Contingent Pacifism and Contingently Pacifist Conclusions

Those who think that war is always wrong are Absolute Pacifists. Those who think that the current system of war makes just wars unlikely are Contingent Pacifists. And those who merely think that a particular war (or battle) ought not be fought are not, properly speaking, pacifists. Someone may reach a contingently pacifist conclusion without being committed to anything like Pacifism. Even realists can reach contingently pacifist conclusions against a particular war based upon prudential criticisms. This article aims to clarify the distinction between Contingent Pacifism and merely contingently pacifist arguments and conclusions while also providing an argument in support of Contingent Pacifism. I will capitalize Pacifism (and related terms, Absolute Pacifism and Contingent Pacifism) in this article in an attempt to distinguish Contingent Pacifism from other contingently pacifist arguments and conclusions. Contingent Pacifism has been discussed by a number of authors. Larry May considers Contingent Pacifism in a recent article where he distinguishes it from what he calls “traditional pacifism.” May explains: