Key Points on the Position of the Christian Churches in the United States on the War
Conditional pacifism, also sometimes referred to as contingent pacifism, is the belief that violence, and particularly war, is fundamentally immoral but may be justified under certain extreme circumstances. This is in contrast to absolute pacifism, which maintains that violence or war is never morally justified.
Conditional pacifists generally strive for peaceful resolution of conflicts and advocate for non-violent means of change or resistance. However, they concede that there may be situations where violence becomes the lesser of two evils. For instance, if faced with a genocidal regime or a brutal dictatorship perpetrating human rights abuses, a conditional pacifist might reluctantly accept that a military intervention could be morally justified.
This perspective can also apply on an individual level. For example, a conditional pacifist might believe it is morally permissible to use violence in self-defense or to protect others from immediate harm.
Conditional pacifists often struggle with determining the specific conditions under which violence might be morally acceptable. This is a deeply complex ethical issue that involves weighing the value of peace and nonviolence against the potential necessity of preventing harm or injustice.
The principles of Just War Theory, which outline criteria that must be met for a war to be considered morally acceptable, can be seen as a form of conditional pacifism. Just War Theory sets a very high bar for when violence is permissible, and emphasizes the importance of exhausting all non-violent options first.
However, it’s worth noting that not all conditional pacifists would accept all forms of Just War Theory, and vice versa. These are complex philosophical positions with many potential variations and interpretations.