to commit violence upon another is itself the greatest possible evil.
The non-pacifist says that some other evils may be greater, and that the
use of this lesser evil to oppose them is entirely justified. John Lewis
bases his entire _Case Against Pacifism_ upon this latter assumption,
and says that in such a conflict of values, pacifists "continue to be
pacifists either because there is no serious threat, or because they do
not expect to lose anything, or perhaps even because they do not value
what is threatened."[20] The latter charge is entirely unjustified. The
pacifist maintains his opposition to violence in the face of such a
threat, not because he does not value what is threatened, but because he
values something else more.

Cadoux has phrased it, "Pacifism is applicable only in so far as there
exist pacifists who are convinced of its wisdom. The subjective
differences are of vital importance, yet are usually overlooked in
arguments on the subject."[21] This means that our problem of
considering the place of violence and non-violence in human life is not
one of purely objective science, since the attitudes and beliefs of
pacifists (and non-pacifists) themselves become a factor in the
situation. If enough people accepted the pacifist scale of values, it
would in fact become the true basis for social interaction.[22]

In our western society, the majority even of those who believe in the
brotherhood of man, and have great respect for the dignity of every
human personality, will on occasion use violence as a means to attempt
the achievement of their goals. Since their attitude is different from
that of the militarist who would place violence itself high in his scale
of values, it would pay us to consider their position.

FOOTNOTES: