Lesson video

Hello and welcome to today's lesson.

I'm so pleased that you're going to join me.

My name's Mrs. Rawbone and I'm going to be your RE teacher today.

In today's lesson, you will be able to explain what pacifism is and outline arguments for and against it.

Pacifism, peace and violence are all keywords we'll be using today.

Pacifism is a belief that all violence is wrong, which then affects all behaviours.

Peace is the opposite of war, harmony between all in society.

And violence is behaviour involving physical force which intends to hurt, kill, or cause damage.

Our lesson today will form two parts.

We'll be looking at pacifism and arguments about pacifism.

So let's get started looking at pacifism.

The term pacifism comes from Latin.

And the word pax, and the word facere meaning make.

It has come to mean the belief that all violence is wrong, which then affects all behaviours.

It can result in refusing to fight in war, rejecting violent protests, opposing capital punishment, avoiding violent language, and choosing peaceful responses, even in self-defense.

There are different types of pacifists.

We can have those who are the most pacifist, where violence is always wrong without exception, known as absolute pacifism.

Two people who think violence is wrong with exceptions only in extreme cases.

We might call that contingent pacifism because it depends on the situation.

Those who think almost no war meet the criteria of a Just War Theory.

And so in practise, war is wrong.

We might call this Just War pacifism.

And towards the other end of the scale, the least pacifist, specific wars are wrong.

For example, nuclear war or chemical war.

So we might call this selective pacifism.

What is pacifism? Take a moment to think about how you could define the keyword.

Pause a video, write down your answer and come back when you're ready to check.

You could have said, it's the belief that all violence is wrong, which then affects all behaviours.

Well done if you've got something along these lines.

A YouGov survey in 2024 asked British people whether they believe there will ever be a time when there are no war or military conflict in the world.

Answers range from there definitely will be a time, through to there definitely will not be a time and I don't know.

So what might influence people's views on whether there is likely to be peace in the world? Take a moment, pause the video, turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, or you can talk to me and come back when you're ready to move on.

According to this data, what percentage of British people asked think it's likely there will be a time when there are no walls or military conflict in the world.

So have a good look at the data concerned.

See if you can work out the answer.

Pause the video whilst you do so and come back when you're ready to check.

So well done if you spotted that 8% of those asked said there definitely or probably will be a time when there are no war or military conflict in the world.

Pacifism has existed for thousands of years across many cultures and worldviews.

Jainism in ancient India is one of the oldest and most committed pacifist traditions.

Jains follow ahimsa, nonviolence, toward all living beings, rejecting warfare, killing, and harm in any form.

Early Christianity in the Roman Empire in the first to third centuries.

Early Christians refuse military service believing Jesus' teachings forbade violence.

Some were executed rather than go to war.

In the 17th century, we have the Quakers forming in England.

The Religious Society of Friends, known as Quakers, formally rejected all war.

They promoted nonviolence as a religious principle and helped shape modern peace movements.

In the 20th century, we have conscientious Objectors.

In both world wars, over 213,000 people in countries like the UK and USA refuse military service on religious, ethical, or political grounds.

Modern secular pacifism: Pacifism has also been promoted on humanitarian and ethical grounds, often linked to anti-war protests, nuclear disarmament, and non-violent resistance movements.

A white feather had long been a symbol of cowardice.

Its use as such was popularised during World War I as part of a campaign to shame men into enlisting in the army.

Pacifists were frequently criticised by newspapers and politicians who accused them of undermining national unity and lacking patriotism.

The White Feather Campaign saw women handing white feathers to men not in uniform, pressuring them to enlist.

Conscientious Objectors were often publicly shamed and some were imprisoned.

Others chose or were assigned to non-combat roles such as stretcher bearing, ambulance driving, or bomb disposal.

A YouGov 2024 survey also asked British people whether they will be prepared to fight in a war.

The pie chart tells us the percentage of people who would be prepared to fight either willingly or reluctantly, and those who would try to avoid being conscripted or who would refuse to fight.

So what factors might make someone more or less prepared to fight? If you're able to pause and turn and talk to someone nearby, please do, or you can talk to me.

Come back when you're ready to move on.

Bertrand Russell is an example of a modern secular pacifist.

Bertrand Russel was a vocal pacifist during the First World War, opposing it as a product of nationalism and imperialism.

This led to his dismissal from Trinity College and imprisonment.

His pacifism was not absolute, he later argued that opposing Hitler in World War II might be necessary to prevent greater evil.

After the war, he focused on peace activism, especially nuclear disarmament, and co-founded CND.

Is this statement true or false? Bertrand Russell was an absolute pacifist.

Pause the video, jot down your answer, but also have a think about why.

Come back when you're ready to move on.

Excellent work if you chose false.

But why is it false? While he opposed World War I, but accepted that force might be necessary in extreme cases such as resisting Hitler in World War II.

For task A, I'd like you to answer the following questions.

What is the origin of the word pacifism and what does it mean? Name two historical examples of pacifist traditions or movements.

What symbol was used during World War I to shame men into a listing, and what did it represent? Who was Bertrand Russell, and what was his view on pacifism during the two World Wars? What is the difference between absolute and contingent pacifism? So take your time to think back through everything we've learned.

Answer those questions, pause the video, return when you have finished, I want to see what you could have written.

You could have said for what is the origin of the word pacifism, and what does it mean? The term comes from Latin words, pax and facere meaning the belief that all violence is wrong.

Name two historical examples of pacifist traditions or movements.

I chose Jainism in ancient India and the Quakers in England.

You might have chosen differently.

What symbol was used during World War I to shame men into enlisting, and what did it represent? It was a white feather symbolising cowardice.

Who was Bertrand Russell, and what was his view on pacifism during the two World Wars? Well, he opposed World War I as a pacifist, but later supported fighting in World War II to stop greater evil.

He later focused on peace activism.

And finally, what is the difference between absolute and contingent pacifism? Well, absolute pacifism rejects all violence in every situation while contingent pacifism opposes violence except in extreme circumstances.

Excellent work if you've managed to remember and use the learning from the lesson so far.

For the second part of our lesson, we're going to be moving on to arguments about pacifism.

One way to decide on whether pacifism is the right course of action is to apply an ethical theory.

However, applying ethical theories does not always give us easy answers.

Deontological theories ask whether an action is right in itself.

Supporters of Kantian ethics might argue that pacifism is right because killing people treats them as a means to and end, Teleological theories judge the rightness of an action by its likely consequences.

Utilitarians might argue that pacifism brings the greatest happiness because it doesn't harm people.

Deontological theories could also suggest that pacifism is wrong.

Supporters of Kantian ethics might argue pacifism is wrong because we have a duty to protect the innocence.

And similarly, supporters of teleological theories could also use them to argue that pacifism is wrong.

Utilitarians might argue that pacifism is wrong because using violence might end a greater evil.

So which of the following best reflects a teleological argument in support of pacifism? A, pacifism is wrong because we have a duty to protect the innocent.

B, pacifism is right because killing treats people as a means to an end.

C, pacifism is wrong because it breaks a universal moral law.

Or D, pacifism is right because it avoids harm and promotes greater happiness.

Take a moment to think back about what you've just learned.

Jot down your answer.

Come back when you're ready to check.

Excellent work if you put D, pacifism is right because it avoids harm and promotes the greatest happiness.

Zara is an atheist, she's explaining why she's not a pacifist.

Zara says, "I care about protecting life, but I'm not a pacifist because I think force is sometimes needed to bring about justice.

After my degree, I did an internship with the International Crisis Group, an organisation that works to prevent war.

I wrote background briefings on armed groups and analyse conflict data.

The experience taught me that peace needs action and are now work in government, shaping policy on conflict and security." International Crisis Group is a global non-religious organisation that works to prevent and resolve violent conflict.

It advises government and international bodies, promotes dialogue over violence and works to build long-term peace in regions affected by conflict.

Unlike pacifist organisations, it does not reject all use of force, but aims to reduce violence through practical and political means.

She's explaining why she is a pacifist.

Zoe says, "I do not believe in God, but I believe human life matters and violence only leads to more suffering.

That's why I am a pacifist.

I support War Resisters' International by donating and sharing their resources.

They help people who refuse military service, offer legal advice to conscientious objectors and campaign against war worldwide.

For me, peace is about protecting life and finding better solutions than War." War Resisters' International is a global non-religious pacifist organisation.

It promotes total non-violence and opposes all forms of war, militarism and armed conflicts.

War Resisters' International supports Conscientious objectors, campaigns against the arms trade and works with grassroots movements to promote peaceful resistance and anti-war activism worldwide.

What are the missing words? International Crisis Group is a global non-religious organisation that works to prevent and resolve violent.

War Resisters' International is a global non-religious, organisation.

Pause the video, take a moment to think about your answer.

Come back when you're ready to check.

Well done if you put to resolve violent conflict and that War Resisters' International is a global non-religious pacifist organisation.

Zoe is debating pacifism with Zara.

She presents two arguments for pacifism.

She says, "I believe violence and killing are always wrong even in war.

Using peaceful methods like talking, understanding and forgiveness leads to better and more lasting solutions than fighting ever can." So what arguments does Zoe present? Take a moment to look at what she said.

Pause a bit if you need to and then come back when you're ready to move on.

You might have noticed that Zoe presents the arguments, violence and killing are always wrong, and peaceful methods lead to better, lasting solutions.

Zara is responding to Zoe's arguments.

She presents two arguments against pacifism.

She says, "I do believe in peace, but some people won't negotiate and only respond to force.

In some cases if we don't fight back, innocent people will be harmed and serious injustice will just continue." So what arguments does Zara present? Take a moment, pause the video.

Have a good look at what she said.

Come back when you're ready to move on.

You might have noticed she presents the arguments: Some people won't negotiate, they only respond to force.

And that without force, serious injustice could continue.

So which statement is an argument for pacifism? A, violence is sometimes necessary to prevent greater harm.

B, peaceful methods like dialogue and forgiveness lead to better solutions.

C, some people only respond to force.

Or D, injustice will always continue unless we fight back.

Pause the video, jot down your answer, come back when you're ready to check.

Well done if you put B, peaceful methods like dialogue and forgiveness lead to better solutions.

For part one of our task, I'd like you to complete the table below to set up the positives and negatives of pacifism.

Think carefully about what we've been learning, particularly the arguments about pacifism.

Take your time, pause the video and come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said for the positives of pacifism, it promotes peace and voids harm.

It encourages forgiveness and reconciliation and it respects the value of all life.

For the negatives, it may be unrealistic in violent situations.

It might allow injustice to continue.

It can be seen as weak or unpatriotic.

So well done if you managed to get some similar points to these in your table.

For part two of our task, I'd like you to decide whether the positives or negatives matter most when thinking about pacifism.

Once you've done that, choose the strongest, positive or negative.

So depending on whether you chose positives as mattering more or negatives, and use it as an argument to support the statement, we should all be pacifists or to support a different point of view.

Explain why it is a strong argument.

Suggested sentence starters to help you with this would be the strongest argument to.

"This argument is strong because.

." Or you could say, "This is compelling because.

." "The argument is powerful as it.

." Or, "This argument is convincing because.

." So think carefully about your personal opinion on pacifism and whether the positives outweigh the negatives.

Choose the argument that you find most convincing and then tell me why it's a convincing argument.

Take your time, come back when you're ready to move on.

You could have said, for choosing the strongest positive or negative, the strongest argument to support the statement is that pacifism respects the value of all life.

Now that's my choice, and of course, yours might be different.

For explaining why this is a strong argument, you could have said something like, this argument is strong because it reflects a deep commitment to human dignity and avoids the cycle of violence.

And again, your explanation is probably different from mine.

But just make sure that you have explained why you are convinced by the argument.

Well done if you've managed to do that.

In today's lesson, we've learned that pacifism is a belief that all violence is wrong and can lead to rejecting war, violent protests, capital punishment, and self-defense.

There are different types of pacifism from absolute to selective.

Ethical theories offer different views: Kantian ethics focuses on duty, which can support or repose pacifism; utilitarianism judges pacifism by its consequences.

Arguments for pacifism include the belief that violence is always wrong and that peaceful methods lead to better, more lasting outcomes.

Arguments against pacifism include the view that some people only respond to force and that violence may be needed to prevent serious injustice.

Well done for all of your work today on this lesson.

Thank you for working with me.