Ancharski 1

Conor Ancharski
PHIL5423.01 The Ethics of Peace and War, Short Paper 2
Professor Gregory Fried
14 April 2020

Orend and Pacifism

In his argument against pacifism in favor of just war theory, Brian Orend outlines three

separate types to be dismantled: virtue pacifism (VP), consequentialist pacifism (CP), and

deontological pacifism (DP). (Orend 274) For VP, where people advocated for pacifism on the

basis that war consists of actions at odds with the ideal life, Orend responds by saying that justice

is itself a virtue, and to assume that there will be no aggressors who seek to unjustly diminish the

quality of life for others is an unrealistic view. (276) For CP, which states that the costs of war

always outweigh the benefits, he makes the point that pacifists tend to oversimplify the

consequences of war. (280) For example, in just war theory where a legitimate cause for war can

be to protect one’s own people, it is easy to see how strict pacifism in extreme cases such as

World War II would have had catastrophic consequences. (281) Finally, he criticizes DP, where

pacifists claim the duty of morality to not kill other human beings stops the ability to wage war.

(284) Again he uses the defense argument, which is the only way a just war may be fought. (292)

One possible challenge to this argument could be seen coming from pacifists such as

Gene Sharp or Ghandi, who would say that Orend fails to take into account the active side of

pacifism. According to Sharp, pacifism (referred by him as nonviolent struggle) has always been

a viable option practiced throughout history, and has often been effective. (Sharp 4) He might

therefore say that Orend characterizes pacifism as a passive act, where one simply accepts the

aggressor without resistance. Nothing could be further from the truth: at the end of his book he
 Ancharski 2

includes a list of 198 unique ways in which peaceful resistance can and has been applied. (39) He

gives examples such as the Russian 1905 revolution, the Indian nationalist movement, and

Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands against the Nazis during WWII in order to argue that

pacifism can work in any sort of case. (Sharp 5-6)

Orend would respond to this by saying that he is not advocating for violence in every

situation: in fact, the alternatives listed by Sharp can and have worked for certain cases in the

past. However, there still have been cases where violence has been absolutely unavoidable

without catastrophic consequence. “I am fully prepared to concede that many—perhaps even

most—historical wars can be objected to, very forcefully, by the CP aspect of contemporary

pacifism. ... But not all wars seem to fall neatly under this objection” (Orend 181). In response to

the examples Sharp provides, he might single out his example of certain countries fighting

peacefully against the Nazis as a particularly weak argument. While peaceful protests can

definitely produce results as seen in this example (never does Orend deny that this is the case),

intervention from forces such as American and the UK was absolutely necessary in order for the

Allies to win.

Looking at both sides of the argument, I find Orend’s to be the most convincing,

particularly because it provides a realistic view in terms of self-defense. I think that while Sharp

raises some good points about the power of nonviolent aggression, there always may be cases in

which an aggressor is simply too powerful for mere peaceful protest, and that violence may be

necessary (given that it follows the rules of jus in bello and is declared according to jus ad

bellum). If we are to take anything from pacifists such as Ghandi and Sharp, it is their

alternatives that we ought to employ before having to resort to violence.

 Ancharski 3

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Orend, B. (2013). The Morality of War: Second Edition. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview

Press.

Sharp, Gene. (2003). There Are Realistic Alternatives. Boston, Massachusetts: The Albert

Einstein Institution