It may be necessary in some situations to use forceful methods to stop people from harming others. These situations represent human beings acting at their worst. They represent a breakdown of human civility. They represent a fall from social well-being into social disease. The harms inflicted by using forceful methods are not “justice.” The actions taken while using forceful methods are not “heroic.”
In his book My Non-violence, Gandhi wrote a chapter called “The Doctrine of the Sword.” The Doctrine of the Sword begins with the following words:
I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence.
But I believe that non-violence is infinitely superior to violence.
Gandhi mentions three ways of responding to people harming others. The first response is cowardice, which means doing nothing and remaining a helpless witness to people harming others. The second response is violence, which means using physical force and threats of injury to stop people from harming others. The third response is nonviolence, which persuades people to stop harming others and work toward community reconciliation.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was asked about Gandhi’s comments during an interview. Cick here to see King’s response (YouTube).
King also talked about three responses to injustice in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail:
I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and a sense of “somebodiness” that they have adjusted to segregation. …The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. …I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the “do nothingism” of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest.
King saw himself walking between two paths. On the one hand, King avoided the path of doing nothing. Doing nothing meant fearfully cooperating and collaborating with those perpetuating injustice. On the other hand, King avoided the path of hatred and despair. Giving in to hatred and despair meant fueling animosities that could easily erupt into physical violence. King instead walked the third path of nonviolence. He wanted to win over his enemies and turn them into allies for peace, justice, and compassion.
From Ghandi and King, I learn that I can respond to people harming others in three ways:
- Fearfulness — I can quietly go along with people harming others because I fear provoking anger and attacks upon myself.
- Forcefulness — I can use various forms of force to stop people from harming others, but remembering to care both for the people inflicting the harm and the people escaping the harm.
- Nonviolence — I can work to persuade people who are harming others to stop their harmful actions. I can work to nonviolently coerce people harming others to stop their harmful actions.
I also learn from Gandhi and King that these three responses are not equally useful. Gandhi and King both believed that forcefulness is better than fearfulness. Gandhi and King both believed that nonviolence is better than forcefulness. I agree.
Even if forceful methods stop people from harming others, I do not celebrate this outcome as though it were a “victory.” I am saddened by the circumstances that brought about the use of forceful methods. It is always sad when someone suffers or dies as a result of human beings intentionally inflicting harm on one another. I therefore mourn the use of forceful methods as thought it were a funeral.
Weapons are instruments of fear; they are not tools of the wise. They use them only when there is no choice. Peace and quiet are dear to their hearts, and victory no cause for rejoicing. If you rejoice in victory, then you delight in killing; If you delight in killing, you cannot fulfill yourself. …This means that war is conducted like a funeral. When many people are killed, they should be mourned in heartfelt sorrow. That is why a victory must be observed like a funeral.