Pacifism is a word that sounds aspirational, and like many fine-sounding words,1 truly achieving it would mean a great deal of evil.2
Non-violence is, in general, a good thing. Clearly the great amount of prosperity afforded to us since the Renaissance could not have occurred if the world still acted like the ancient Grecian city-states, constantly fighting and with a disdain for commerce. And certainly, no one would like to have to defend their home from violent intruders every waking moment. But taken to extremes, it leads to quite the opposite of what is intended.
You are (or at least, believe yourself to be) a pacifist. You swear against ever raising a hand against another human being. Some unpleasant actors are restraining your spouse/significant other, and have a knife against their throat. They will not hesitate in taking lives. Are you saying that you will refuse to do anything besides talk them down? Should students try to resolve school shootings by negotiating?
Absolute non-violence means giving others absolute authority of your circumstances. While it is admirable to endure hostility against just yourself without complaint, you are not the only person in your life. If, instead, someone is harming your family and friends to get to you, pacifism is not nobility, it is cowardice. The “morality” of upholding non-violence does not outweight the immorality of abandoning and refusing to protect those that you hold dear and those that may depend on you.
“Pacifism” can be achieved in a civilian sense, in that rather than a individual protecting themselves and those close to them, protections are instead provided by the law. But this is not truly pacifism, as application of physical force is only deferred, not avoided entirely; self-delusion is achieved through the specialization of violence from everyone to just a military. It is still necessary for the reasons outlined above. “Civilian” pacifism, then, is a luxury rather than a virtue, something which is only afforded through the governance of the state. And even then, this cannot somehow excuse one from doing one’s duty in more immediate cases, where things are decided on the time scale of a home invasion or a shootout, rather than on the scale of a court case. Doing nothing in these cases because “the law protects you” means the choice to let people die.
In essence, the paradox of pacifism is the paradox of absolute liberty, just in reverse; a pacifist has given others complete control of themselves. And just as with absolute liberty, the problem is one of degrees. It is not a binary decision of violence vs. no violence. Maximum liberty requires a restriction of liberty, but as little as possible while still protecting humans from each other; similarly, maximum non-violence requires the minimum application of violence. The question is where said minimum lies.
↥1 Like liberty, or equality.
↥2 Since I prefer to be precise, when I refer to pacifism here I mean specifically the doctrine of abstaining from all violence, no matter what.
Intentionally Irrational