Graduate studies at Western
Ethics 75 (4):259-271 (1965)
|Abstract||Of all the attitudes and theories associated with or identified as "pacifism," only the doctrine that everyone ought not to resist violence with force is of philosophical interest, And it is logically incoherent. Pacifism's popularity rests on confusions about what the doctrine really is. If we have rights, We have the right to prevent infringements upon them. We have the right to use force to protect our rights, And in the degree necessary to accomplish that end. (staff)|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jan Narveson (1990). Book Review:Peace and Revolution: The Moral Crisis of American Pacifism. Gunther Lewy. [REVIEW] Ethics 100 (3):685-.
J. Kellenberger (1987). A Defense of Pacifism. Faith and Philosophy 4 (2):129-148.
Alex Guilherme & W. John Morgan (2011). Peace Profile: Martin Buber. Peace Review 23 (1):110-117.
Laura Duhan Kaplan (1992). On the Compatibility of Pacifism and Care. Hypatia 7 (1):133 - 134.
Lisa Sowle Cahill (1992). Theological Contexts of Just War Theory and Pacifism: A Response to J. Bryan Hehir. Journal of Religious Ethics 20 (2):259 - 265.
Jan Narveson (1972). Pacifism: A Comment on Beehler's Note. Dialogue 11 (04):588-591.
Jan Narveson (1968). Is Pacifism Consistent? Ethics 78 (2):148-150.
Richard Routley (1984). I. On the Alleged Inconsistency, Moral Insensitivity and Fanaticism of Pacifism. Inquiry 27 (1-4):117 – 136.
Jan Narveson (1992). Professor Filice's Defense of Pacifism. Journal of Philosophical Research 17:483-491.
Carlo Filice (1992). Pacifism. Journal of Philosophical Research 17:493-495.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads221 ( #1,324 of 738,450 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #20,701 of 738,450 )
How can I increase my downloads?