THE HARMS WROUGHT BY NATIONAL CONFLICTS AND WARFARE

People who oppose wars are called "doves"; and their beliefs and policies are referred to as "dovishness."  Their opposites--i.e., those who favor conflict and warfare--are known as "hawks"; and their position is frequently called "militarism."

There is also a distinction between two types of opposition to war.  "Anti-war" is the term used to describe beliefs or movements directed toward the commencement or continuation of a specific armed conflict.  The protesters may or may not be averse to all war; they are, rather, opposed to a particular war because they believe it to be unjust, or contrary to the best interests of their country or themselves.  "Pacifists," on the other hand, oppose the practice of war in general.  Their convictions dictate that nations should not maintain a condition of readiness to fight one another.  Instead, they believe that relations among men ought be carried on via discussions, mediation, and compromise.

Pacifism can be active in nature (i.e., working toward the establishment of peace in the world); or passive (refusing to participate in armed conflict).  When war does break out, these latter usually base their refusal to bear arms upon moral grounds.  As a class, they are known as "conscientious objectors."  They are frequently given ancillary duties of a non-military nature during the duration of the conflict, in order to fulfill their obligations in manners that do not violate their beliefs. 

Absolute pacifists hold that any and all forms of war, killing, and violence are unconditionally wrong.  Their attitudes may be summed up in the words "turn the other cheek"--a posture which is also sometimes referred to as "religious pacifism."  Such believers are also called "moral consequentialists," in view of their doctrine that the evils of war always outweigh the benefit that it may produce, or the wrongs that it may extinguish. 

Conditional pacifists, on the other hand, are opposed to some wars; but can approve the bearing of arms under certain circumstances (e.g., war for the sake of dereating an "evil" force; intervention to protect an abused people; or military action aimed at preserving peace in the long run). 

It has been said that peace is the most favorable condition within which man can reside; and that peace enables enterprise to bear fruit, families to exist in tranquility, and life in general to progress and to flourish.  For this reason, some philosophers, including Plato and Aristotle, have specified that wars waged for the purpose of achieving or maintaining peace are permissible, and even necessary.  Or, to state it another way, man's theoretical duty to refrain from participation in warfare can conflict with, and be "trumped by," our duty to defend lives against aggressors.  Moreover, to follow the logic of Edmund Burke, choosing not to wage war under circumstances such as this will not only fail to stop aggression, but will actually encourage it--for "evil will always flourish when good men do nothing."

Some maintain a position known as "defencism," holding defensive warfare and acts of deterrence to be acceptable, but condemning any and all aggressive wars.  This position, which is held by many conditional pacifists, is also referred to as reliance upon what is termed a "just war doctrine."  In fact, under such circumstances, refusal to participate in a "just war" may be judged morally wrong. 

As set forth above, during World War II, the aforementioned Bertrand Russell adopted such a position, submitting that the need to defeat Hitler constituted a unique circumstance and thus outweighed the basic wrongs implicit in waging war.  He called his position "relative pacifism."

                                                   * * * * *

It is my personal opinion that violence should be avoided; but is acceptable on the part of domestic authorities (i.e., the police), when it must be resorted to in order to legitimately and reasonably sustain law and order, preserve the peace, or apprehend or restrain dangerous individuals.  This is based, at least in part, upon John Locke's precept that aggressors lose their rights when they attack others.

It is furthermore the belief of some contemporary pacifists, and of me as well, that a single world government is the only way to prevent and control aggression among nations.  This is actually the basic theme of what I have been writing all along.  For if there were no array of separate nations within our world, there would be no nations to carry on such attacks; and no natioins as well to be on the receiving end of such attacks.  Violence by individuals, or groups of people, directed against other individuals or groups of people, would be termed, viewed as, and dealt with, as mere "crime."

There would no longer be a duty imposed upon whole national populations to take up and bear arms against other national populations in the nane of "national interest" or "sovereignty."  For the most fundamental and important sovereignty of all--the sovereignty, freedom, and right to fulfillment of each individual human being--would be the only principle requiring protection, in a world freed of the entanglements and difficulties implicit in our present multitudinous array of nation-states.

                                                  * * * * *