Religious Pacifism vs. Self-Defence

There are three main theories of resistance against oppression: 1) secular non-violence based on pragmatic considerations, 2) the use of physical force justified by self-defence and necessity, and 3) religious pacifism. In this article we will discuss the two last positions. Click here for more on pragmatic non-violence.

Those who have felt the unbelievable pain of a raw and exposed nerve struck by a syringe needle know that no religious conviction can justify passivity when a small child is tortured and raped. The pain of the child commands that one intervenes and stops the torturer by any means available. Intervention in this case does not mean accusation. One can forgive the torturer. But what’s most important is to relieve the child from pain. The pain must be stopped as quickly as possible.

But there is a religious argument that may be superior to the justification of violence mentioned above. There might be a meaning to excruciating pain. For example, the experience of extreme pain makes one remember evil through eternity. If heaven exists, that memory will keep everyone from ever choosing evil again. It will keep us from misusing our free will. Eternity is a long time, so we need an experience of evil that we will never forget. Life on Earth gives us that experience. That’s maybe one reason why one should endure pain without violent resistance. Another reason is that everyone who wants to enter Heaven or Nirvana must abandon defensive violence even if they know that people outside these realms are being attacked.

However, it can be objected that all religious arguments are based on guesses and speculations. We don’t know if any of them are true. We can’t let guesses about religion rule our actions if we witness children being tortured right in front of us. That’s why ethical arguments in favour of self-defence and necessity are superior to religious arguments.

But a compromise between these two positions is possible. Religious people who feel that killing can never be justified, can still use less-lethal weapons to protect victims of illegal attacks. Capture operations in order to force capitalists to transfer money to poverty-stricken children, can be done in a way that will not kill anyone. And religious pacifists don’t have to seek out situations where killing in self-defence is necessary because there are millions of children who can be helped by using other means than lethal violence.

Which position do you support: religious pacifism or defensive violence based on common sense ethics?