Introduction to Non-Violence | Page 4

the argument in
Aldous Huxley's Ends and Means, that we can achieve no desired goal
by means which are inconsistent with it, still regards non-violent action
as a means for achieving some other end, rather than an end in itself.[6]
So prevalent has such thinking become among pacifists, that it is not
surprising that John Lewis, in his closely reasoned book, The Case
Against Pacifism, bases his whole attack on the logic of the pacifist
position upon the theory that pacifists must, as he does, hold other
values above their respect for individual human personalities. Even in
speaking of "absolute" pacifism he says, "The most fundamental
objection to war is based on the conviction that violence and the taking
of human life, being themselves wrong, cannot lead to anything but
evil."[7] Thus he defines the absolute pacifist as one who accepts the
ends and means argument of Huxley, which is really an argument based
upon expediency, rather than defining him correctly as one who insists
that violence and the taking of human life are the greatest evils, under
any conditions, and therefore cannot be justified, even if they could be
used for the achievement of highly desirable ends.
Maintaining as Lewis does that respect for every human personality is
not their highest value, non-pacifists attack pacifism almost entirely on
the ground that in the present state of world society it is not
expedient--that it is "impractical." Probably much of the pacifist
defense of the position is designed to meet these non-pacifist arguments,
and to persuade non-pacifists of goodwill that they can really best serve
their highest values by adopting the pacifist technique. Such reasoning
is perfectly legitimate, even for the "absolutist," but he should
recognize it for what it is--a mere afterthought to his acceptance of
non-violence as a principle.
The whole absolutist argument is this: (1) Since violence to any human
personality is the greatest evil, I can never commit it. (2) But, at the

same time, it is fortunate that non-violent means of overcoming evil are
more effective than violent means, so I can serve my highest
value--respect for every human personality--and at the same time serve
the other values I hold. Or to say the same thing in positive terms, I can
achieve my other ends only by employing means which are consistent
with those ends.
On the other hand, many pacifists do in fact hold the position that John
Lewis is attacking, and base their acceptance of pacifism entirely on the
fact that it is the best means of obtaining the sort of social or economic
or political order that they desire. Others, in balancing the destruction
of violent conflict against what they concede might be gained by it, say
that the price of social achievement through violent means is too
high--that so many of their values are destroyed in the process of
violence that they must abandon it entirely as a means, and find another
which is less destructive.
Different as are the positions of the absolute and the relative pacifists,
in practice they find themselves united in their logical condemnation of
violence as an effective means for bringing about social change. Hence
there is no reason why they cannot join forces in many respects. Only a
relatively small proportion, even of the absolutists, have no interest
whatever in bringing about social change, and are thus unable to share
in this aspect of pacifist thinking.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Ernest L. Meyer, "Hey! Yellowbacks!" (New York: John Day, 1930),
3-6.
[2] Krishnalal Shridharani, War Without Violence (New York: Harcourt
Brace, 1939); Selections from War Without Violence was published by
the Fellowship of Reconciliation, 2929 Broadway, New York, as a
pamphlet, in 1941.
[3] Jessie Wallace Hughan, If We Should Be Invaded: Facing a
Fantastic Hypothesis (War Resisters League, New York, 1939). A new
edition with the title Pacifism and Invasion was issued in 1942.

[4] Many later writers have selected their examples from the large
number presented by Adin Ballou, Christian Non-Resistance: In All Its
Important Bearings (Philadelphia: Universal Peace Union, 1910); first
published in 1846.
[5] Richard B. Gregg, The Power of Non-Violence (Philadelphia:
Lippincott, 1934). A new and revised edition of this book is to be
published by Fellowship Publications, N. Y., 1944.
[6] Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means: An Inquiry into the Nature of
Ideals and the Methods Employed for Their Realization (New York:
Harpers, 1937).
[7] John Lewis, The Case Against Pacifism (London: Allen and Unwin,
1940), 23.
Definition of Terms
Both in pacifist thought and in the criticisms of pacifism, a great deal of
confusion arises because of the inexact use of terms. We have already
seen that pacifists of many shades of opinion are united in their refusal
to participate in war. In this objection there is a negative quality. The
very word