Sam Harris's critique of pacifism

Anyone want to discuss Harris's position on pacifism, which he outlines in The End of Faith?

He considers it "flagrantly immoral," but seems to characterize it with the same absolutist, slippery-slope methodology that one would expect from an ideological conservative. There are degrees of pacifism, on the one hand - maybe even different 'pacifisms,' each of which is coherent and useful in a wide variety of circumstances.

For example: I don't think that personal self-defense when one feels one's life (or the life of one's family) in danger is necessarily antithetical to a belief that international disputes would be better handled by diplomacy than by force.

Harris imagines a city of pacifists being at the mercy of a sociopath with a knife; he doesn't consider that one might actually capture and control such a sociopath without killing him.

While I find much of Harris ingenious and convincing, I don't appreciate the offhand castigation of those who think, weigh, and consider whether reasonable people might have subtler notions of pacifism or, if - like pregnancy - his notion is absolute, that one might stake out a moral claim as a semipacifist, nevertheless, forsaking pure relativism.

It's been a couple of years since I read his book, but I think that he was writing about pacifism in its most verbal and outspoken form. When I think of pacifism, I do tend to imagine someone who thinks that violence is never OK, in any situation. I, like Sam Harris, believe believe (this kind of) pacifism to be "flagrantly immoral."

I can't remember (read: I'm at work and don't have the source material with me), but I believe that Harris mentions the famous quote somewhere in his book: "All that's needed for evil men to prosper is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke. It may not be in there; my memory may be faulty. If it's not, it should be!

It's my guess that Harris didn't bring up (forgive me for lack of a better term) "weak" pacifism because it wouldn't help him win his argument. Or, he may have overlooked that subset of pacifism.

You do bring up an interesting point. I don't think that I've ever considered the degrees pacifism. I suppose everyone has pacifistic beliefs or tendencies on some matter. Nobody in their right mind would respond to every situation with hostility and force (if they did, they wouldn't live very long!)

(Edited to change paragraph layout. I tend to ramble in long blocks of text.)

If he does argue against pacifism using that "All that's needed for evil men to prosper is for good men to do nothing" quote, then it really does show he has no idea what he's talking about. Somehow he changed the issue from refraining from using physical violence to "doing nothing", much like those who opposed the invasion of Iraq were criticized for wanting to "do nothing" about terrorism, despotism, weapons of mass destruction, etc.

I haven't yet read the book, though, so I don't know if that's the case. It's been on my "to be read" list for some time.

#3

For the purposes of this argument, I'll use World War 2 as an example. Hitler could not have been reasoned with. His goals were world domination and the extermination of specific groups of people. A pacifistic attitude during this conflict would be complicity with atrocity. There are certain people and groups who cannot be talked down. They can only be met with force. If you (or your friends, family, etc...) are under imminent threat of bodily harm, would you not physically defend yourself (or them), if it came to that?

Most rational people will (and should) attempt to talk and negotiate their way out of trouble. Practical pacifism is a spectrum, based on level of actual threat. If someone cuts you off on the freeway, violence is NOT justified. If someone is attempting to rape your wife, violence IS justified.

The point is merely that you cannot criticize pacifism by attacking passivity; it's a strawman.