Editing Pacifism (section)

==Criticism==
One common argument against pacifism is the possibility of using violence to prevent further acts of violence (and reduce the "net-sum" of violence). This argument hinges on [[consequentialism]]: an otherwise morally objectionable action can be justified if it results in a positive outcome. For example, either violent rebellion, or foreign nations sending in troops to end a dictator's violent oppression may save millions of lives, even if many thousands died in the war. Those pacifists who base their beliefs on [[deontology|deontological]] grounds would oppose such violent action. Others would oppose organized military responses but support individual and small group self-defense against specific attacks if initiated by the dictator's forces. Pacifists may argue that military action could be justified should it subsequently advance the general cause of peace.

Still more pacifists would argue that a nonviolent reaction may not save lives immediately but would in the long run. The acceptance of violence for any reason makes it easier to use in other situations. Learning and committing to pacifism helps to send a message that violence is, in fact, not the most effective way. It can also help people to think more creatively and find more effective ways to stop violence without more violence.

In light of the common criticism of pacifism as not offering a clear alternative policy, one approach to finding "more effective ways" has been the attempt to develop the idea of "defence by [[civil resistance]]", also called "[[social defence]]". This idea, which is not necessarily dependent on acceptance of pacifist beliefs, is based on relying on [[nonviolent resistance]] against possible threats, whether external (such as invasion) or internal (such as [[coup d'état]]).
[[File:Ghetto Vilinus.gif|thumb|Jewish armed resistance against the Nazis during World War II]]

There have been some works on this topic, including by [[Adam Roberts (scholar)|Adam Roberts]]<ref>Adam Roberts, ed. ''The Strategy of Civilian Defence: Non-violent Resistance to Aggression'', Faber, London, 1967. (Also published as ''Civilian Resistance as a National Defense'', Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, USA, 1968; and, with a new Introduction on "Czechoslovakia and Civilian Defence", as ''Civilian Resistance as a National Defence'', Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, UK, and Baltimore, US, 1969. {{ISBN|0140210806}}.)</ref> and [[Gene Sharp]].<ref>Gene Sharp, ''Social Power and Political Freedom'', Porter Sargent, Boston, 1980, pp.&nbsp;195–261. {{ISBN|0875580939}} (paperback); and ''Civilian-based Defence: A Post-military Weapons System'', Princeton University Press, 1990. {{ISBN|0691078092}}.</ref> However, no country has adopted this approach as the sole basis of its defence.<ref>[[Adam Roberts (scholar)|Adam Roberts]], in Roberts and Garton Ash (ed.), ''Civil Resistance and Power Politics'', Introduction, p. 12.</ref> (For further information and sources see [[social defence]].)

Axis aggression that precipitated [[World War II]] has been cited as an argument against pacifism.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Rempel |first1=Michael |title=The Dilemmas of British Pacifists during World War 2 |journal=Journal of Modern History |date=1978 |volume=50 |issue=4 |pages=D1213–D1229 |doi=10.1086/241842 |jstor=1877299 |s2cid=143552484 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1877299}}</ref> If these forces had not been challenged and defeated militarily, the argument goes, many more people would have died under their oppressive rule. [[Adolf Hitler]] told the British Foreign Secretary [[Edward Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax|Lord Halifax]] in 1937 that the British should "shoot Gandhi, and if this doesn't suffice to reduce them to submission, shoot a dozen leading members of the Congress, and if that doesn't suffice shoot 200, and so on, as you make it clear that you mean business."<ref>Ghose, Sankar (1992). ''Jawaharlal Nehru, A Biography'', [https://books.google.com/books?id=MUeyUhVGIDMC&pg=PA138 p. 138]. Allied Publishers Limited.</ref>

[[Adolf Hitler]] noted in his [[Second Book]]: "...&nbsp;Later, the attempt to adapt the living space to increased population turned into unmotivated wars of conquest, which in their very lack of motivation contained the germ of the subsequent reaction. Pacifism is the answer to it. Pacifism has existed in the world ever since there have been wars whose meaning no longer lay in the conquest of territory for a Folk's sustenance. Since then it has been war's eternal companion. It will again disappear as soon as war ceases to be an instrument of booty hungry or power hungry individuals or nations, and as soon as it again becomes the ultimate weapon with which a Folk fights for its daily bread."<ref>[[q:Adolf Hitler#The Second book (1928)]]</ref>

[[Hermann Göring]] described, during an interview at the [[Nuremberg Trials]], how denouncing and outlawing pacifism was an important part of the Nazis' seizure of power: "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."<ref>[[q:Hermann Göring#Nuremberg Diary (1947)]]</ref>

Some commentators on the most nonviolent forms of pacifism, including [[Jan Narveson]], argue that such pacifism is a self-contradictory doctrine. Narveson claims that everyone has rights and corresponding responsibilities not to violate others' rights. Since pacifists give up their ability to protect themselves from violation of their right not to be harmed, then other people thus have no corresponding responsibility, thus creating a paradox of rights. Narveson said that "the prevention of infractions of that right is precisely what one has a right to when one has a right at all." Narveson then discusses how rational persuasion is a good but often inadequate method of discouraging an aggressor. He considers that everyone has the right to use any means necessary to prevent deprivation of their civil liberties, and force could be necessary.<ref>Narveson, January 1965. "Pacifism: A Philosophical Analysis." ''Ethics'', LXXV: 4, pp.&nbsp;259–271.</ref> [[Peter Gelderloos]] criticizes the idea that nonviolence is the only way to fight for a better world. According to Gelderloos, pacifism as an ideology serves the interests of the state and is hopelessly caught up psychologically with the control schema of patriarchy and white supremacy.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Gelderloos |first=Peter |title=How Nonviolence Protects the State |publisher=South End Press |year=2007 |isbn=978-0896087729 |location=Cambridge, MA |page=128}}</ref> [[Anne Appelbaum]] has argued that advocating pacifism in response to the [[Russo-Ukrainian War]] overlooks the lessons of history, as surrendering territory and principles enables atrocities, and early military support for Ukraine might have deterred the invasion, revealing that misguided pacifism can sometimes lead to greater conflict.<ref>Appelbaum, Anne.  [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/russia-ukraine-democracy-applebaum/680318/ "The West Has to Believe That ...."] ''The Atlantic''.  20 October 2024.  21 October 2024.</ref>