Pacifism and the War in Ukraine

 

A number of commentators, both left and right, have taken the position that it is wrong for the US, or Canada, to be involved in the fighting in Ukraine.

This position is morally depraved. The worst of it is that it masquerades as a superior morality. It is the devil’s work.

There are snide, self-serving suggestions that Ukraine is corrupt, and its ruling elite has bribed the American leadership into giving support. Hunter Biden doesn’t help.

This is not plausible. They must then also have bribed Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Poland, Latvia, Morocco, Denmark, … over fifty countries who have sent material aid. If we are getting into bribery, Russia would be able to outspend Ukraine on that battlefield. And Putin, ex-KGB, would surely have thought of it.

First point: every man’s death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind. The people of Ukraine, or Russia, are just as much our brothers as those biologically linked to us. We share the same father. That they are separated from us by distance means nothing; considering that significant would be like supposing, if we close our eyes, the thing is not happening. 

Second point: the rights and wrongs of the situation are clear. Russia invaded Ukraine.

Whenever there is conflict, the default assumption needs to be that it is a fight of right against wrong. Nine times out of ten, there is no “misunderstanding” to be negotiated. Strife breaks out because someone without moral constraints thinks they can take something from someone whom they think is in a weaker position. This is not always so, but must be the default assumption. “A plague on both your houses” works in the case of a vendetta, but is usually moral sophistry. And it amounts to blaming the victim at the moment of his or her victimization. This is weasel morality.

Third point: in the face of evil, we are required to come to the defense of the victim. As Edmund Burke said, “All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.” This is inherent in the essential scenario: conflict occurs when someone stronger tries to take something from someone weaker. If no one intervenes, evil will always triumph.

Fourth point: Refusing to become involved, on the plea of “pacifism,” is simply cowardice. It is not even in one’s own long-term self-interest. If aggression succeeds, more aggression can be expected, and sooner or later you yourself will be the victim. 

And, as C.S. Lewis has explained, courage is the one essential virtue. Without it, none of the other virtues can exist. There is virtue only in something difficult or dangerous to do. In any other case, you are simply acting in immediate self-interest, or on a whim.

There is no moral ambiguity here.