Under Construction @ Keele 2017 Under Construction @ Keele Vol. III (3) | Page 34

The Puzzle of Absolute Pacifism
Nicholas David Sheldon | PhD in Philosophy
Absolute pacifism, the belief that violence is always wrong under any
circumstances, has almost vanished from popular debate, yet, in the 1930s
was politically mainstream. My research explores the entire spectrum of
pacifisms and focusses on the logical conundrums which appear to prevent
the existence of absolute pacifism, the most extreme form of pacifism. This
paper details the various typologies which have been created for pacifism as
a whole, before describing a new and more systematic taxonomy specific to
“absolute” pacifism. This taxonomy is then applied in demonstrating the
problem of absolute pacifism’s apparent non-existence. Applied philosophy?
To outsiders, philosophy can seem so abstract as to be “application-free”, and
yet, the concept of human dignity developed by the eighteenth-century
philosopher Immanuel Kant is fundamental to many modern conventions
regarding human rights. Applied philosophy is not new. By careful choice of
the mode of analysis, my research creates a framework which – possibly –
will result in the inclusion of “absolute” pacifism within the continuum of other
forms. Why does this matter? Tom Regan, for instance, has dismissed
absolute pacifism as ‘bizarre and vaguely ludicrous’, but this was done on the
basis that it is a separate category to “contingent pacifism”, which proscribes
specific, limited conditions under which a violent response is impermissible.
By demonstrating that the version of pacifism called absolute is in reality an
extreme form of the same contingent pacifism, this paper may re-stimulate
research in this area.
Keywords | pacifism • typologies • absolute • extreme • taxonomy
On 9 th February 1933, the Oxford Union debated the motion ‘[t]hat this House will in
no
1
circumstances
fight
for
its
King
and
Country’.
The motion, which was carried by 275 votes to 153, marked the zenith of popularity
of pacifism in the UK. Just 11 days before, Hitler had become Chancellor of
Germany, and over the next few years public support for pacifism in general, and
“absolute” pacifism in particular, waned rapidly in response to increasing news of
Nazi atrocities.
How had the extreme form of “absolute” pacifism, in which no violence or
even resistance is permitted, become so mainstream? And upon what basis did its
adherents justify it as the only correct code of conduct? More critically, was it
reasonable for later commentators such as Tom Regan to describe it as ‘bizarre and
1
Martin Ceadel, “The ‘King and Country’ Debate,” Historical Journal 22 (2) (1979): 23.