additional notes on Narveson / Brunk
The Narveson vs. Brunk debate
The debate overall
1. Narveson’s challenge to pacifism
He singles out a principle of pacifism then criticizes its underlying “moral logic”
If this is what pacifism is, then its underlying moral logic is irrational
Therefore, we should reject the ethic of pacifism
'Devastating philosophical critique' of the philosophy of pacifism
For Narveson, the pacifist ethic is essentially as follows:
A. The use of violence violates a moral duty (i.e. universal moral rule)
“Insofar as people resort to force (for any reason) they breach their moral duty”
[This includes acts of violence meant to resist, prevent, or punish, previous violence]
B. But, proposition A cannot be a moral duty (i.e. universal moral rule)
“Violence is wrong, and yet it is wrong to resist it”
If violence is evil, the non-pacifist should be permitted to use whatever means available in reacting against or preventing it
To say that there is a moral duty not to X is to state that we have a right against X
Conclusion:
Pacifism is a “self-negating” or irrational doctrine - it contains a logical contradiction
Pacifism is so devout in its loyalty to nonviolence that it has no flexibility to resist or prevent that which is it deems the ultimate evil
No method of “direct resistance”
No “moral statement” condemning the evil of violence
...No choice but to reject it on grounds of rationality and logic
Two underlying presuppositions:
1) The “moral statements” we implicitly make
If violence is wrong, we should be free to utilize the strongest means (including violence) in reacting to violence
2) The “moral logic” of rights and duties
Narveson’s moral duties are “correlated” with rights
Once you state that we have a right against X, aren’t you admitting that it is right to take the steps required to protect against X ?
“To say that you have a right to X but that no one has any justification for preventing people from depriving you of X, is self-contradictory”
2. Brunk’s response
A. Narveson selects a radical pacifist ethic that not all pacifists agree with.
There are many ways to interpret the ethic of pacifism à why has Narveson selected this narrow one?
B. Contrary to Narveson, pacifists don’t refuse every form of resistance
They merely refuse to resist by certain specific means (i.e. resisting killing)
C. The commonplace notion of the “moral logic” of duties and rights is not our one and only option
Narveson said: A. Use of violence violates a moral duty (i.e. universal moral rule)
“Universalized” duties are the only kind of moral duties
Other traditions offer other kinds of moral duty
A. Narveson’s narrow interpretation
Brunk re-classifies the ethic of pacifism:
a) The “non-resistance principle”
[Against all force, coercion, or violence]
b) The “non-violence principle”
[Against serious physical or psychological injury]
c) The “no-homicide principle”
[Against lethal force]
d) The “no-war principle”
[Against the organized mass killing of war]
Pro-pacifism arguments in Lackey’s paper:
1. Anti-killing pacifism (immorality of killing)
2. Anti-coercion pacifism (immorality of violence)
3. Private pacifism (immorality of personal violence)
4. Anti-war pacifism (immorality of war)
Critical summary question:
What are the linkages between Brunk’s and Lackey’s categories?
C. The moral logic of duties and rights
Narveson said: Use of violence violates a moral duty (i.e. universal moral rule)
Universalized duties are the only valid moral duties
Ethical traditions offer other kinds of moral duty:
Ethics of virtue
“Non-secular” ethics
“Dualistic morality”
Moral standards...
Minimum baselines, below which we should never fall
Moral ideals --> ultimate aspirations, which we should always endeavour to achieve
The Overall Debate
Analytic approach
Major differences of style and strategy
Decisions to make:
Nonviolence as a duty
Self-defence as a right
15-minute essay:
1. Select one of the pro- or anti- pacifist arguments we’ve discussed (Sermon on the Mount; M.L. King jr.; Kant; Lackey)
2. Decide whether you think the argument is either convincingly challenged by Narveson or defended by Brunk.
3. Summarize the basic thrust of your position by stating it clearly in one or two sentences
4. Clearly explain one or two of your reasons for holding this view
The debate overall
1. Narveson’s challenge to pacifism
He singles out a principle of pacifism then criticizes its underlying “moral logic”
If this is what pacifism is, then its underlying moral logic is irrational
Therefore, we should reject the ethic of pacifism
'Devastating philosophical critique' of the philosophy of pacifism
For Narveson, the pacifist ethic is essentially as follows:
A. The use of violence violates a moral duty (i.e. universal moral rule)
“Insofar as people resort to force (for any reason) they breach their moral duty”
[This includes acts of violence meant to resist, prevent, or punish, previous violence]
B. But, proposition A cannot be a moral duty (i.e. universal moral rule)
“Violence is wrong, and yet it is wrong to resist it”
If violence is evil, the non-pacifist should be permitted to use whatever means available in reacting against or preventing it
To say that there is a moral duty not to X is to state that we have a right against X
Conclusion:
Pacifism is a “self-negating” or irrational doctrine - it contains a logical contradiction
Pacifism is so devout in its loyalty to nonviolence that it has no flexibility to resist or prevent that which is it deems the ultimate evil
No method of “direct resistance”
No “moral statement” condemning the evil of violence
...No choice but to reject it on grounds of rationality and logic
Two underlying presuppositions:
1) The “moral statements” we implicitly make
If violence is wrong, we should be free to utilize the strongest means (including violence) in reacting to violence
2) The “moral logic” of rights and duties
Narveson’s moral duties are “correlated” with rights
Once you state that we have a right against X, aren’t you admitting that it is right to take the steps required to protect against X ?
“To say that you have a right to X but that no one has any justification for preventing people from depriving you of X, is self-contradictory”
2. Brunk’s response
A. Narveson selects a radical pacifist ethic that not all pacifists agree with.
There are many ways to interpret the ethic of pacifism à why has Narveson selected this narrow one?
B. Contrary to Narveson, pacifists don’t refuse every form of resistance
They merely refuse to resist by certain specific means (i.e. resisting killing)
C. The commonplace notion of the “moral logic” of duties and rights is not our one and only option
Narveson said: A. Use of violence violates a moral duty (i.e. universal moral rule)
“Universalized” duties are the only kind of moral duties
Other traditions offer other kinds of moral duty
A. Narveson’s narrow interpretation
Brunk re-classifies the ethic of pacifism:
a) The “non-resistance principle”
[Against all force, coercion, or violence]
b) The “non-violence principle”
[Against serious physical or psychological injury]
c) The “no-homicide principle”
[Against lethal force]
d) The “no-war principle”
[Against the organized mass killing of war]
Pro-pacifism arguments in Lackey’s paper:
1. Anti-killing pacifism (immorality of killing)
2. Anti-coercion pacifism (immorality of violence)
3. Private pacifism (immorality of personal violence)
4. Anti-war pacifism (immorality of war)
Critical summary question:
What are the linkages between Brunk’s and Lackey’s categories?
C. The moral logic of duties and rights
Narveson said: Use of violence violates a moral duty (i.e. universal moral rule)
Universalized duties are the only valid moral duties
Ethical traditions offer other kinds of moral duty:
Ethics of virtue
“Non-secular” ethics
“Dualistic morality”
Moral standards...
Minimum baselines, below which we should never fall
Moral ideals --> ultimate aspirations, which we should always endeavour to achieve
The Overall Debate
Analytic approach
Major differences of style and strategy
Decisions to make:
Nonviolence as a duty
Self-defence as a right
15-minute essay:
1. Select one of the pro- or anti- pacifist arguments we’ve discussed (Sermon on the Mount; M.L. King jr.; Kant; Lackey)
2. Decide whether you think the argument is either convincingly challenged by Narveson or defended by Brunk.
3. Summarize the basic thrust of your position by stating it clearly in one or two sentences
4. Clearly explain one or two of your reasons for holding this view
posted by Michael Kocsis at 12:10 p.m.
1 Comments:
...all wars...to the next war that going at trenches: pontifices, monarchs and politicians...and fight between them, then rapidly already NO MORE WARS.
Post a Comment
<< Home