Today I read an article by pacifist Stanley Hauerwas about C.S. Lewis (not a pacifist) and his views on pacifism and war -- Nonviolent Narnia: Could C.S. Lewis have imagined a world without war? About half way through it I was struck by a bit under the heading "Why C.S. Lewis was not a pacifist" ...
It is certainly true, Lewis acknowledges, that the lesser violence and harm is to be preferred, but that does not mean that killing X or Y is always wrong or can be avoided. Nor can it be shown that war is always a greater evil. Such a view, Lewis argues, seems to imply a materialistic ethic, that is, the view that death and pain are the greatest evils. But surely Christians cannot believe that. Only people parasitic on liberal societies can afford to be pacifists, believing as they do that the miseries of human suffering can be eliminated if we just find the right cures. But Lewis contends it a mistake to think we can eradicate suffering. Rather we must "work quietly away at limited objectives such as the abolition of the slave trade, or prison reform, or factory acts, or tuberculosis, not by those who think they can achieve universal justice, or health, or peace."
I don't know - I think the violence of war could be grouped with the other particulars he mentions, like slavery or TB, and worked against rather than accepted. And anyway, I think universal justice, and health, and peace are all worth working toward, whether they can ever be completely achieved or not. While I do agree with David Foster Wallace that some things are worth dying for, I believe the majority of suffering (including that in war) isn't endured for some greater good but would instead fall into the "meaningless' category and should be striven against.
The second half of the article is Hauerwas explaining how Lewis could have been/should have been a pacifist.
