Pacificism is the general term forethical opposition toviolence orwar unless force is deemed necessary. Together with pacifism, it is born from the Western tradition or attitude that calls forpeace.[citation needed] The former involves the unconditional refusal to support violence or absolute pacifism, but pacificism views the prevention of violence as its duty but recognizes the controlled use of force to achieve such objective.[1] According to Martin Ceadel, pacifism and pacificism are driven by a certain political position or ideology such asliberalism,socialism orfeminism.[2]
Ceadel has categorized pacificism among positions about war and peace, ordering it among the other categories:[3]
Pacificism ranges between totalpacifism, which usually states that killing, violence or war is unconditionally wrong in all cases, anddefensivism, which accepts alldefensive acts as morally just.[4] Pacificism states that war may ever be considered only as a firm "last resort" and condemns bothaggression andmilitarism. In the 1940s, the two terms were not conceptually distinguished, and pacificism was considered merely an archaic spelling.[5]
The termpacificism was first used in 1910 by William James.[6] The distinct theory was later developed byA. J. P. Taylor inThe Trouble-Makers (1957)[7] and was subsequently defined by Ceadel in his 1987 book,Thinking About Peace and War.[8][9] It was also discussed in detail inRichard Norman's book,Ethics, Killing and War. The concept came to mean "the advocacy of a peaceful policy."[10]
The largest national peace association in history, the BritishLeague of Nations Union, was pacificist rather than pacifist in orientation.[11] Historically, the majority of peace activists have been pacificists rather than strict pacifists.[12]