This week in my Religion, Violence, and Peacebuilding class, we explored the complex and often contentious relationship between pacifism and just war theory. What made this week especially compelling was the interdisciplinary approach - philosophy, theology, and history all came into the conversation, challenging us to think not just about what happened in the past, but how we ethically interpret it.
We began with Restoring Peace: Towards a Conversation between Just War and Reconcilitation Traditions by Matthew J. Gaudet and William R. O'Neill. The authors argue that these two traditions, often seen as opposites, can actually inform and enrich each other. Reconciliation, they suggest, is not just what happens after war, but it can be a framework that shapes how we think about conflict itself. This idea laid the groundwork for the rest of the week: what if pacifists and just war theorists aren't enemies, but uneasy allies in the pursuit of peace?
Later in the week, we welcomed a guest lecturer, a history professor at UVU who specializes in peacebuilding. His presence shifted the tone of the class from theoretical to historical. He challenged us to consider how historians often focus on events and outcomes, but neglect the ethical questions that underlie them. Why did people choose violence? What alternatives were available? What moral frameworks shaped their decisions?
To prepare for this class period, we read several historical documents: Benjamin Franklin's Plain Truth (1747), John Smith's Doctrine of Christianity (1748), and Jessica Choppin Roney's Ready to Act in Defiance of Government. These texts centered around the 1747 Militia Crisis in colonial America, a moment when civic duty, religious conviction, and political unrest collided. We also read Pacifist Claptrap, a Washington Post article published shortly after 9/11, which criticized pacifism as naive and dangerous. The juxtaposition of these texts, spanning centuries, highlighted how debates about violence and peace are never just academic. They are deeply personal, political, and moral.
For our weekly assignment, we read Reconciling Pacifist and Just War Theorists by James Sterba. Sterba argues that pacifism and just war theory can be reconciled when interpreted in their most morally defensible forms. He critiques rigid versions of pacifism, nonviolent and nonlethal, and proposes anti-war pacifism, which opposes participation in the massive use of lethal force, especially when nonviolent alternatives are underutilized.
Sterba's most compelling contribution is his defense of the moral distinction between intended and foreseen harm. Using Counterfactual and Nonexplanation Tests, he argues that collateral damage (foreseen harm) is morally less severe than intentional harm. This distinction, he claims, is crucial for evaluating wartime actions. While he acknowledges exceptions to the prohibition on intentional harm, he maintains that a strong presumption against it is morally preferable.
Ultimately, Sterba concludes that anti-war pacifists and just war theorists can agree on many cases of justified defense, especially when proportionality and restraint are emphasized. The reconciliation lies in refining both views to prioritize minimizing harm and respecting human dignity, even in extreme circumstances.
Reflecting on this week, I am struck by how much richer our understanding of peace becomes when we allow disciplines to speak to one another. Philosophy gives us the tools to evaluate moral claims. History gives us the context to understand how those claims were lived out. Theology offers a vision of human dignity that can guide both.
Our guest lecturer reminded us that peacebuilding isn't just about preventing war; it is about asking better questions. What does justice look like before violence erupts? How do we honor the humanity of our enemies? And how can we learn from the past without repeating its ethical blind spots?
This week didn't offer easy answers. But it did offer a framework for thinking more deeply, and more compassionately, about the choices we make in the face of conflict.
Sources:
Franklin, B. (1747, November 17). Plain truth: Or, serious considerations on the present state of the city of Philadelphia, and province of Pennsylvania. Printed by Benjamin Franklin.
Gaudet, M. J., & O’Neill, W. R. (2011). Restoring peace: Toward a conversation between the just war and reconciliation traditions. Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics, 31(1), 37–55.
Kelly, Michael. (2001, September). Pacifist claptrap. The Washington Post.
Roney, J. C. (2010). “Ready to act in defiance of Government”: Colonial Philadelphia voluntary culture and the Defense Association of 1747–1748. Early American Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8(2), 358–385.
Smith, J. (1748). The doctrine of Christianity as held by the people called Quakers, vindicated: In answer to Gilbert Tennent’s sermon on the lawfulness of war. Printed by Benjamin Franklin and David Hall.
Sterba, J. P. (1992). Reconciling pacifists and just war theorists. Social Theory and Practice, 18(1), 21–38.
[Written for PHIL 366G class UVU Fall 2025]
aB . All Rights Reserved . 2025
