| Abstract: | ABSTRACT There are many points of similarity between the views of pacifists and those of people who argue that sentient non-human animals have absolute rights. Both positions ultimately rest on the assertion that the consequences of a violent action which is intended to preserve some lives by terminating others are more far-reaching than we generally suppose. When the total net consequences of such actions are considered, it can be seen that an ethic of complete non-violence might turn out to be optimific in the long run. Hence, absolutist moral positions of this sort should not be seen as irrational, or self-serving, and are worthy of respectful consideration even if we finally decide that we ourselves cannot accept them.
Until we have firm evidence as to whether non-violence has positive or negative net consequences, the choice between absolute and situationist ethical positions must remain one which depends very largely on personal character. Absolutist positions do serve a valuable 'conscience-pricking' function for the rest of us. They stand most chance of becoming more widely accepted if they are incorporated within a general ethic of positive helpfulness, rather than being presented as purely negative prohibitions. |
