On the face of it, who could disagree with such sound logic? A person must prioritize the love or help he or she supplies in a given, specific instance, right? It would certainly seem so. He elaborates:. Hence those rules which so far as I know have never been doubted, as that we should help one we have promised to help rather than another, or a benefactor rather than one who has no special claims on us, or a compatriot more than a stranger, or a kinsman rather than a mere compatriot.
And this fact most often means helping A at the expense of B, who drowns while you pull A on board. And sooner or later, it involves helping A by actually doing some degree of violence to B. That quickly, pragmatism has already led Lewis—quite logically—to violate even his own, irrefutable intuition. Mere sentences beforehand, Lewis explains that pacifism has a misunderstood intuition. A more trustworthy intuition is that love and help are good while hatred and harm bad.
First, those to whom we have promised help are to be prioritized over those to whom we have promised nothing. In what way does such a hierarchy reflect the nature of God? Each family, community, nation, and so on would only care for themselves. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves.
This is what God does. He gives his best—the sun to warm and the rain to nourish—to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty. If all you do is love the lovable, do you expect a bonus? Anybody can do that. If you simply say hello to those who greet you, do you expect a medal? Any run-of-the-mill sinner does that.
Now live like it. Live out your God-created identity. Live generously and graciously toward others, the way God lives toward you. Matthew , The Message. Enemy-love is scandalous precisely because it runs counter of our intuition informed by the type of logic Lewis here applies.
Yet Jesus called them to a different and greater ethic, and by extension he calls us to that very ethic as well. More on this later. Lewis does not entertain any other possible ethic in this portion of his essay and his ethic continues to deteriorate the further he proceeds down the rabbit hole of pragmatism.
After assuming the pacifist society to which he writes his address agrees with him thus far p. The first is that violence against an individual who seeks to harm someone higher up on the hierarchy of love and help is permissible short of killing the person. In his efforts to debunk these two possibilities he makes at least one logical error and one historical-cultural error.
In this argument Lewis writes,. I admit the general proposition that the lesser violence done to B is always preferable to the greater, provided that it is equally efficient in restraining him and equally good for everyone concerned, including B, whose claim is inferior to all the other claims involved but not nonexistent.
This assumes an inequality of good to the two parties. In the proposed scenario, A receives love and help while B cannot. Lewis even uses the example of two people drowning. Any violence, either lesser or greater, enacted upon person B for the sake of person A, will necessarily be less good for person B than person A.
In fact, the very reason violence is being enacted on anyone at all is because Lewis has forced us to choose which one we will love or help over the other. To build his case, Lewis attempts to prove that war is not the greatest evil. And two examples he uses of greater evils strike me as particularly alarming. The doctrine that war is always a greater evil seems to imply a materialist ethic, a belief that death and pain are the greatest evils.
But I do not think they are. I think the suppression of a higher religion by a lower, or even a higher secular culture by a lower, a much greater evil. Nor am I greatly moved by the fact that many of the individuals we strike down in war are innocent. That seems, in a way, to make war not worse but better. Several things should be said here. First, it is entirely unnecessary for a person to accept the doctrine Lewis describes to affirm a pacifist stance.
Adultery is not the greatest evil yet it is clearly precluded from permissible Christian activity. Christian pacifism is not predicated on the evil nature of war, but on righteous discipleship of Jesus Christ.
Second, Lewis accuses this thinking of ascribing to a materialist ethic that values life and health above all else. This accusation strikes me as surprising. Could not the same be said of the Just War proponent? Is not the Christian who claims it is necessary to protect life through war also valuing life above all else? Third, Lewis provides two examples of evils he considers greater than war.
Lewis is a former soldier and proud English patriot living in —perhaps merely months after the invasion of Poland. Nevertheless, even though Nazism was certainly an evil, racist, fascist, totalitarian, nationalistic and ideological movement, one is hard-pressed to argue that it was primarily a religious movement. In fact, Nazi-controlled Germany maintained at least the facade of a Christian civil religion. In what sense, then, could Lewis consider the relevant war on the minds of his hearers primarily a religious war?
And both sides of the Civil War claimed the divine support of the Christian God. What greater evil is there than Christians killing each other in obedience to the civil authorities of their respective nations? However, I must say that this point made me very uncomfortable. What standard is being applied to determine the value of culture? The strategy Lewis considers is another strange idea that seems to come from nowhere.
Unless Lewis is addressing some written or spoken pacifist campaign it seems to be yet another Man-of-Straw. He counters the plan to eliminate war by the spread of pacifism as a philosophical idea by the use of propaganda. The plan is apparently to inundate nations with so many pacifists that an army could not be formed. In the second century, c.
Origen c. For the men of God are the salt that preserves the early order of the world; the earthly things hold together only as long as the salt is not corrupted. Against Celsus, 8. The Christian response to the threats of enemies is increased trust in God. When Lewis finally turns to consider the authority component of the pacifist conscience, he divides it further into two parts: general and special, human and divine.
In his exploration of special human authority, Lewis demonstrates one of the most fundamental errors in his thinking. From the very beginning of the essay, to the very end, Lewis considers himself first a citizen of England and second a disciple of Jesus Christ. The Christian has only one allegiance because the Christian has only one Lord. Jesus Christ does not share his subjects with England, the United States, or any other worldly power.
He demands that if he is our Master, he alone rules in our hearts and commands our lives. When Lewis broadens his gaze to general human authority, his argument gains no further weight. Perhaps an interesting aside: Iceland has had no standing army since and considers its role in hosting the Reagan-Gorbachev summit which contributed to the ending of the Cold War one of its proudest political accomplishments.
If Scripture is correct and the whole world is under the control of the evil one Luke ; I John ; II Corinthians , then we should expect to see widespread evil and nearly unanimous agreement on violence and killing. Take Iraq for example. If 30, Iraqis are being killed unjustly each and every year, how is that peace? Pacifists fail to realize that in some instances war is the only way to achieve peace. To free the Iraqis from the unjust and tyrannical rule of Saddam and his sons, America intervened.
Our intervention did not disrupt peace, because there was no peace to begin with. It is true that had we not intervened there would be no war, but neither would there have been peace. Evil and injustice would have been permitted to flourish. Our efforts in Iraq are efforts to bring justice where there was once injustice, and secure a peaceful future for Iraq. How do pacifists suggest we stop evil? The usual response is that we talk with the enemy, trying to persuade them to stop committing the evil they are committing.
Some will suggest economic sanctions should those talks be unsuccessful. But what do we do when the summits, the peace talks, and the sanctions aren't working? How long do we continue trying to reason with the unreasonable? I often wonder what the world would look like if pacifists had their way during the reign of Hitler. Every year hundreds of thousands of Jews were being exterminated like fleas at the hands of a madman. Do we really think peace summits would have stopped Hitler?
Every year we "kept up the talks" would have been another year in which , Jews went to their graves. How long do we let injustice continue when talks are not working? If pacifists were in power I am afraid they would have continued talking until there was nothing left to talk about, because the entire Jewish race would have been exterminated. I have yet to find a pacifist who really has a plan for stopping evil without force. They advocate talking indefinitely.
Pacifism is a nice ideal, but it can only work in an ideal world. Until then, we are left to live in a world that is full of evil men who will stop at nothing to fulfill their evil desires at the expense of the innocent. In that world we have a moral obligation to use force when necessary to protect those innocent people. That is why absolute pacifism must be rejected as moral foolishness, despite its honorable intentions. War is a human behaviour which is destructive.
In addition to the loss of life, irreplaceable historical and cultural treasures are eradicated in the destruction of war. As war is human-centred it has no regard for other species, nor the impact or well being of the environment. Showing self control and offering positive choices in the face of danger nurtures hope for a better world. It is a responsibility of a nation's citizens to resist and defend a nation against tyranny and aggression.
As it is not possible to prove intention, it is easy for someone to claim they are a pacifist with the intention of avoiding their civic responsibility to defend a nation. World religions have sanctioned "just" and "holy" wars as part of their role, thus making war ethical.
Although pacifism may be principled, it does not take account of the real world where the only strategy to counter brutality and cruelty is with force. Pacifism as national policy for a nation is not possible as it will only work if no-one wants to attack, or the nation with whom you are in dispute is also committed to pacifism.
States may only flourish when their citizens live in extended times of stability and peace. A strong national defensive capability is therefore essential. In an editorial in the Times Literary Supplement wrote: "We have discovered that there is something more horrible than war - the killing of the spirit in the body, the Nazi contempt for the individual man. The world reeks with the foulness of the crimes in occupied Europe, where a Dark Age has begun anew. There are times when people have a moral obligation to fight in war.
Adopting A Position It is crucial both sides of the argument approach one another's opinions with respect, and think openly and honestly about the issues. Pacifism raises uncomfortable moral and social dilemmas that are at the root of identity and nationhood. Humans are essentially social animals, and when something threatens their way of life, their impulse is to act.
Pacifism requires that humans exert control, and this is opposed to our defensive instinct which is magnified in times of crises. For and Against Pacifism. A Dialogue "The force and momentum for change in society should be non-violent" - A Discussion Pacivism encourages debate, and as we talk, we consider and learn from one another. Meeting violence with violence does not lead to long term peace Moral and religious texts have taught that meeting violence with violence leads to further violence.
War endangers non-combatants Despite attempts to limit "collateral damage" civilians of all ages are killed in times of war. The threat of conflict is an opportunity for positive change No society is perfect.
0コメント