WAR AND NON-RESISTANCE[1]
The principle that it is always wrong to employ force against another human being has been held in its extreme form by Quakers and by Tolstoy, but has always been rejected by the great majority of mankind as inconsistent with the existence of civilised society. In this, no doubt, the majority of mankind are in the right. But I think that the occasions where forcible resistance is the best course are much fewer than is generally believed, and that some very great and important advances in civilisation might be made if this were more widely recognised. The so-called "right of self-defence," in particular, seems to have only a very limited sphere of application, and to be often supported by arguments involving both mistakes as to political questions and a wrong conception of the best type of character.[2]
No one who holds that human conduct ought to be such as to promote certain ends—no matter what ends may be selected—will expect any absolute hard-and-fast rules of conduct to which no possible exception can be found. Not to lie, not to steal, not to murder, are very good precepts for ordinary cases: it may be, in view of the likelihood of biassed judgments, that
- ↑ Reprinted from the Atlantic Monthly, August, 1915.
- ↑ I touched upon this subject in a former article, in the International Journal of Ethics (January, 1915), but as my discussion was very brief, it was misunderstood, and seems in need of expansion. The present article is a partial reply to Professor Perry in the April Number of that Journal, but I have thought it better to make the reply explanatory rather than controversial.
