Study Guide
Jan Narveson - A Critique of Pacifism
1. What is Narveson's critique of pacifists who say that only pacifists have
a duty of not opposiing violence with force?
2. Does Narveson believe that you can have a duty to do something merely
becuase you believe you have such a duty?
3. What is Narveson's analysis of pacifists who say that only they themselves
have a duty of not opposing violence with force? How about pacifists who
say that only a select group of people have such a duty? Does Narveson's
criticism make sense? To answer that question, ask in general: can an individual
or a select group have a duty to do (or not do) something while no other
individual or group has such a duty? If you answer Yes, think of an example
or two.
4. What does Narveson say about the pacifist who claims that pacifism is
desirable a good tactic?
5. Narveson claims that to hold the pacifist position one must hold that
nobody has a right to fight back when attacked. Is this true? Can you think
of a way in which someone might be a pacifist, but still believe in an individual's
right to self-defense?
6. What does Narveson think of the pacifist who believes one cannot defend
oneself, but one can defend others?
7. How does Narveson attempt to show that pacifism is inconsistent?
8. Narveson claims that if you have a right to something that this right
gives you the right to anything else that might be necessary to prevent the
deprivation of that right. Think of a philosopher that we've read who would
disagree with this and then give an example of a right that we (presumably)
have that does not entitle us to just anything that might be necessary to
prevent the deprivation of that right.