Pacifism

Bryan Caplan has a post defending pacifism. I have some sympathies with pacifism, but I think he has a definitional problem. Here is a quote from his post:

Rebecca West once wrote that, "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." Pacifism, similarly, is the radical notion that before you kill innocent people, you should be reasonably sure that your action will have very good consequences. That’s a one-sentence moral theory even I’m comfortable embracing.

Of course feminism was actually cover for a movement that went much further. Feminism – whether it started that way or not – has become a movement which clearly pushes for female dominance. Just look at divorce or child custody laws. Feminists are not asking for equal treatment between men and women.

Similarly, pacifists take their beliefs way beyond the reasonable positions advocated by Professor Caplan. I take the ultimate pacifist belief to be Ghandi’s strategy for defending India from the Japanese in WWII. Ghandi believed that Indians shouldn’t fight back if the Japanese invade. Instead, Indians should lay down their arms and let the Japanese slaughter them. Ghandi believed that the Japanese would eventually start to feel sorry for the Indians and turn around and go home. This belief is silly.

Pacifism is highly under-rated. In general, we should be using the military less. But in certain situations, we should be using them more – much more. Hence, the problem with considering yourself a "pacifist."

Professor Caplan’s point seems to be that we should err against engaging in long-term wars that involve re-making a country. I agree. However, it doesn’t follow that we shouldn’t use force in other (more limited) circumstances, which is generally what pacifists advocate.