Introduction to Non-Violence | Page 6

of the spirit in which they are undertaken, between types of action
which are outwardly similar seems perfectly valid.
There are other pacifists who would even accept a certain element of
violence, as we have defined it, provided it were not physical in nature.
Some persons with boundless good will feel that even physical violence
may be justified on occasion if it is not accompanied by hatred toward
its object.[14] However, there would be few who consider themselves
pacifists who would accept such a position.

We are again forced to the conclusion that it is violence as we have
defined it to which the pacifist objects. At this point, the chief
difference between the pacifist and the non-pacifist is that the latter
defines violence as does Clarence Case, as "the unlawful or
unregulated use of destructive physical force against persons or
things."[15] Under such a definition, war itself, since it is sanctioned by
law, would no longer involve violence. Thus for the non-pacifist it is
ethically acceptable to use lawful violence against unlawful violence;
for the pacifist, violence against any personality is never ethically
justified.[16]
On the other hand, a very large group of pacifists insist upon discarding
these negative definitions in favor of one that is wholly positive.
Maurice L. Rowntree has said: "The Pacifist way of life is the way that
brings into action all the sense and wisdom, all the passion of love and
goodwill that can be brought to bear upon the situation."[17]
In this study, no attempt will be made to determine which of the many
pacifist positions is most sound ethically. Before any person can make
such a determination for himself, however, it is necessary that he
understand the differences between the various approaches to the
problem of influencing other people either to do something which he
believes should be done, or to refrain from doing something which he
feels ought not to be done.
It might be helpful for us in our thinking to construct a scale at one end
of which we place violence coupled with hatred, and at the other,
dependence only upon the application of positive love and goodwill. In
the intermediate positions we might place (1) violence without hatred,
(2) non-violence practiced by necessity rather than because of principle,
(3) non-violent coercion, (4) Satyagraha and non-violent direct action,
and (5) non-resistance.
We need, at the outset, to recognize that we are speaking primarily of
the relationships between social groups rather than between individuals.
As Reinhold Niebuhr has so ably pointed out, our ethical concepts in
these two areas are greatly at variance with one another.[18] The
pacifist principles are already widely accepted as ideals in the affairs of

individuals. Every ethical religion teaches them in this area, and the
person who rejects them is definitely the exception in our western
society, until the violent man is regarded as subject to the discipline of
society in general.
Our real concern in this study is with non-violent means of achieving
group purposes, whether they be defensive and conservative in
character, or whether they be changes in the existing institutions of the
social order. The study is not so much concerned with the religious and
ethical bases of these techniques as it is with a consideration of their
application in practice, and their effectiveness in achieving the
purposes which the group in question has in view. We shall begin at
one end of our scale and proceed to discuss each type of action in turn.
FOOTNOTES:
[8] Guy F. Hershberger makes a definite distinction between
non-resistance and pacifism. He says that the former term describes the
faith and life of those "Who cannot have any part in warfare because
they believe the Bible forbids it, and who renounce all coercion, even
nonviolent coercion." He goes on to say, "Pacifism, on the other hand,
is a term which covers many types of opposition to war. Some modern
so-called pacifists are opposed to all wars, and some are not. Some who
oppose all wars find their authority in the will of God, while others find
it largely in human reason. There are many other differences among
them." "Biblical Nonresistance and Modern Pacifism," The Mennonite
Quarterly Review, XVII, (July, 1943), 116.
Hershberger is here defining pacifism broadly to include the European
meaning of opposition to war, but not necessarily a refusal to take part
in it. In the United States, and generally in Great Britain, the term is
ordinarily applied only to those who actually refuse participation in
war.
[9] See Devere Allen, The Fight for Peace (New York: Macmillan,
1930), 531-540.
[10] On the origins of these terms see Haridas T. Muzumdar, The

United Nations of the World (New York: Universal, 1942), 201-203.
[11] John Haynes Holmes, using the older term rather than "pacifist,"
has said, "The