|
Martialism: Only Force Answers
Force
By Phil Elmore
 Since
men do not automatically come to the same conclusions, no code
of ethics can escape the present issue. The moralist has to tell
men how to act when they disagree (assuming they do not simply
go their separate ways).
In essence, there are only two
viewpoints on this issue, because there are only two basic
methods by which one can deal with a dispute. The methods are
reason or force; seeking to persuade others to share one’s ideas
voluntarily, or coercing others into doing what one wishes
regardless of their ideas.
Excerpted from
Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, by Leonard Peikoff
|
David’s
column for this issue was prompted by my original polemic directed at pacifism.
While his response makes some very good points, the fundamental problem
of pacifism remains.
Life and
human interaction cannot be conducted without recourse to force. It
would be wonderful if this was possible. It would be
wonderful if we could all live peacefully in harmony with one
another. This, however, will always be impossible. It is in
the nature of some portion of humanity to attempt to impose its will on
others — to use coercion. Coercion may take many forms, but it
invariably comes down to the willingness to do violence to someone else in
order to make them do something they do not wish to do.
The
primary objection to my original pacifism column has been built around the
idea that one need not use violence to resist an aggressor.
Noncompliance, passive resistance — these are the tools of the pacifist
standing behind his or her moral principles, according to my
critics. They historical figures like Gandhi and Jesus Christ to
make the point.
Well, okay;
I’ll grant you that pacifists may indeed choose to resist by refusing to
comply. Ask yourself, however: what do we know about Gandhi and Jesus Christ?
They’re dead.
That’s right: they died for their beliefs
and those beliefs have had lasting effects in society. Those effects
don’t change the fact that they’re dead, however, and that has always been
my primary objection to pacifism.
Counting
on an enemy to become disgusted with his unanswered aggression, or to
become bored and wander off in search of someone who will gratify his
aggression with a less “enlightened” response, is a strategy
that might work on a community level. (I think David and I both
agree that it does not work at the individual level — at the level
of personal self-defense.) However, what if the stated and explicit goal
of the enemy is to kill your community? What if they want
to destroy you utterly, raze your buildings, salt your fields and plow
them under?
The answer is
simple. You do what enlightened men and women have done before
you. You die.
What
of one’s moral obligation to face aggression? Those who install car
alarms or steering wheel clubs on their vehicles could be said to be
practicing a form of passive resistance. Thieves may still take the
car or its contents, but the presence of the security device is seen as an
irritant that prompts the thieves to move on to more suitable candidates,
candidates without such security devices.
When
protecting one’s vehicle in this fashion, one does not really deter
crime; one simply shifts it to someone else.
If
failure to gratify an aggressor with an equally aggressive response
(against which he may then justify his aggression) will prompt him to
become bored and go away, or to seek other victims who will give him the
response he desires, how has the pacifist avoided violence? He has,
in fact, spread violence to another party entirely, thus creating
more evil, more problems, more uses of force. In this way, pacifism
again achieves the opposite of its stated goals.
Historical
examples of “successful” pacifism focus on the societal changes
or benefits created by the pacifists in question — the legacies they left
to those who came after them. How, then, is a legacy of shifted
violence preferable to one of having fought and died for more active
principles?
If, instead, we face
aggressors with force, dealing with them in the only language they
understand, settling the conflict with finality and understanding that we
did not choose the use of force (it was chosen by the aggressor), we
create a far greater legacy. We hinder aggressors in their
actions. We make it more difficult for them to victimize
others.
States that enact
“shall-issue” concealed carry laws for firearms invariably see a
decrease in violent crime. This is usually attributed to the fact
that societal predators suddenly have no way of knowing who might be able
to face them with lethal force. This is not just individual
self-defense; this is a community benefiting from the collective
perception that its citizens, as a body, are willing to fight back with
more than passive acceptance or noncompliance.
An
aggressive enemy rarely self-destructs when confronted with an easy
victory. That enemy will instead take that easy victory and revel
in it. Even if a society managed to repel an aggressive foe by so
disgusting that foe with its actions that the enemy moved elsewhere, the
pacifist society would be guilty of harming the enemy’s subsequent victims
by proxy — through inaction and the refusal to face evil.
Attempting
to survive and prosper in life while refusing to use force when confronted
with it is like attempting to travel while refusing to use wheels and
wings. It can be done — but you will suffer for it. Violence
may “beget” violence — but only superior force truly answers
initiated force.
|
Pacifism: The Case for the Gentle Path
By David W. Pearson
 XLIII
98 The most submissive thing in the world can ride roughshod over the hardest
in the world — that which is without substance entering that which has no
crevices.
99 That is why I know the benefit of resorting to no action. The teaching that
uses no words, the benefit of resorting to no action, these are beyond the
understanding of all but a very few in the world.”
pg 104. Tao Te Ching – Lao Tzu
Penguin Classics, 1963
translated by D.C. Lau – – Professor of Chinese and
Literature at the Chinese university of Hong Kong. |
The
doctrine of pacifism is not one that is easily understood by those who do
not grasp the concepts of inner peace and external peace. Those who sometimes call themselves
pacifists do not realize the true nature of to what they
are subscribing. I start this article clearly stating that I am not a pacifist by true definition. I consider myself a
spiritual man, sometimes
partaking in the role of pacifist, other times partaking in he role of spiritual
warrior.
Webster’s defines pacifism as “the policy dealing with the
establishment of universal peace between all nations; opposition to
violence or war as a means of settling problems or disputes.”
Pacifism is an age-old doctrine that has proved successful for thousands of
years. Many would have you believe that no progress has ever been made without
the use of force in our world, citing world wars, great leaders who were violent
at times, and tragedies that have befallen otherwise peaceful people. I disagree
with this thought process — and so do many others.
Lao Tzu authored the Tao Te Ching as far back as
the first century CE, as far as history can tell us. It is widely believed to be “the” classic
piece of
literature in Chinese culture and among material expressing the tenets of Taoism.
The expression of pacifism is not lying down while you are trampled over by an aggressor
no matter what the situation or cost. This is a common misconception among those
who have not grasped the concept of this process. Each of us is a human being,
with emotions and instincts just like any other. Our reaction to a violent act
towards our personal selves, as the human animal, is nearly the same as any
other creature on the planet — at first.
What separates us from the beasts is that we have the ability to process what is
happening to us and take that information to the next level of understanding —
why? Let me set an example similar to Phil’s example:
A village (instead of an individual) is attacked — struck if you will, by a
group of violent aggressors. The village decides not to fight, but to allow the
attacks to happen. The aggressors will succeed in causing harm among the village
folk. There may be injury, atrocity, even death. Over time, the aggressors
will take over the village and have their way.
The way of the pacifist, the strategy used, is not to fight, but simply not to
comply with the aggressor. Eventually, the aggressor will have only two options
left: destroy the village that its forces have expended all their efforts to
take and destroy the people they have come to conquer, or do something completely different.
It is within the nature of those who possess violent and aggressive souls to find another
target on which to take out that aggression out upon. They may move on to another place,
finding more “interesting” prey — similar to predators in the wild. They may
become enlightened, witnessing the strength of the conviction of those they came
to conquer, and cease their violent acts. Yet again, they may take action
against their own for the “failure” in breaking the pacifists’ wills, thus causing
their own destruction.
There have been many cases of the pacifist strategy working in the past and
present. I will only cite three. First: Gandhi — who managed to free his country
with his simple and personal acts of pacifism. He is likely the most well
known case for this action and the easiest to cite as a popular example. One man
changed history and defeated an empire.
Second: Jesus Christ. Christ, through his actions as
documented by the Christian Bible, was an adherent to the pacifist philosophy,
although I will admit that at times he did step out of that realm (depending on the
version and type of Christianity you study). Most of the old
texts show Christ to be a pacifist.
Lastly: the war on Iraq. Some went to that country
to act as “Human Shields” to stop the United States from striking targets.
Whether these areas were truly targets or not remains to be seen. At the time this
article was written, it has been reported by both the Associated Press, Public
Radio International, and the Pentagon — through regular press conferences — that
not a single target at which “Human Shields” were positioned was struck. To
my knowledge, this is still accurate; however, we know that the media is less
than accurate when it comes to war. This example, I admit, has no accurate
sources of proof with which to verify it.
My argument is simple. Action is necessary for self preservation on a one-on-one
basis. I do not disagree with this. I do disagree that we, as a people, should
take up the thought of “martialism”.
Yes, we should settle things. We should
never allow ourselves to be victims when we have any means of fighting back. I
suggest we temper our reactions always with calm heads, peaceful hearts, and
clear minds. Only then will everyone involved come away from conflict better
than they started.
Violence begets violence. It is contagious, just as peace is.
Morality is a separate issue, for right and wrong should not enter into the
situation.
|
