WHY DIALECTIC MATTERS Pacifism by William Michael April 24th, 2010

Music:  Leah Larson, "Let that Liar Alone", © Leah Larson, 2004.  Leah is a homeschooling mother to two CLAA students.  Thank you Leah!

Every wise man in the ancient world knew at least something the art of Dialectic.  Socrates obviously knew Dialectic, since it was called by his name, "the Socratic Method".  Plato knew it as he made a living writing Socratic dialogues.  Aristotle studied Dialectic and taught it systematically.  The Church Fathers studied Dialectic.  St. Augustine explained its value in his work On Christian Doctrine.  St. Thomas studied and taught Dialectic. 

Modern schools don't teach Dialectic and that should concern us.  It should concern us because for well over 2,500 years, Dialectic was the core of liberal education.  In this series, we will examine the effects of the neglect of the art of dialectic in modern society.

My name is William Michael and I'm the director of he Classical Liberal Arts Academy.  To demonstrate how our society suffers from the neglect of this classical liberal art, I'm presenting this series titled "Why Dialectic Matters".  These lessons will be pretty simple to understand and surprising in the end.

In this lesson, let's talk about Pacifism.

Pacifism may be defined in a few different ways.  Positively, it may be defined as the belief that disputes between nations or any people should be settled peacefully.  Negatively, it is defined as the belief that war or violence should never be used to settle disputes.

There are some groups who see war and violence as a means of conquest and self-aggrandizement.  Terrorists, for example, see violence as a way of increasing their influence in society.  Imperialists have historically judged war to be a means of extending their borders and increasing their wealth.  We see in each case a sense of selfish ambition, by which one seeks his own gain through violence done to others.  Most of us would say that these views are clearly evil. 

On the other hand, most people--especially in modernized nations like America--see war and violence as evils to be avoided.  In an age of GPS technology and video conferencing, it seems that the days of war and violence are behind us.  The Catholic Church teaches plainly that:

"If non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means...the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically non-existent."  (CCC 2267)

As regards the place of war, the Church again teaches plainly:

"The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life.  Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.  All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war."  (CCC 2307-8)

It is plain that Catholics stand much nearer to the side of pacifists than they do to terrorists or than they would to any imperialists.  Those who are zealous to avoid war are doing society a great service--whatever the details of their positions be (for all are obviously not arguing as Catholics).  War should be avoided at all costs. 

This is one issue on which Catholics and non-Catholic or even anti-Catholic liberals find some common ground.  After all, the Catholic Church did not believe America's invasion of Iraq was necessary, nor did liberals in America.  To believe, as liberals did, that war might be avoided and our disputes be resolved by non-violent means was noble and good. 

Should we protect ourselves from harm?  Yes.  Should we exhaust all of our options for peaceful resolutions of disputes?  Yes.  Should we avoid the the loss of human life at all costs?  Yes.  Should we hope for peace even when the danger appears inevitable?  Yes.  In all these questions, liberals answer correctly. 

Now, Dialectic is not the study of absolute truth.  Dialectic is concerned with what people say is true, not with what actually may be true.  This art examines whether or not it is possible for a person's opinion to be true.  Ultimately, it seeks to discover contradictions in principles or definitions that prove an set of opinions to be impossible.  The key mark of a man ignorant of Dialectic is self-contradiction.  When questioned by a skillful examiner,  he will be found full of contradictions and confusion--not because the examiner confuses him, but because his confusion is brought into the light by the art of Dialectic. The liberal position on war and peace provides us with an example of this confusion.

As we said, liberals believe that war is evil.  They believe that in 21st century, with the United Nations, direct communication between nations, international diplomats and peacemakers present in every country and in general a sense of increasing community among nations, that there is no more place for war.  Their arguments are hard to deny.

Liberals argue convincingly that when we find ourselves threatened--even when that threat is close at hand--we do not have the right to call on violence as a solution.  We do not have the right to attack those who threaten us.  We do not have the right to kill others to protect ourselves.  We ought not to listen to those who encourage rash, violent actions but to those who encourage patience, hope and peace.  We ought to consider the lives of our enemies as having the same value as our own.  We ought to be willing to risk our safety for the good of all.

Except for when that enemy is an unborn child.

In the strangest of contradictions, the liberal mind abandons every argument by which it so powerfully promotes peace between nations as soon as the victim is found to be a woman and the enemy a baby.  The arguments are reversed and the exact OPPOSITE position is taken by the same people:

When a woman finds herself threatened she has the right to call on violence as a solution.  She has a right to attack the one who threatens her.  She has the right to kill others to protect herself.  She is right to listen to those who encourage rash, violent actions and to ignore those who suggest a way of patience, hope and peace.  She considers the life of a baby as inferior to her own.  She sacrifices the good of another for her own good.

What an eerie case of self-contradiction this is. 

However, this contradiction would only apply in the case of those women who are encouraged to use abortion as a means of saving themselves from a real and present danger.  These would include cases where there were real signs that the pregnancy and delivery of the child would endanger the mother's life.  For most abortions, this is not the case.

The same liberals who honorably argue against war not only argue for abortion in the face of life threatening danger, but also in aggressive abortion when there is no danger.  We might say that liberals go as far as to say that a woman has the right to pursue her own influence in society at the expense of the life of her unborn child.  We might say that liberal go as far as to say that a woman has the right to extend her borders and increase her wealth at the expense of her unborn child.  She has the right to practice some morbid form of imperialism where the enemy at whose expense one adds to her own wealth and influence is her own child. 

We might expect to find such a contradiction in the mind of some madman, but this contradiction is present in the mind of millions of Americans--college students, lawyers, doctors, judges and politicians.  It is held by rich and poor alike and by members of every racial and ethnic group.  These are no madmen--they are men and women who, for all their studies and degrees--who are not accustomed to self-examination of Dialectic.   For some odd reason, it is difficult to find anyone who is pro-choice and also pro-war, though the two positions share the same principles.  Liberals strangely support violence for pregnant women but oppose violence for everyone else--a glaring contradiction.

Thus, we see that without studies in Dialectic, the minds of men are full of contradictions and confusion when examined.  By restoring the knowledge of the art of Dialectic, the Classical Liberal Arts Academy will restore clear  thinking and eliminate these glaring contradictions.  This is why Dialectic matters.