Ethics

I claim to be a pacifist (or: like the idea of it and have not yet had the chance to express it), and honestly do not care for violence or confrontation. I have also been thinking of moments where violence would provide me with a safe route out of a situation: Let's say I am walking the streets with my girlfriend, everything is fine and the sun is just setting. All of a sudden a crook runs up and tries to rob me and my girlfriend. Now, being that I claim pacifism, I would think not to take any physical action towards the crook, but being a good boyfriend I would think to protect my girlfriend with my fists if need be. What would be my options to a situation like this? Would fighting the crook off with violence make me a hypocrite? Would not fighting off the crook make me a bad person/boyfriend for not protecting my girlfriend? I understand that what Mohandas Gandhi did throughout his life would make many consider him a true pacifist, but if he were to be in this type of position and he just sat there, would he be concidered a bad person or a man of his word?

Comments

An interesting question on a number of levels.

In answering the question much depends upon how one defines "pacifism," "good," "bad," etc. So, if we were to have an extended conversation about the question I'd explore with you some definitions.

I also think we should look at a few of the specific words you choose. (Philosophers are picky, I know.) It seems a bit misplaced to say that the "crook" (I really like that word) would "rob" you of your girlfriend. Robbery it properly speaking involves the unlawful or morally wrong taking of property, not persons. We must all guard against the tendency to treat or conceive of women and girls in ways informed by the way we conceive of and treat property. Perhaps "kidnap" would be a better word.

And take a look at the question itself. I find it interesting that typically questions like this are posed as men defending women from assault, not men defending men or women defending men. In fact, I'm not sure I can think of any case like this where I've encountered the idea of an individual man require violent defense from a woman. Nations, women (usually aged or paired with males), and children seems to be the common entities in need of protective violence. I think there's something important in this, something that's lurking behind the explicit question. For one thing violence in these context is also often associated with the concept of "honor" and "masculinity," as well as simple personal security. It's as if what's being asked isn't just whether one can be a good "boyfriend" but also whether one can be a good "man" or a "real" man if one isn't prepared, at least conceptually, to be violent. A lot more could and should be said about the general issues related to questions like this, and we should think about them, but for now let's look more specifically at your question.

I take it that you would define pacifism as the refusal to use violence--ever. In your question, however, you refer to "physical action" as what's refused, not violence. Now "physical action" is a pretty broad concept to fold into a definition of pacificism, I think a bit too broad. Generally, pacificism accepts the use of physical action, just not violent physical action. Distinguishing the two is sometimes very difficult. But I think a pacifism might accept your physically putting yourself between the assailant and your girlfriend to obstruct the kidnapping, grabbing hold of your girlfriend in a bear hug, perhaps even physically restraining the arms of the assailant in what wrestlers call a double arm bar or a full nelson--just as humane traps capture and restrain rabbbits, squirrels, etc. in ways that do no physical harm. Many judo holds and throws might be considered by some defitions to be non-violent. Even Quakers accept penitentiaries (a concept they more or less invented) and the use of police force to restrain criminals. There's a big difference in restraining and killing a criminal.

Having said that, I do think that difficult as it may be as a pacifist you must accept that you may make yourself and others vulnerable in certain circumstances. That is a reality and a burden you must accept--yes, on pain of being a hypocrite. And indeed being good, as Martha Nussbaum argues in the Fragility of Goodness, often means putting ourselves at risk or exposing ourselves to harm. Doing the right thing is not always doing the safe thing.

But keep in mind that there are circumstances in which non-pacifists put themselves and others at greater risk, too. Violence doesn't always work, and sometimes it backfires. For example, one who responds to a violent attack with violence may provoke more violence, may injure the person to be saved or injure an innocent third party (perhaps by shooting at the assailant and missing and hitting one's girlfriend instead). The possibility of things going badly in some imaginable situation can't be seen as a good argument either for or against pacifism or any other moral principle, for that matter. One should consider what works best generally or what's appropriate giving the idiosyncracies of a given situation.

For myself, I find it imprudent to embrace any absolute rule for or against a specific form of action. Morality more often is what Michael Oakeshott described in On Human Conduct as "adverbial." It's not a question of using violent force or not but of using it properly. it's not a question of sex or no sex but having sex appropriately.

Is it appropriate to use violent force in the situation you describe? Honestly, I would say that a final answer is impossible given the limited nature of the description. A lot of ethical reasoning today imagines that one can pose hypothetical situations or thought experiments that settle a moral question or problem for good, as if a hypothetical could establish a universal law or principle. Hypotheticals have value in helping us clarify our concepts, but keep in mind that life is generally much more complicated than the simplified world of hypotheticals. Often there are many, many factors that bear on real situations that will determine the proper way to act but are invisible or not considered in hypotheticals.

In this situation, for example, it would be important to know whether or not you or the assailant were armed, how well armed, how able to use violent force, how able you are, whether innocent bystanders were at risk, how many innocent bystanders, whether your girlfriend could be easily tracked, whether you had any sense of whether your girlfriend would be harmed or killed or merely held captive, immeidately or later, how well she could take care of herself (don't assume she's passive or too weak), whether the assailant was mentally ill or on drugs, on foot or in a vehicle, is the assailant familiar to you, a brother, friend, etc. The presence of particularities is the reason we have courts with judges who have discretion about sentenciing and don't simply read out verdicts in a formulaic way.

Aristotle said that the good person will know what the good action is in a given circumstance not because some hypothetical has produced a universal rule that makes things clear but because the good person has developed the right capacieties of character and reason he called prudence, that is the capacity to judge properly the particularities of different circumstances and relate those particularities to general moral principles. A good person, in my view, doesn't cling to supposedly absolute principles.

Finally, I think it important to consider that this example assumes that girlfriend kidnappers are a simple fact. But isn't it possible to create a world where such people are if not non-existent, nearly so? To the charge of "what are you going to do when someone attacks your loved ones?" pacifists often respond with "if pacifism spreads we're not likely to be attacked." As a pacifist, therefore, one must not only refuse violence oneself but also do what's possible to minimze or eliminate it among others. Pacifism is not simply negatively refusing to engage in certain acts but also positively doing something to realize a non-violent world.

As for being a good boyfriend, a good girlfriend can ask no more than that you act in morally sound ways. You should inform her at the outset of your relationship that you are a pacifist. If she accepts that, then she understands how you are likely to behave in the sort of circumstance you describe.

P.S. I received on December 31 an e-mail apparently from the author of the question, elaborating on the scenario described. There was no reply address, so unfortunately I couldn't respond. I hope you won't mind my doing so here. Understanding that the situation is hypothetical, on the bais of your description I would answer that if you wish to remain a pacifist and behave in a manner consistent with pacifism, you should not respond with violence but should instead tell the girlfriend to run, call for help, ask or command or plead with the assailant to stop, and use non-violent physical means to obstruct or restrain the assailant.

P.P.S I've received yet another e-mail concerning this entry (remember that we can't reply directly). The sender gave me permission to print his comments, so here they are: "About thirty years ago my girl friend and I were walking back to my car in the dark after seeing a late movie. A man jumped out and attacked us with a knife, which I quickly took away from him (my military training) and he then ran away. In the process he got cut (not badly) and I got his blood on my hands and clothing. Although I saved her from the attack, my girl friend refused to ever date me again, saying that every time she saw me, my abrupt & violent action and the bloody result was all she could think about. Does this change your answer any?" Does it change my response, not really. Sounds like she wasn't right for you. She had different values from hers. Perhaps you might have told her about them ahead of time, and she might have told you about hers. But she learned something about you in that encounter and acted upon it in terms of her own sense of right and wrong with regard to violence. C'est la vie. Not having actually seen your response, I can't really make a judgment. I'd like to hear his side of it and hers, too. But, on the basis of what you wrote, it seems that you weren't a professed pacifist, you were trained, you used your training in the face of clear and present danger, and that your response was limited and judicious. You didn't kill the assailant or even seriously wound him. You didn't chase him down. You disarmed him with minimal injury to yourself and others and restored safety and security to all concerned. Well done. Had you been able to address the situation without violence, it would have been better. But that might not have been possible, and in any case you didn't act inconsistently with your moral principles. It was your call. I hope you found someone else better suited to you in the thirty years that have followed.

Read another response by Peter S. Fosl

Read another response about Ethics