Yesterday, President Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize. Earlier this week, the president announced that he will be sending 30,000 more troops to fight the war in Afghanistan. As some journalists noted, there was a certain irony to Obama’s acceptance of the Peace Prize as he was engaging even more heavily in a war.
A common understanding of peace parallels the Wikipedia definition, that peace is “an absence of violence”. However, my understanding of peace is more closely aligned with Merriam-Webster’s definition: “a state of tranquility or quiet”.
(Wikipedia’s definition is semantically problematic. As I learned in fourth grade, it is inadequate to define a term by what it is not. Saying that peace is an absence of war or an absence of conflict does not tell what it is, only what it is not. Merriam-Webster defines peace in the positive, which is more effective at communicating what it actually is.)
Obama’s award of the Nobel Peace Prize made me begin to think more about peace. Although I’ve aspired to be a pacifist, I haven’t been able to answer questions from friends about just what exactly I’d advocate doing if my own home were under attack. Would I still profess pacifism and nonviolence, or would I acknowledge that violence in self-defense is acceptable?
When asked, I’ve only been able to answer, “I don’t know.”
We have a modern example of pacifism in face of invasion: by and large, Tibetans have not resisted the Chinese invasion of their homeland militarily. And where does that get them? Invaded.
Whereas one could argue that nonviolence “worked” for Ghandi–his nonviolent leadership helped bring about an end to British rule–it doesn’t seem to “work” for Tibet–China doesn’t seem to be going anywhere.
The question becomes, which is more important, protecting one’s loved ones, one’s home, one’s welfare, or practicing nonviolence?
I think only if we have a concept of salvation or enlightenment can we make an argument in favor of nonviolence when facing a direct threat to one’s loved ones, home, or welfare. Only if we have an idea that there is some numinous or nirvanic essence beyond our immediate understanding of the world can it make sense to abdicate one’s sense of self-preservation.
On the other hand, there are arguments in favor of nonviolence that suggest that since the cost of conflict (in terms of human life as well as resources) is so high, there must be a better way to effect resolutions. Wikipedia calls this “pragmatic” or “consequentialist” pacifism. Pragmatic pacifism seems more economic in its approach, rather than stemming from a moral or spiritual foundation.
Proponents of war often argue that a “just war” is defensible. If killing a few people now will save many, many people being killed later, isn’t that the better thing to do? Isn’t it better to act now than to have the future deaths of many on one’s hands? How can we sit by and do nothing while others are slaughtered for want of our involvement?
Radiolab has a podcast (entitled, “Killing Babies, Saving the World“) that puts the question to us: would we kill our own infant in order to save an entire village? This question takes the line of reasoning of the “just war” to an extreme.
The problem I have with the concept of the “just war” is that we don’t know what is going to happen in the future. If I conclude that Person A is going to harm… one person, one hundred people, one thousand people (whatever the number is that warrants triggering a “just war”), and I kill Person A, I have now removed from the Person A the ability to make a choice.
In some ways, this is a greater violence, because I have prevented Person A from being able to choose a loving path, to choose not to kill.
I understand that x times out of x+1 times, Person A will kill. But if I kill Person A to prevent them from killing others, I have eliminated the possibility that they will be able to make the choice not to kill on that x+1st time.
Additionally, I have killed. I have made a violent choice. In my effort to keep someone else from killing, I have performed the very act that I condemn. This is strange.
In her book All About Love, bell hooks suggests that if as a country we choose love, great things can happen. I believe this, too. However, I also acknowledge that there is a danger in believing this. If we are to give people the opportunity to choose love, that means they also have the opportunity not to choose love. And if someone chooses violence instead of love, there are consequences, sometimes tragic consequences.
But as I see it, there is no other way. There can be no possibility, no opportunity for us to live fully loving lives if we preclude the opportunity for everyone to make loving choices. When we choose to kill, we forswear peace.