Variants Of Pacifism

The kind of pacifist that is sometimes held up as a representative of the ideology is weak-willed, naive, and eager to trivialize the issues behind serious conflicts.  This characterization of pacifists might be true in some cases, but it is overly simplistic, ignoring the variations that can occur within the same branch of philosophy.  The issue of truth and epistemology aside, different pacifists could hold to somewhat distinct ideas without abandoning pacifism itself.  Some variations of pacifism are not as naive or riddled with assumptions as others.

Not all pacifists necessarily endorse non-violence to the same extent, just as they might not all adhere to pacifism for the same reasons.  A pacifist might claim their ideology simply out of ignorance about the need for self-defense and justice--or they might sincerely believe that even violent actions taken in self-defense or the defense of others are immoral.  Of course, there are also degrees of pacifism.  One pacifist might hold to a staunch condemnation of all violence, including self-defense, but another might condemn all violence that falls outside of the context of self-defense.

As with theism, empiricism, political libertarianism, and many other ideologies, true or false, there is not merely one possible form of pacifism.  It follows that it is unsound to think that the most blatantly assumption-based variants of pacifism represent all forms of the philosophy.  One does not need to be a pacifist to understand why distinguishing between different forms of an epistemological, metaphysical, or moral concept can mean that not all variations can be treated identically.  Not all types of pacifism are equally fallacious.

However, almost all forms of pacifism are impractical, and all of them are rooted in mere assumptions about the nature of ethics (unless a pacifist only holds to a subjectively preferred pacifist lifestyle as opposed to a moral pacifism that treats all violence as evil).  There is not a single variant of pacifism that can emerge from a rationalistic analysis as a valid philosophical stance.  Pacifism even becomes deeply ironic when someone, often due to confusion about the words of Jesus in the New Testament, thinks that the Bible supports pacifism [1].

To argue for pacifism on the grounds that the moral nature of Yahweh--and therefore the moral obligations of his followers--change depending on one's time of birth is to argue for cultural relativism, something that only a fool would suppose is compatible with the Bible.  Left without an at least partially relativistic foundation, a Christian pacifist must simply ignore the obvious commands of Yahweh (whom Jesus claimed to represent) to enact specific forms of capital punishment in select cases and to engage in combat under certain circumstances.  Rationalism and Christianity thus both reject pacifism.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-incompatibility-of-christianity-and.html