What is the doctrine of using violence to preserve peace called?

Question

What is the correct way to describe the philosophy on the subject of 'war to make peace' or 'justification of short-term violence on the road to long-term peace'. Si vis pacem, para bellum is another seemingly contradictory expression. What is it called when one advocates preparing for or engaging in violence to preserve peace?

Answer 1

Short Answer

In philosophy related to war (SEP), violence, terrorism (SEP), and political philosophy, there are two related terms. One who decries the use of violence is called pacificism. However, many recognize that an unwillingness to fight often makes one a victim to those who will do violence. In the latter case, advocating the preparation and use of violence to preserve peace is often called realpolitik.

Long Answer

Two philosophers in the Western tradition who are famous for their pragmatic views on violence are Niccolo Macchiavelli and Thomas Hobbes. The former is famous for his work The Prince and the latter for his Leviathian. Both men who were students of both history and contemporaneous affairs noted the obvious. A cursory review of political history is practically an exercise in the study of who did violence to whom and for what cause. It is because war is so ubiquitous that philosophers of war, such as Sun Tzu, or more recently Carl von Clausewitz, are studied, interpreted, and misinterpreted.

What is important to understand in response to your question is that pacifism (SEP) and cooperation are international liberal values can lead to cooperation and economic growth, but that, as recent events in the Russo-Ukranian war demonstrate, when one party is determined to do violence, the other party best be ready to defend itself. This is particularly true in the nuclear era where having and using nuclear weapons as in the bombing of Hiroshima during WWII severely escalates the consequences of warfare.

Is it moral to use violence? This is a subject for ethical debate, of course. On the one hand, pacificists may reject the use of violence unconditionally, as the doctrine of non-violence advocates. Certainly men such as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela made good use of non-violence to bring about social justice. The Jains, likewise, are famous for their religious rejection of violence. But one need only point to the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide to show that one can pay a high price if one tolerates violence.

In a school of thought called situational ethics, right and wrong choices are predicated upon the context and pragmatic factors. Killing and violence in this school of thinking can very easily can be justified if it leads to good outcomes. In the US, officer-involved shootings is often a topic of debate where examples can be provided that sometimes the use of deadly force by police, while controversial, is seen as necessary. Where the line lies between a good law enforcement officer using violence to protect a child in a school shooting, and the nearly brutal and indiscriminate use of force by the Geheime Staatspolizei to intimidate and punish dissent is a matter of debate.

In any case, the modern world, which has been argued by thinkers such as Stephen Pinker in his The Better Angels of Our Nature as being one of the most peaceful epochs in human history, is still replete with examples of "Si vis pacem, para bellum", including nuclear brinkmanship. Whether your views are "peace for our time" or "peace through strength", ultimately a failure to study the philosophy of war and violence may lead to more violence and war.