There is a strange tension at the heart of pacifist thought.  If one was uncharitable, one might even consider it to be a contradiction.  I should note at the outset that I do not consider myself a pacifist.  My own general philosophy of peace is expressed in Romans 12:18 (and surrounding verses), which says:  “ If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.” Being a somewhat prickly person by nature (and nurture), it is not always easy to be peaceable, but I do believe it very important to not be the person who is preventing the establishment of a just peace.  Obviously, our views of justice greatly differ, and so it is difficult for us to realize the ways in which our own personal dignity and honor may hinder the establishment of peace and reconciliation.  Yet with all these caveats listed, I still do not consider myself a pacifist because I believe in living peaceably insofar as it depends on me, which means it may not depend on me, which means that peace may be impossible thanks to other people, and one’s options may be limited to fighting against wickedness and evil because it will not cease to war on us.

Indeed, it would appear, at least as an outsider, that a great many pacifists have this same reserve clause, but are less honest about it than those of us who do not consider ourselves to be pacifists.  In general, as someone who has read a fair amount about peace and peacemaking, there are two general kinds of books that deal with the subject of peace.  On the one hand, there are very good books that discuss the ways that we can be peacemakers with other people, like spouses or parents or children or friends and family members through the cultivation of a personal ethos of fairness and diplomacy that allows one to mediate conflict successfully in an atmosphere of mutual trust-building and respect.  On the other hand, there are very bad books that look at peace activism and which view the peace activist as being at war with one’s own society and government and tending to view that government as evildoers and as those whom one is at war with (and it should be noted that governments tend to be very quick to repay those who view them as evildoers in kind, speaking from experience).  The end result is a strange view of seeking to war with one’s own government so that a nation may be at peace with those who seek active harm to society and to its ways, which is precisely the wrong attitude towards peace that we should have.

When we seek peace for those who desire peace, we must be aware that we may be excluding ourselves from that.  This ought not to be something that is beyond our own moral imagination, for it is an insight that even dystopian Young Adult fiction teaches us.  In the popular Hunger Games series of novels, for example, the heroine Katniss Everdeen finds herself serving as a reluctant symbol of resistance against a tyrannical government in a dystopian future North America, and her behavior includes the killing of a would-be dictator who wished to overthrow the government to take its place.  However one may view the necessity or desirability of overthrowing governments by force, it is indeed quite possible for those who provide the possibility of peace for others to be denied peace for themselves.  Soldiers in war or those who have suffered or inflicted the sort of horrors that are endemic to human experience thanks to our fallen and evil nature may spend their entire lives affected if not tormented by what they have seen, done, and endured.  If their actions are self-sacrificial in making the world a better place by fighting against some measure of evil against it, there is a price that must be paid in that people who provide the circumstances for peace (in the sense of a victor’s peace) may be denied peace for themselves as a result of their own behavior.

This ought to remind us that when we seek to limit our wishes for peace and goodwill to those who deserve it or even for those who seek it, we must be aware of the way in which our limitations may cut ourselves out.  Any consistent rule we seek to apply to others also applies to ourselves and to those we would support and agree with.  Perhaps this is why consistency is so seldom sought and so often people appear to be so self-serving when it comes to double standards, all of which hinders the trust that others have in us.  Obviously, people are not going to be willing to trust us if we are obviously biased and not fair-minded, and they may be so biased to not trust us even if we are just.  But others will have little reason to humble themselves and accept our status as judges if we have not demonstrated the ability to be fair-minded.  Before we can have peace, we must be able to lower the tension that exists due to perception of disrespect and untrustworthiness.  It is in an atmosphere of basic trust and a recognition of respect that it is capable to be at peace with others.  And quite sadly we do not do a very good job at building the sort of infrastructure that allows for peace.  Most of the time, unfortunately, we do not have peace because we do not seek it, even though there are cases where we would seek it but others would be unwilling to be at peace with us.