Is it ever right to use violence? This question divides thoughtful people, and the nonviolence tradition has to answer the strongest arguments against it.

Pacifism

Pacifism is the view that war, and often killing generally, is morally wrong. Its defenders argue that every person has a dignity that killing violates, that war almost always kills many who are innocent, and that violence tends to breed more violence. It comes in several forms:

• Absolute pacifism holds that violence against people is always wrong, even in self-defense. Tolstoy held a view close to this.
• Conditional pacifism holds that violence might be justified in principle, but that modern war, with its huge civilian costs, almost never meets the bar.
• Some pacifists reject war between states while accepting limited force to protect people from immediate harm.

Just war theory

The main alternative in Western thought is just war theory, developed by Augustine (around 400 CE), Thomas Aquinas (thirteenth century) and later writers such as Hugo Grotius (seventeenth century). It holds that war is a terrible evil but can sometimes be justified under strict conditions, which fall into two groups.

Jus ad bellum (Latin for “right to war”) concerns whether going to war is justified:

• Just cause, such as defense against aggression;
• Legitimate authority to declare war;
• Right intention, aiming at peace and justice, not revenge or gain;
• Last resort, after peaceful options have been tried;
• Reasonable probability of success;
• Proportionality: the good expected must outweigh the harm.

Jus in bello (“right in war”) concerns how a war is fought:

• Discrimination (or distinction): never deliberately target civilians;
• Proportionality: force must not cause harm out of proportion to the military aim.

Many of these ideas now appear in international law, such as the Geneva Conventions. Pacifists and just war thinkers agree on more than people expect: both see war as a grave evil that needs strong justification. They differ on whether that justification can ever be met. Some recent writers add a third group, jus post bellum, about justice in ending a war and rebuilding afterward.

Self-defense

Nearly every legal system and most ethical traditions allow reasonable force to defend oneself or others from attack. Critics say a view that forbids even this asks people to let innocents be harmed. Advocates of nonviolence answer in different ways: some accept personal self-defense while rejecting organized violence; Gandhi said it is better to resist violently than to run away out of cowardice, while holding nonviolence as the higher way.

“It fails against ruthless regimes”

The strongest objection is practical: nonviolence works only against opponents with some restraint, such as Britain in India, and a regime willing to kill without limit, such as Nazi Germany, would crush it. George Orwell made a version of this argument about Gandhi in 1949. Critics add a free-rider objection: pacifists in safe countries benefit from the protection of other people's armies.

Replies

• Nonviolent resistance did occur under Nazi occupation: in 1942 Norwegian teachers refused to join a Nazi-controlled union, defeating a plan to control the schools; in 1943 Danes helped most of the country's Jews escape by boat to Sweden.
• Chenoweth and Stephan's data include nonviolent successes against harsh regimes, and violent campaigns often fail too.
• Sharp's theory relies not on the opponent's kindness but on the regime's need for cooperation.
• Many advocates concede that nonviolence will not always succeed, but argue that violence also carries huge costs and often produces new tyranny.

Just war thinkers respond in turn. These acts of resistance saved many lives, they note, but they did not end the occupations; Allied armies did. In their view, refusing ever to use force can leave the innocent unprotected, and a carefully limited war of defense can be the more responsible choice. The debate continues because both sides are pointing at real costs.

Worked example: two ways to answer an invasion

Imagine a small democracy invaded by a larger neighbor seeking to annex its territory. How would a just war thinker and a principled pacifist reason?

The just war thinker works through the criteria. Just cause: yes, defense against aggression is the clearest case. Legitimate authority: the elected government. Right intention: to restore independence, not to conquer the neighbor in return. Last resort: has diplomacy been tried and failed? Probability of success: can resistance succeed, or will it only cause pointless deaths? Proportionality: will the good achieved outweigh the harm? If these are met, armed defense may be justified, but only if it follows jus in bello: no deliberate attacks on civilians, and no force out of proportion to military aims.

The principled pacifist agrees the invasion is a grave wrong but refuses to kill to stop it. Instead they might propose civilian-based defense, an idea Sharp developed: prepare the whole population in advance to refuse cooperation with any occupier. Officials would not carry out orders, workers would strike, teachers would refuse new curricula, and the occupation would become costly and hard to govern.

A critic replies: an occupier willing to use mass terror may simply kill or deport resisters. The pacifist replies: occupations do depend on local cooperation, and armed defense against a much larger power may also fail, at enormous cost in lives. Many real societies have combined elements of both approaches. The point of the exercise is not to settle the matter but to see how each side reasons.