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 latter involves the unconditional refusal to support violence, or absolute pacifism; 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]