This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
From within pacifism itself, the answer is straightforward: no, it is not morally incorrect. A true pacifist holds that killing is wrong in principle, not contingent on circumstances. If you carve out an exception—“killing is wrong except in this extreme case”—you’ve already left strict pacifism and entered a different ethical system (for example, a form of consequentialism or just war theory). So by its own logic, pacifism remains internally consistent: refusing to kill Hitler is morally required, not a failure.
However, from a consequentialist perspective (think of philosophers like John Stuart Mill), the analysis flips. If killing one person would prevent millions of deaths, then failing to do so could be seen as morally wrong. Here, the pacifist’s refusal might be judged as allowing preventable catastrophe. The moral weight falls on outcomes, not on adherence to a rule.
A third angle comes from deontological ethics, especially Immanuel Kant. Kant himself opposed using people merely as means, which complicates the issue: killing Hitler treats him as a means to an end (saving others), but not killing him arguably permits massive violations of others’ rights. Kantian thinkers disagree among themselves on how to resolve that tension.
There’s also a deeper structural issue: responsibility vs. causation. The pacifist does not cause Hitler’s crimes, but might be said to fail to prevent them. Whether failure to prevent harm carries the same moral weight as causing harm is one of the hardest problems in ethics—and there’s no consensus answer.
However, from a consequentialist perspective (think of philosophers like John Stuart Mill), the analysis flips. If killing one person would prevent millions of deaths, then failing to do so could be seen as morally wrong. Here, the pacifist’s refusal might be judged as allowing preventable catastrophe. The moral weight falls on outcomes, not on adherence to a rule.
A third angle comes from deontological ethics, especially Immanuel Kant. Kant himself opposed using people merely as means, which complicates the issue: killing Hitler treats him as a means to an end (saving others), but not killing him arguably permits massive violations of others’ rights. Kantian thinkers disagree among themselves on how to resolve that tension.
There’s also a deeper structural issue: responsibility vs. causation. The pacifist does not cause Hitler’s crimes, but might be said to fail to prevent them. Whether failure to prevent harm carries the same moral weight as causing harm is one of the hardest problems in ethics—and there’s no consensus answer.