Against Pacifism

Pacifists exists, despite my best efforts. Pacifists are those who hold that violent acts are not permissible, and so acts such as war are also not permissible. This view is popular among the secular left and mixed within Christianity, though notably in the Anabaptist movement. It occurs me to though that there might be some ambiguity in the word “violence” that, without clarification, may lead to either absurdity or inconsistency. 

So, what is meant, exactly, by “violence”? (I don’t feel qualified enough to give an answer because I am not, have not been, nor will probably ever will be, a pacifist due to its utterly counter-intuitive imperatives) If it simply means any act of aggression, then we have strong counter-examples. 

A battlefield medic may not have the time or resources to do careful surgery on a wounded soldier, and so might have to dig his fingers into his flesh to dig out a bullet. This is very aggressive and very invasive, actually do some harm to the soldier, possibly tearing some extra flesh and not being the most sanitary, for the greater good of getting a bullet out of his body. 

Or if I see someone about to get hit by a car, it does seem permissible to shove him out of the way into safety. In any other cases, a shove of such strength and aggression would be contrary to the pacifists philosophy, yet in this case, in order to further preserve a life, it does seem permissible. 

If the pacifists does not want to face these defeaters, and I think they succeed as defeaters, then he must either qualify what he means by violence or maintain his position upon the pain of irrationality. If these cases are permissible, violence as an end for self-preservation, like fighting defensive wars, seems to be entailed, but then, if that’s the case, you’re not a pacifist in any meaningful sense; you’re a just-war theorist.