c Q seemed to say possible and desirable - cos we couldn't hurt people who we believe love us therefore "if men did once believe we love them, we should see they would not harm us" but then he only says "let us then try what love will do". His recipe worked in the sense that Quakers lived peacefully with native Americans in Pennsylvania

Sydney Bailey writing 1993 "The task will never be done. Peace is a process to engage in, not a goal to be reached"

Kathleen Lonsdale 1953 Friends are not naïve enough to believe that such an appeal to that of God in a dictator ..will necessarily be successful . Christ was crucified; Gandhi was assassinated. Yet they did not fail. Nor did they leave behind them the hatred, devastation and bitterness that war, successful or unsuccessful, does leave.

*Is Field right when he says Pacifism, in all its forms, asserts that all war (or, in some forms, all use of force) is wrong

No pacifist that I have come across supports the idea that all use of force is wrong. I have only found one who specifically says "Conscientious objection is NOT a total repudiation of force"

Let me fall back on Henry Neff, a character in a 2003 novel which is also a very modern fable. Motor cyclists had habit of circling round people in square outside his flat and harassing them. They did it to Henry Neff and he managed to break free. They did it to a visitor from Russia. Henry didn't even want to report to police. He tried to find the motor cyclists to talk to them, believing he could make them see reason. He couldn't find them. Then, he saw them doing it to the little Nigerian postman . Henry snapped and took his ice hockey stick and rushed to the aid of the postman. He knocked over at least one motor cyclist. They all fled, partly because the surrounding shop keepers came rushing out when they saw someone take a lead in doing something about it. The novelist highlights the wonderful inconsistency of Henry because he had Henry, a few days before this incident, embarrassed by reports that the rest of his ice hockey team had been laying into the motor cyclists with their hockey sticks.

Does it mean just giving in?

Kathleen Lonsdale again " all forms of non-violent resistance are certainly much better than appeasement, which has come to mean the avoidance of violence by a surrender to injustice at the expense of the sufferings of others and not of one's self, by GIVING AWAY OF SOMETHING WHICH IS NOT OURS TO GIVE"

MORAL CASE

What do I mean by moral case?

Field talks of the basis of moral judgement as "immediate intuition". "It takes the form of ., combination of an emotional reaction and an INTELLECTUAL JUDGEMENT in the presence of a concrete situation WHERE AN ACTUAL CHOICE OF ACTIONS IS BEFORE US". Field p. 74

I like it cos it recognises "gut feeling" (which he calls "emotional reaction")

It says use your brain too (intellectual judgement)

And it is proudly "situational morality" - "where an actual choice of actions is before us".

On the intellectual judgement issue Field condescendingly says that he respected a simple statement of " "I couldn't do it" from an uneducated man. I would also respect gut feeling of "I couldn't do it" in the most educated person. Field also condescendingly criticised COs cos he as philospher thought they hadn't thought through their case properly. He did not discuss the extent to which most conscripts had thought through their reasons for fighting.

*Moral cases for pacifism often start from sanctity of life. Religious people talk of children of God or of "that of God within all people. On its own this is not enough. The bishop who blessed the gun probably talked of children of God too.

For Pacifists the special bit is concern for people however distant in geography and time, and whether they are enemies or allies. I quoted Kathleen Lonsdale saying pacifists couldn't support appeasement which meant indifference to the"sufferings of others". It was not pacifists who defended the Munich agreement to allow Hitler into Czechoslovakia, which was the heart of "appeasement" by saying the Czechs were "far away people of whom we know little".

concern for the killer. Katherine Lonsdale again, "The real horror is not that we may be bombed but that we should ever think of using the bomb on anyone else" . Pacifists tend to have a gut feeling that we violate ourselves if we kill or encourage others to kill. Marlene quoted Martin Luther King putting the same thing positively "non violence enobles the person who wields it".

Personal responsibility Kenneth Barnes expressed another gut feeling shared by many pacifists when he said "conscientious objection is a refusal to surrender moral responsibility for one's action" This idea that we can't just leave these things to God or the Government is strong in most pacifists.

The refusal to surrender moral responsibility explains why some conscientious objectors said to their tribunal "I am already doing fire watching or farming or hospital work voluntarily but if you order me to, I will have to stop".

PRAGMATIC CASE

I mean judging by results

Some passivists make a case for just doing the right thing regardless of results, "But failure does not matter. All that matters is the right way should be tried" Hoyland

"A good end cannot sanctify evil means" Wm Penn. I'm more pragmatic.. In principle, I could support a war which made the world a better place but the difference is academic. None of the wars recently on offer have a reasonable chance of making the world better.

* Killing or maiming are irreversible. So even is enlisting in the sense that you committ yourself to follow orders to kill. Pacifist action is nearly always reversible. That is why the argument "We must do something about this horrible atrocity. We don't know what to do so lets bomb on spec" is so awful

* 1939-45 is supposed to be the big example of a necesssary and successful war. PERHAPS by 1939 fighting was least worst option BUT our neighbour who fought right through it said was now a pacifist because it didn't achieve its war aims Poland leading to Vilna street Bon the W. Foreseeable by polish air woman who still flew combat. What purpose did she serve?

For some people saving the Jews may have been part of the aim but nothing special was done about it by the belligerent. Kindertransport was arranged with difficulty primarily by pacifists.

*Sierra Leone or Liberia might be least worst when the mobs are out of control but cf not making mineral contracts or diamond sales valuable, serious development aid, earlier intervention by peace keepers

* Perhaps we had to bomb Kosovo and Serbia to stop massacres But actually the massacres got worse when the bombing started and earlier a request for 2000 observers had met by 1300. Britain could have sent the extra 700 for less than the cost of the bombing

*We've tried it so often. Afghanistan this is third time we have done it for reasons connected with power politics rather than cos we feared Afghans " Kabul Towns By Kabul River" Nottingham Castle

Iraq There is some truth in the idea that the British army does a more effective job than the US in Iraq now. We smugly say its because we have experience in Ireland, A more convincing case is that we tried all these things in Iraq in the 1920s. Then we bombed villages and killed innocent people to teach them a lesson and imposed an undemocratic government to protect oil interests. It didn't work . We got kicked out. I for one can't be proud that practice has made "our boys" better than the USA at doing that kind of thing

*Mungo Park First exped was with one man and a mule. He came back alive. Second was with a company of armed men. The Nigerians feared him. He attracted corruption and they ambushed and killed him and his party because they wrongly thought he hadn't paid the protection bribe.

* Reasons for hope in email and web, in globalised info, in role of women and leaderless groups and nvda (Suffragettes succeeded) Systematised knowledge -. School of Peace Studies at Bradford

For USA and UK lowered body bag count is attractive but no tradition of heroism to keep it going

WHAT TO DO- INDIVIDUAL ACTION.

.*Imagination Wise men of Gotham Avoided conscription by giving the impression they were mad. If you doubt it drive from East Leake to Nottingham to see their attempt to keep summer here by keeping a cuckoo here commemmorated on a pub sign

*Handling conflict

Don't hide your truth but speak it at right time and without contempt, bitternesss and hatred

Listen and not only to words but to feelings and needs behind the words.

Let go not in the sense of giving up, lying down, and inviting people to walk all over us but acknowledging that there may be other solutions to the conflict than the ones we have thought of yet

* Respect humanity of those who use force or defend bases.

* Live simply War is often battle for scarce resources

WHAT TO DO - STATE ACTION

* Stop arms sales

* Support for UN throws up problems as it may support coercive action and it may be incompetent and it may kowtow to aggressor USA. However, we could abandon our nuclear weapons. Become nuclear free zone (ie no Lakenheaath etc) Play leadership role in peace promoting activities of UN. Help steer Europe in right direction

* Oppressed who use violence

"How could I for example preach to the oppressed of Latin America or Southern Africa. Nevertheless, I explain to them that I do not believe in violence as either effective or moral; my job is to try to help people who can see no effective alternative to violence to find a substitute." Adam Curle the first professor in the Dept of Peace Studies at Bradford Univ 1981

.* Information/ Intelligence. Before we decide to kill people far away, make better job of getting accurate info about what the supposed oppressed really want orwhat the effect of our intervention is likely to be. If US and Britain are interested in influencing oil areas of Middle East how come the US especially are so short of speakers of Arabic. "Don't kill anyone till you can communicate with them in their own language".

.

* Education Educate children away from thinking conflicts have to be settled by someone in authority. Get them at earliest age to take responsibility for resolving conflicts, to look for " win-win " solutions.