Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Pacifism
Section A. Philosophy/political theory

In one of the most famous debates at the Oxford Union, the motion ’This House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country’ was passed in 1933 by 275 votes to 153. It sparked off a national controversy in the press, and Winston Churchill denounced it as ’that abject, squalid, shameless avowal’ and ’this ever shameful motion’. It is rumoured that the vote gave Adolf Hitler confidence that Great Britain would not militarily oppose his expansion in Europe. Pacifism is therefore a debating topic that is of more than passing interest, but of real historical significance.

Pros

[1] Pacifists are committed to the view that it is always wrong intentionally to kill. This view is obviously a difficult one to sustain in the face of certain dramatic counterexamples, but two things must be borne in mind. First, few, if any, modern wars are really wars of self-defence, national or personal; rather, they are about foreign expansion or intervention. Second, there is nothing wrong with the notion of absolute morality; it simply requires that some individuals are ready to accept bad consequences for themselves in order to remain morally pure.

[2] Pacifists such as the ’conscientious objectors’ of the two world wars (some of whom were executed for their refusal to fight) have always served an invaluable role in questioning the prevailing territorial militarism of the majority. Pacifists say there is always another way. The carnage of the First World War and the Vietnam War in particular is now seen by many as appallingly futile and wasteful of human life.

[3] There are no true victors from a war. Issues are rarely settled by a war, but persist afterwards at the cost of millions of lives. There are still territorial and national disputes and civil wars in Syria, Sudan and Southern Yemen despite the world wars and countless supposed settlements. War in these cases is futile and the United Nations (UN) should do more to enforce peace in these areas.

Cons

[1] Ultimately, pacifism is too absolute a stance; in the end, it reduces to the position that it is wrong to kill someone, even if they are attempting, very directly, to kill you. It could be argued that if a pacifist is unwilling to accept this, then they do not really believe in pacifism.

[2] Pacifism was a luxury that most could not afford during the world wars. There was a job to be done to maintain international justice and prevent the expansion of an aggressor. In those circumstances, it is morally wrong to sit back and do nothing.

[3] Often, disputes can persist after wars, but often also some resolution is achieved (e.g. the Second World War, or the Gulf War in 1991 — as a result of which Saddam Hussein withdrew from Kuwait). Violent conflict is a last resort, but is shown by evolutionary biology to be an inevitable fact of nature, and by history to be an inevitable fact of international relations. Nations should determine their own settlements and boundaries and this, regrettably, sometimes involves the use of force.

Possible motions

This House would be pacifist.

This House would never fight for King and Country.

Related topics

National service, (re)introduction of

Armaments, limitations on conventional

Dictators, assassination of

United Nations standing army

Military drones, prohibition of

Nuclear weapons, right to possess