Introduction
Pacifism generally refers to the commitment to peace and opposition to war, militarism, or violence. Pacifism seeks to dispel the belief by people that war is inevitable by stating that violence is unjustifiable under any circumstances. For instance, Christianity has strong pacifist elements although they have accepted that war is inevitable and instead provides moral guidelines regarding dealing with armed conflicts. Judaism also is opposed to war but in some instances where violence is acceptable, the minimum necessary should be employed. In most of his works especially in the book “Peace with Honour,” Milne has attempted to advocate for his course of earnestly challenging the people’s belief in the usefulness and inevitability of war. Prior to his experiences in the First World War, Milne was a pacifist who sought to dismiss the notions held by people regarding the purpose and value of war.
Milne’s Pacifism
“Peace with Honour” is a book published in 1934 detailing Milne’s pleas for pacifism. The passion and earnestness with which Milne advocates for pacifism, in my opinion, cannot be matched by any other book. Milne presents his ideas in an informed manner based on his experiences and he relays to his audiences that benefits associated with nonviolence means of settling disputes. The book significantly persuades individuals to shun away the belief that war is useful and inevitable in settling disputes. Milne’s ideas about pacifism were further inspired by his experience in France where the horrifying realities of war made him to believe that pacifism presents the best alternative to war.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Milne wanted to make everyone to understand that war is a poison and cannot be used a solution to bring comfort in the lives of people. He gave the detailed account of all the traditional obstructions to pacifism in order to make people realize that pacifism is practical and it can be achieved if people can appreciate the importance and meaning of pacifism. He laid down the views held concerning the usefulness of war are some of the factors that make people not to open their eyes to the horrifying realities of war as an institution. He pointed out that war is indeed an obstruction to peace in the society. Therefore, Milne emphasized the need for the people to change their attitudes regarding war and embrace pacifism in order to make sustainable peace a reality. Although he realized that his course was more of idealistic and ambitious and would elicit resistance from people, he decided to try it. Typically, his course would be hard to implement universally but he was determined that by laying down the details and facts regarding war and pacifism, a section of the population would get the sense out of it. He knew that the lives of future soldiers as well as civilians were at stake and he was determined to advocate for the idea of pacifism.
Milne pointed out that the only objective of war is to bring about the complete surrender of the conquered to the will of the conqueror. Therefore, war is viewed as a selfish means of settling disputes as well as a way of taking advantage of the weak in the society. Moreover, surrender is always achieved through deliberate murder and ruin hence signifying that war is never the best alternative to choose after all (Betts, 2008). Milner cites that future wars will be worse than the former because of the accumulated wealth of civilization, which can facilitate much greater slaughter and ruin in the society. Therefore, in order to prevent much greater slaughter and ruin in the future, it is better to make the next war impossible to save humanity from immense suffering associated with war.
Milne observed that the main reason why nations go to war is to gain material possessions, pride, prestige, and honor. Such selfish motivations for war are some of the reasons that make Milne to adamantly plead for his course of pacifism among the people though his works. Moreover, Milne points out that religion and morality play a doubtful role in terms of averting more war to ensure the welfare of the individuals in the society especially the innocent civilians. The way the society-glorified war despite the senseless slaughters of the First World War concerned him the most because people ought to condemn war due to the detrimental effects it causes to life and property. The fact that most of the people wished to commemorate their fallen heroes at high profile memorials seem to further promote war as such acts seem to ignore the imminent deaths and crippling disfigurements that have far-reaching effects that go beyond the battlefields. Milner points out the painful experiences that soldiers go through and how hundreds of thousands suffered slow and painful deaths occasioned by gas poisoning or disease in their deathbeds. Moreover, he is saddened by the way, sentimentalists continued to visualize death in war as something that comes mercifully, swiftly and cleanly, oblivious of the fact that the soldiers die painful and shameful deaths.
Milne was disappointed when he observed that many people still found many ways to justify war despite the horrible experiences of war and the lives that were lost (Milne, 1934). The people continued to justify war as noble despite the fact that soldiers died ignoble deaths in battlefields and hospital beds. The attempts by people to speak of the death soldiers as heroes and the tributes paid to them do not compensate for their lives. He observes the irony behind such acts since the soldiers are named heroes simply because they died while in military service without any impressive achievements or accomplishments. Milner realized that most of the people who died in the war did not do anything heroic before they were killed.
Throughout his book, Milne is adamant that nothing that can be termed as a justification for war. Instead, Milne criticizes world’s leaders and policy makers for failing to envision a world where all the nations could agree to the possibility of a universal peace. Therefore, conflicts can never be settled by complete war and the possibility of nonviolence means to settle differences are considered desirable because it averts human suffering from the detrimental effects of war. Milne is optimistic that unity of the human species can be wisely and fully asserted through pacifism. Moreover, human unity should be recognized as a power that can overcome all the differences associated with race, ideology, culture, and ideology. The function of military actions only act to arouse partial unity by means of anger, pride hate, and lies. Love and desire for justice can successfully and enduringly promote peace and unity among people.
Therefore, Milne believed that if all the humanity embraced pacifism, the world would be a better place and peace would endure. Milne fought persistently with the idea that war was the only way to resolve arguments between two or more nations whether in terms of territory or resources. He advocated for pacifism regarding wars where economic or emotional value was at stake as such wars exhibit nothing that can be objectively judged as good or evil. Therefore, Milne significantly reacted against such wars, as they were not causes worth dying for. Moreover, such disagreements could easily be solved diplomatically rather that violently. Milne was able to reconcile his passionate pacifism with his later zeal for war against Nazism. Milne viewed the war against Hitler as a war between good and evil and it was justified because Hitler launched attacks on other countries causing suffering. As such, Hitler’s actions were against the ideals of pacifism and that is the reason he supported the war against Nazism. Milne lays out clear arguments and illustrates them with appropriate examples and analogies that effectively justify the war on Nazism. Therefore, Milne’s arguments against war are so heartfelt and passionate. His idealistic views on the significance of pacifism are as idealist as persuasive based on what was going on in some parts of Europe at the time.
Evaluation of Milne’s Pacifism
Pacifism is a political doctrine characterized by opposition to war as way of resolving conflicts between states. Therefore, pacifism in its sense advocates for more peaceful means of resolving conflicts. The main objective of pacifism is to establish peaceful relationships between world states. Christian as well as other religious traditions have a deeply rooted denial of the justifiability of any form of violence (Cheyney, 1983). Moreover, there have been movements dedicated for the abolitions of wars as a way of resolving conflicts initiated during the eighteenth century. The movements include The New York Peace Society formed in 1815 in the United States of America and The Society for the Promotion of Permanent and Universal formed in 1816 in England. Therefore, the prospect of perpetuating pacifism all over the world is possible as posited by Milne because there were already movements that advocated for his cause as early as the eighteenth century.
The idea of pacifism came up as a result of interaction between states. Institutionalization of wars was seen as a threat to world peace and there was need to come up with a better alternative that would help to settle differences among states in case they occurred. The ability of the centralized states to mobilize human and material resources as well as technological improvements in armaments has facilitated interstate wars. As such, the increasing monopoly of armed force within the society has significantly led to the increase of interstate wars. Therefore, the wars are motivated by pride and the need to display a state’s superiority over through the intimidating effects of war. Thus, pacifism is considered an important idea that should be embraced in order to prevent more bloodshed.
As observed by Milne, wars between states threaten to the very existence of inferior states through armed conquest. Moreover, war can destroy other states through the destruction of the existing favorable conditions of stability and prosperity (Milne 1934). The states are tasked with the responsibility of protecting the fundamental rights and privileges of its subjects. However, if wars threaten such rights and privileges, it is important to come up with initiatives that will help to avert war and violence. Therefore, there is a great need to prevent the impact of conflicts on the progress and prosperity of the existing states by embracing pacifism. Construction of appropriate international frameworks necessary to deter and control violence between states is some of the positive initiatives that can be implemented in order to facilitate permanent and universal peace. Moreover, there has been consensus among international bodies regarding the need for implementation of violence preventative measures aimed at promoting international harmony and peaceful resolution of conflict. As such, there have been politically influential pacifist movements in the world that are committed to the promotion of international agreements forbidding aggressive war as well as limiting arms. These are some of the evidences that point out that pacifism as posited by Milne, can be achieved if there are concerted efforts from world leaders and policy makers.
Pacifism seeks to promote the establishment of an institution of peace that will counter the institution of war. Moreover, pacifist initiatives have facilitated arrangements aimed to lessen the likelihoods of occurrence of interstate wars. Therefore, pacifists strive to identify and provide opportunities for negotiated resolution when conflicts occur in order to avert wars. This includes development of appropriate techniques aimed at facilitating active peaceful opposition to armed conflicts where the populations are encouraged to respond to armed coercion through widespread passive resistance in order to eliminate any risks that may ignite violence (Richard, 1988). Therefore, Milne’s pacifism is very relevant in our society because it rejects the institution of war as a means of resolving conflicts. Instead, it is committed to the creation of an alternative institution of peace, which will foster universal peace among the nations of the earth. The institution of peace is seen as an appropriate vehicle that will lead world leaders and policy makers to envision a world where universal peace is embraced. The acceptance of religious motivations against war is considered the main drives for pacifist initiatives.
Pacifism is the best alternative to the institution of war because it is a practical idea that can be implemented. There are many fundamental reasons to prefer pacifism over war because of the many benefits associated with sustainable harmony among world states (Milne, 1934). If pacifist means of resolving conflicts are compared to military means, the former is desirable because it promotes universal peace. If peace is the desired outcome of every effort to resolve conflicts among the states, the stakes should be evaluated. Concerning pacifism, it provides an opportunity by both parties to not only resolve the conflict but to also build lasting diplomatic relations that foster prosperity. Military means use of force to resolve a particular disagreement. The outcomes associated with military use are undesirable because one of the military forces will prevail while the other will lose. The losing side will retreat and go ahead to prepare for another war because men naturally detest defeat. As a show of might the military force that was initially defeated will strive to avenge in order to prove its might leading to military competition. If care is not taken, the war involving two military forces or states may degenerate to a war involving several states who might be allies of either side. Use of military force does not provide an opportunity to solve issues amicably as well as establishing diplomatic relations. Moreover, it should be considered that use of military force will involve loss of lives unlike pacifism where peace is promoted. Therefore, Milne’s support for pacifism is well informed in terms of promotion of peace in the world.
Historical evidence also supports the idea of pacifism as an effective way of handling disagreements among states. The measures that have always been taken by states with an objective of increasing military security such as strengthening of border posts and purchase of superior weapons creates mistrust among states. This increases the likelihoods of military conflict due to the insecurity caused by the heightened mistrust among the states. Therefore, adoption of a pacifist stance by a state or states will limit the possibility of provocations for invasion. Pacifism has a deterring influence for the states that might in one way or another be contemplating military action. From the above considerations it is clear that military means of resolving conflicts are inappropriate especially in a world where peace is a rare jewel.
There are huge costs associated with financing military conflicts. The purchase of superior arms cost a lot of money and they constitute a significant junk of a nation’s budget. Moreover, there are also costs involved in maintaining the military personnel in the warfront as well as the loss of lives to war. As such, when armed conflict is compared to pacifism, the latter is preferable because it involves no significant costs (Richard, 1988). Pacifism involves dialogue aimed at solving conflicts as well as building diplomatic relationships. Therefore, pacifism, as pointed out by Milne has a lot of benefits apart from promoting universal peace.
One of the arguments against pacifism cites that coercion is necessary in order to maintain order and justice in the society. Therefore, the argument seeks to justify the use of war to maintain order and justice in the states and among states. The argument is not strong because it is based on the mere conclusion that man lacks judgment. However, man is a social being with the ability and willingness to reason as well as understand. Therefore, dialogue can be sufficient to settle conflicts among people and states. As such, world leaders and policy maker should strive to facilitate pacifism and promote universal peace.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Milne’s idea of pacifism offers a practical framework that can be used by states to abolish the institution of war and focus on building an enduring and permanent institution of peace. Therefore, pacifism is a desirable alternative to war as a means of settling state or individual disputes. The world leaders as well as those tasked with policy development should pacifism a chance in order to promote universal peace. From the considerations of this paper, it is proven beyond doubt that Milne’s pacifism offers the most appropriate option of promoting peace.
References
Betts, P. (2008). “Property, peace and honour: neighborhood justice in communist Berlin”, Past and Present, 201(1), 215-254
Cheyney, R. (1983). “Self Defense, Pacifism and Rights,” Ethics , 93, 509
Milne, A. (1934). Peace with honour . EP Dutton & Company.
Richard, N. (1988). “The Case for Pacifism,” Journal of Applied Philosophy , 5, 197-210
