Q&A: Pacifist
Pacifist
Question
Hello Michi,
I see myself as a pacifist, and I have a hard time with the idea of enlisting in the army and carrying a weapon, even just in training.
In my view, according to the categorical imperative, if everyone in the world refused to carry weapons, the world would be a better place. In keeping with that outlook, I am supposed to enlist but want to avoid military service. I wanted to hear your opinion, since I value your views on various issues.
Thank you
Aviv
Answer
If you’re talking about feelings, that’s one thing; if these are convictions, that’s something else. Feelings are something one should try to overcome. If it’s a conviction, then I don’t understand it. Do you think we should just commit suicide, and that’s that?! Our enemies are not pacifists. So what are you proposing? If everyone refused to carry weapons, the world would indeed be much better, but unfortunately there is no such agreement. So are you proposing suicide in the name of the categorical imperative? A strange view. Or perhaps you’re counting on others to do the job for you while you remain a righteous pacifist? If you want to discuss this, I’d be happy to hear some sensible explanation for this collection of rather bizarre ideas.
Discussion on Answer
An amazingly entertaining bit of sophistry. So according to your approach, it’s forbidden to go study medicine, because if everyone studies medicine, who will be in the army and in the economy and in industry and in law? Everyone means everyone.
And besides, I also asked you according to your own view: suppose the categorical imperative says not to enlist, but if we don’t enlist we’ll die (because the other side has never heard of the categorical imperative). Are you proposing to die for the sake of the categorical imperative? Is that one of the three gravest transgressions?
Thanks for the answer,
This is a conviction, not a feeling.
When you say, “our enemies are not pacifists,” or when you claim that not enlisting is suicide, you’re basically assuming that my actions will affect *only* “our” side. And that’s what I don’t understand.
That is, if I say that I’m not enlisting because I think everyone should refrain from enlisting, why answer me, “What will happen if everyone *in Israel* doesn’t enlist?”
That’s like answering me, “What will happen if everyone *in your building* doesn’t enlist?”
I don’t understand that narrowing-down.
In the categorical imperative, when we examine a certain action, we ask what would happen if everyone acted that way, not necessarily some specific population. When someone refuses to pay taxes, the question isn’t “What happens if everyone in Nahariya doesn’t pay taxes?” right?
I’m not relying on others to do the work for me. Rather, I want to act מתוך thought and hope that in every place there will be a certain percentage of people like me (an aspiration for gradual change).
I believe that on “the other side” too, most people are interested in enlisting, but a very small minority (and on “our side” too I am a very small minority) think like I do and prefer not to enlist, even though there is someone “on their side” telling them that this is suicide, because what will happen if everyone “on their side” doesn’t enlist.