Pacifism vs Just War Theory

Albert Einstein once said, “You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.” Although Einstein is considered one of the greatest thinkers in history, he was surely not an ethicist. Regardless, his statement of pacifism, should not be taken lightly. In passages such as “Pacifism” by Douglas P Lackey pacifism and it many forms are defined and justified as valid moral theories . Initially pacifists such as Albert Schewerzer considered it wrong to kill and this was their central concept , over time the ideas by which pacifists are defined became more specific in some cases, while more broad in others. Famous visionaries such as Mahatma Ghandi and Leo Tolstoy have gone down in history for their peaceful and somewhat passive moral theories. In their theory these universal pacifists specified that it was immoral to take place in violence in cases of personal affairs or between nation-states. “Private pacifists” believe that personal violence is morally wrong but political violence is right in certain cases. These pacifists believe that it is sometimes permissible for nations to go to war. Finally the last type of pacifists think personal violence is sometimes wrong but war is always morally wrong , this type of pacifist is called an anti-war pacifist. In this essay I will be comparing and contrasting “Pacifism” by Douglas P Lackey and the listed forms of pacifism with just war theory arguments addressed in passages such as Michael Walzer’s “Terrorism: A Critique of Excuses”.
As rational creatures, everything that we do is reasoned out. Whether consciously or unconsciously, everything that we do is for a purpose, and is somehow justified by our minds. We do not simply do things out of instincts, or merely of habits, but out of a conscious decision of what is right and what is wrong. The logical question to this is of course, how do we decide what is right or wrong in our personal lives? On an even larger scale, how do we apply this theory of right and wrong in