Hello readers!
Today, I make good on my promise that this page would be a mixture of all different types of posts, not just my original writing, not just poetry or short stories, but posts featuring a notable writer or topic. In light of all the political developments surrounding the coming election, I’ve been in a bit of a mood, one that wishes to discuss important issues, not just sweep them under the rug and avoid them in conversation like so many would like to do simply to keep conversation light and uncontroversial. It is true than many people lack the ability to discuss politics in a scholarly objective manner, and so I very much understand the reasoning behind trying to avoid unnecessary tension in a group setting. I myself find it hard not to become frustrated with those who simply rufuse to see the truth. I know you all have encountered those described in this quote (also from the same address as the longer excerpt below by C.S. Lewis):
Every teacher knows that people are constantly protesting that they “can’t see” some self-evident inference, but the supposed inability is usually a refusal to see, resulting either from some passion which wants not to see the truth in question or else from sloth which does not want to think at all.”
When I encounter individuals with whom there is no discussing anything that differs with their own opinion, those who are not interesting in seeking truth for its own sake, but rather more interested in proving me wrong, there comes a time when one must simply be kind, understanding, and patient (which many times is no easy task).
Anyway, the excerpt I have today is not meant to inspire any heated arguments that end in belittling tones or name-calling, but really just something that made me think. I am most definitely not a pacifist, but I hadn’t really found something that made such good points simply based on logic. I have my own personal beliefs, but not everyone shares those, so I simply wanted to share something that supports my views simply on the basis of reason.
With that, here is a little of C.S. Lewis’ lecture that was delivered to a pacifist society in Oxford sometime in 1940. I encourage anyone intrigued by this excerpt to read whole lecture found in The Weight of Glory, a collection of many of his topical addresses and sermons.
As always, happy reading!
Excerpt from “Why I Am Not a Pacifist”
First to the facts. The main relevant fact admitted by all parties is that war is very disagreeable. The main contention urged as fact by Pacifists would be that wars always do more harm than good. How is one to find out whether this is true? It belongs to a class of historical generalisations which involve a comparison between the actual consequences of some actual event and a consequence which might have followed if that event had not occurred. “Wars do no good” involves the proposition that if the Greeks had yielded to Xerxes and the Romans to Hannibal, the course of history ever since would have been perhaps better, but certainly no worse than it actually has been; that a Mediterranean world in which Carthaginian power succeeded Persian would have been at least as good and happy and as fruitful for all posterity as the actual Mediterranean world in which Roman power succeeded Greek. My point is not that such an opinion seems to me overwhelmingly improbable. My point is that both opinions are merely speculative; there is no conceivable way of convincing a man of either. Indeed it is doubtful whether conception of “what would have happened” — that is, of unrealised possibilities — is more than an imaginative technique for giving a vivid rhetorical account of what did happen.
That wars do no good is then so far from being a fact that it hardly ranks as a historical opinion. Nor is the matter mended by saying “modern wars”; how are we to decide whether the total effect would have been better or worse if Europe had submitted to Germany in 1914? It is, of course, true that wars never do half the good which the leaders of the belligerents say they are going to do. Nothing ever does half the good — perhaps nothing ever does half the evil — which is expected of it. And that may be a sound argument for not pitching one’s propaganda too high. But it is no argument against war. If a Germanised Europe in 1914 would have been an evil, then the war which would have prevented that evil would have been, so far, justified. To call it useless because it did not also cure slums and unemployment is like coming up to a man who has just succeeded in defending himself from a man-eating tiger and saying, “It’s no good, old chap. This hasn’t really cured your rhuematism!”
On the test of fact then, I find the Pacifist position weak. It seems to me that history is full of useful wars as well of useless wars. If all that can be brought against the frequent appearance of utility is mere speculation about what would have happened, I am not converted.”
7 responses to “C.S. Lewis excerpt from “Why I am not a Pacifist””
roopost
January 22nd, 2012 at 18:58
Sabbi,
As Swift stated, (or someone so like him it makes no odds), ‘You cannot reason a person out of a position they were never reasoned into.’
I share your frustration with the intractable opinion – or perhaps more correctly, the racing mouth between closed ears. It is, I have found, a consistent confusion in the world that the ‘right’ of free speech does not imbue those about with the requirement of listening. All statements made are, by there nature of being part of free speech, available for comment. Eventually though one does have to question whether to exchange views, or to merely allow the spurious or brutally invoked opinion to clatter to the floor.
Sadly, I am not so blessed with patience. May I express some admiration for yours.
Kind regards,
sabbiwhims
January 22nd, 2012 at 23:37
“racing mouth between closed ears” I like it =) And don’t be mistaken; my patience is also limited. While I can ignore many silly posts and comments, sometimes I’ll see a truly ignorant facebook comment or blog post on here, and at first I’ll let it “clatter to the floor,” but then I’ll find myself revisiting the comment and wanting to stomp on it with a fervor that might not always be received as particularly kind. Alas, it’s a good thing my time doesn’t always allow a truly poignant rebuttal. I would have far less friendly acquaintances I fear =)
jumpingpolarbear
January 22nd, 2012 at 20:13
I think your quote : ” It seems to me that history is full of useful wars as well of useless wars ” sums up this post. Pacificm is not the way when an aggressive enemy is trying to ethnic cleanse the place where your family has lived for centuries.
sabbiwhims
January 22nd, 2012 at 23:44
Indeed. One should always strive for peace among nations, but there comes a time when the only way for there to be peace is to eliminate the one who refuses to be peaceable. Thanks for visiting my page! =)
Writing Jobs
January 22nd, 2012 at 21:01
What a wonderful post today. I enjoyed it very much. Thanks for sharing.
Join Us Today!
Writers Wanted
Dave Smith
January 26th, 2012 at 16:46
As in all things created there is an opportunity to be used for good and for evil intents. Standing up and defending those who cannot, for one reason or another, speak or act on their own behalf is a logical and moral thing to do and in the course of those actions, that defense leads to, from time to time, aggressive force. However, by the same token, there are those as well who use such actions recklessly and irresponsibly to justify everything from preemptive protection from an assumed enemy to the violent persecution of people groups/nations for a litany of baseless reasons from acquisition of land/materials to racial prejudice.
Jesus Christ sets an indelible example for us. While he was not active in leading the charge against the Roman government (even as many of his Jewish listeners would have longed for their Messiah to do), he was more than willing to take physical action against those who were taking advantage of people coming to make offerings in the temple. The fact that they were robbing people in the house of the Lord definitely brought out his “wrathful” side but we also cannot miss that this, along with a few other cases, were very isolated for for him. More often than not, he was preaching a message of “turning the other cheek” when it came to our own personal suffering. He was not a pacifist, but he was indeed the “Prince of Peace.”
While I may not support every action we (or any other nation for that matter) take against others, I recognize the need for our troops to act on a national level, protecting the interests of our country, but even more so, when they are protecting the inalienable rights of others who are being oppressed and persecuted by other nations who go to war for godless reasons.
sabbiwhims
January 28th, 2012 at 02:57
Totally agree, This particular excerpt is speaking specifically to the issues of pacifism among countries and whether or not it is moral to go to war, but I think when it comes to our own personal suffering there are very limited times when physical violence is appropriate for a believer. Some of those times when it is appropriate, perhaps might be when a father or mother is protecting their children, or even when a young boy finally chooses to stand up to a bully. I feel the “turn the other cheek” passage is occasionally taken too literally by some. It is clear that we should always seek peace as long as it is possible, but if a husband is beating his wife or if i go back to the bully example, and those victims decide to turn the other cheek, what good comes from that? The victim has only empowered the oppressor, and they will continue going on to hurt them or others so long as no one stands up to them. Anyway.. tangent =)