Week 2

The Sermon on the Mount

Two helpful distinctions (we’ve looked at both before):

• Pacifism/nonviolence as personal ethic
• Pacifism/nonviolence as political doctrine

• Pacifism/nonviolence as absolute principle
• Pacifism/nonviolence as qualified principle

Today's argument:

• In this short reading, we encounter a powerful and influential doctrine of nonviolence
  
• But, when we look ‘analytically’ at the underlying moral argument, it becomes difficult to accept it as an unqualified political doctrine

Christ juxtaposes three philosophies:

1. The ancient ethic
2. The Jewish law
3. The new Christian ethic of nonviolence

The ancient ethic:

• A view of right and wrong as common today as it is throughout antiquity
  
• “Love your friends, hate your enemies”
  
• “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”
  
• Athenians in the Melian Dialogue:
• -->“The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must”
  
• Thrasymachus of Chalcedon:
• -->“Justice is the advantage of the stronger”
  
• Violence flows naturally out of the ancient ethic

The Jewish law:

• The law of Moses
  
• The Ten Commandments of Moses
  
• The laws of a ‘civilized’ society to be built by the Jewish people
  
• “You shall not commit adultery”
• “You shall not steal”
• “You shall not murder”
  
• The Jewish law includes a prohibition on violence

The new Christian ethic of nonviolence:

• Be generous, merciful, forgiving, and loving
• Not only in your ‘outward’ actions, but in your heart and soul
  
• The Christian ethic includes the deepest possible commitment to nonviolence flows naturally from this ethic

Against the ancient ethic (#1):

• “But now I tell you: love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, so that you will become the sons of your father in heaven”
  
• “But now I tell you: do not seek revenge on who does you wrong. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, let him slap your left cheek too”

Against the Jewish law (#2):

• “Do not think that I have come to do away with the Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets. I have not come to do away with them, but to make their teachings come true.”
  
• “You have heard that it was said, “Do not commit adultery.” “But now I tell you: anyone who looks at a woman and wants to possess her is guilty of committing adultery with her in his heart. So if you right eye causes you to sin, take it out and throw it away! It is much better for you to lose part of your body than to have your whole body thrown into hell.”
  
• “I tell you, then, that you will be able to enter the Kingdom of heaven only if you are more faithful that the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees, in doing what God requires.”

Preliminary questions:

1. Is this new creed of nonviolence unique to Christianity?
   
2. Does it go beyond the ancients’ view?
   
3. Is Christian nonviolence merely a personal ethic?

1. Nonviolence unique to Christianity?

• Nonviolence is not (strictly speaking) unique to Christianity

2. Does it surpass the ancients’ view?

• Those who follow the Christian ethic will:
  
• ‘Receive what God promised’
• ‘Secure their eternal place in heaven’
• ‘Become the sons of their father in heaven’

3. Christian nonviolence merely a personal ethic?

• An article of personal faith
  
• You owe it to God to adhere to these virtues
  
• Needed to secure your eternal place in heaven

The underlying moral argument:

• The principle of nonviolence is easily justified on articles of Christian faith: mercy, forgiveness, and love
  
• But, to anchor it as a political doctrine, it needs to be rooted in some 'universal' ideas

Helpful distinction:

• Instrumental value:
  
  “That which has value only in relation to something else, or as a means to achieving some end of fundamental value”
  
  E.g., courage, politeness, economic value ($$)
  

• Intrinsic value:
  
  “That which has value in itself, for its own sake, regardless of its possible value towards achieving some other end”
  
  E.g., human life, human pleasure & happiness

Alternate ‘anchors’ for Christian pacifism

(ideas that might be said to have "intrnsic value" ):

1. Human happiness
   
2. Avoidance of suffering
   
3. Respect for human life
   
4. Respect for the dignity inherent in human beings
   
5. Respect for the moral equality of human beings

Do these 'anchors' enable us to construct a moral argument for nonviolence that is 'absolute'?

Ryan’s “The Morality of Pacifism”

Today's argument:

• Ryan’s essay appears to provide a solution to the central dilemma of pacifism
  
• But, if we accept the solution, we seem to empty pacifism of its great power and promise

The central dilemma (as Ryan sees it):

• Pacifists assert that it’s always wrong to use violence or resort to war
  
• But, how should we react when we or our loved ones face the threat of violence?
  
• If we follow a), by refusing to defend ourselves against violence, aren’t we ultimately supporting violence, and/or going against nonviolence?
  
• In other words, if violence is truly evil, should we not combat it even when doing so requires the use of violence?

The common challenge against pacifism:

• The standpoint of nonviolence is too strong
  
• In the end, the standpoint of nonviolence is ‘self-negating’

Ryan thinks pacifism can be rescued:

• Pacifism is a term we use to denote feelings of compassion towards our fellow human beings
  
• These are the source of Orwell’s vulnerable fascist allegory
  
• Orwell’s feeling of “fellow creature-hood” with his vulnerable enemy shows the human feeling that is the essence of pacifism

• Ryan detects in Orwell’s story the idea of a ‘universal moral community of humankind’
  
• The morality of pacifism is concerned with this universal community
  

Conclusion #1:

• Pacifism is best understood as “the intent to acknowledge the other person’s status as a fellow creature”
• Pacifists desire a world in which we nurture these feelings

Conclusion #2:

• Our labels and categories create the distance necessary to ignore feelings of human fellowship

Conclusion #3

• In the real world, pacifists can’t always live up to the impulse
  
• But, Ryan says, this should make us reject pacifism

Concluding questions:

1. Ryan's "rescue" for pacifism as a moral argument is attached to the "impulse" or "feeling" he describes. Does the inner feeling have any ‘moral content’?
2. Can Ryan’s universal moral community be put forward in a moral argument that comes close to what we have called a political doctrine or absolute principle?
   
   

Gandhi’s Satyagraha

• Satyagraha:
  
  “A method of political resistance that excludes the use of violence in any shape or form”

The views of Gandhi (and other pacifists) presuppose a kind of a tragic choice:

• Should we submit to animal instincts?
• Should we turn away from the worst of human nature?
  
• Should we become ignorant beasts?
• Should follow the “better angels of our nature”?

Today's reading is really more like two separate readings:

1. Gandhi’s discussion of India’s anti-colonial independence
   
2. Gandhi’s anti-war argument addressed to Britain during WWII

We can examine both parts by dividing Satyagraha into two separate types of argument:

1. Nonviolence as a political strategy
   
2. Nonviolence as a moral argument
   

1. Nonviolence as a political strategy

• We can evaluate a strategy based on whether it achieves success or positive results
  
• Political independence for India
• Any other political objective

What is the content of Satyagraha?

• Self-sacrifice & humility
• Respect for the law
• Freedom from anger & retaliation
• Restraint
• Non-cooperation

• “Though citizens never take up arms, they rally, demonstrate, and strike”
  

• General strikes
• Mass demonstrations
• Boycotts
• Sit-ins

Why does Gandhi think Satyagraha is effective?

• It sets a powerful example
• It confirms the correctness of a moral position
• It confirms deeply-held commitments
  
• Consequently, the justice of the cause will “grow” within the opponent

Perhaps Gandhi’s writings display a fatal over-confidence in Satyagraha

• “it is not without considerable success in its use in India”
• “excellent results”
• “amazing success”
• “Swaraj is attainable in less than one year”

Especially problematic in the context of WWII

• "War is wrong in essence"
  
• Fighting Nazism "without arms"
  
• “You [should] invite Hitler and Mussolini to take what they want of your beautiful island, with your many beautiful buildings. If they do not give you free passage out, you [should] allow yourselves, man, woman and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse allegiance to them"

Question for discussion: Is Satyagraha effective?

• India’s successful defeat of Britain might suggests that Satyagraha is effective
• Michael Walzer & George Orwell believed it was not...
• Dictators utilize violence and repression
• Nonviolent resistance is easily crushed

Sharpening the question: Can Satyagraha be effective today?

• Modern dictatorships are “scientific” in their methods of repression and use of violence
  
• But, resistance against repression--methods of nonvioence--are also highly evolved and technologically advanced. Consider the following modern creations:
  
• The United Nations
• Global media (‘The CNN effect’)
• The internet

Three repressive regimes:

• Zimbabwe
• Myanmar
• Nepal

Is Satyagraha likely to be effective as a strategy for victims of repression in these countries?

One final point on ‘effectiveness’:

• Violence is often the basis for future government
• The birth of a nation, or founding movement of a nation, always endures

2. Nonviolence as a moral argument

• More than a strategy
• Deeply-held truths
• A philosophy that should guide our lives
  
  
• Satyagraha as a moral argument --> universal principle -->
  
• --> condemnation of violence --> abolishing any excuse for violence

Three separate arguments:

i) Respect for self

• Self-love
• The human soul is by nature corrupted by hatred, anger, and violence

ii) Respect for fellow human beings

• Law saves us from chaos: violence brings violence
• The human soul is inclined toward fellowship and love

iii) The best of Religious tradition

• Enduring faiths teach #1 & #2
• Faiths therefore overlap in supporting satyagraha

Universal community:

• Gandhi’s arguments can be interpreted as different versions of a “universal community of humankind”
  
• Self-regard --> regard for family -->
  regard for the nation --> regard for all humanity -->
  --> regard for the universe

The essence of Gandhi’s view:

• We should nurture and even purify this sense of community
• We should resist those impulses that push against it

Surely this is a great and noble idea of morality. But, are there problems with it?

• Does a universal community exist?
• Is it simply, as Walzer might suggest, a "messianic" dream?

What about Gandhi’s other moral arguments?

i) Respect for self

• I accept that one’s soul may be purified by self-sacrifice
• Should I be condemned for resisting moral tragedies such as the holocaust?

ii) Respect for fellow human beings

• I accept the picture of the soul as naturally inclined toward fellowship
• Should I be condemned for resisting violence to protect an innocent bystander?

iii) The best of Religious tradition

• Conflicting messages are found in the Bible, Koran, Torah, which ‘permit’ certain acts of violence - i.e., no tradition is completely single-minded when it condemns violence
• Therefore, if I want to be fully committed to the messages contained in sacred texts, perhaps I should look at all the ‘permissions’ found in them

Final question:

• Should we always condemn violence or law-breaking as a method of politics? Is there any situation where violence is permissible?