| |
THE PACIFIST POSITION: some difficulties, or MOTHERS AND MACHETES. This piece was written in response to a Quaker discussion on their ‘Peace Testimony’.
Peter Galbraith, March 2007.
Pacifists are often challenged by conventional thinkers – and often by themselves – as to what they would do if they saw someone attacking their mother? This seems to be a logical and reasonable question. For myself, I will answer briefly, “I would almost certainly attack the attacker.” This would seem to invalidate my position in relation to war and other forms of institutional violence.
The question deeply disturbs many very sincere pacifists, but this concern is needless. It is based on an inadequate analysis of the human situation. I turn to Buddhist teaching for the answer.
First, let us recognise that we are aiming for perfection of action. Yet we know that we are, as yet, incapable of achieving this. Every action has inevitable consequences. These consequences are complex and far exceed the obvious and immediate. Bad (or what Buddhists call ‘unskillful’) acts have negative consequences, but the same act may, in the long term, result in differing degrees of negativity – according the intention of the doer. Thus, if I attack you in order to steal your mobile ‘phone, the consequences of my action will be relatively severe and far-reaching. However, if I attack you because you threaten my mother, the long-term reaction will be relatively mild. (I am not speaking here of legal consequences but of the inevitable and universal effect of natural laws.) Thus, the degree of ‘badness’ of an act relates not just to its overt aspects but, much more, to the intention with which it is performed.
So, we are mistaken if we expect from ourselves totally consistent wise behaviour: we aim to constantly improve towards consistency. The consequence of the deep disturbance and unhappiness in which mankind currently wallows renders perfectly wise action almost impossible. One example of this is the predicament of the wise Inuit or Eskimo whose only source of protein is fish. If he does not catch and kill fish he will die – so he catches only sufficient for his current need and kills his fish swiftly and as painlessly as possible. We may also look at the past practice of the Native American, who killed buffalo only when necessary, apologised to them for doing so and thanked them for their sacrifice.
This behaviour is a million miles from the unnecessary and cruel exploitation of our farm animals and the brutal carnage of our slaughter-houses – all to satisfy our selfish greed, while elsewhere thousands upon thousands starve. This is where the intention behind an act radically changes its ethical value. I am totally convinced that no-one in our society who is not a vegan or, at least, a vegetarian can legitimately claim to be a pacifist or supporter of the peace testimony. Mahatma Gandhi said, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals.”
So, let us do what we can do, witness in ways that are easily open to us, and put aside hypothetical questions about mothers and machetes. Defend your mother and eat your greens!
|
|