Top 10 Robert L. Holmes Quotes

By focusing on the entitlements of collectivities (notably nation states) as opposed to the well-being of individuals, the just war theory frames a rationale for war which omits the central moral issue...whether the massive, systematic and deliberate killing of human beings can ever be justified.

To be a pragmatic pacifist, one need only consider that large-scale, organized, and systemic war violence is unacceptable in today's world.

If a visitor from outer space were to come to know human beings on this earth .... at work and play, and without knowledge of human history or international affairs, what would he conclude? No doubt that virtually everyone values friendship, peace and happiness; ...If having observed all this the visitor were then told that a scheme had been proposed ... which for the present would require that people pour their wealth into the production of weapons of destruction, ... train their sons and daughters to kill and periodically send them off to slaughter..[and] that humans could improve their lot provided only that they do all of these things, he would ridicule the scheme as having not the slightest chance of success, and even less of being accepted by rational beings. Yet this is precisely what humankind has been led to accept in the case of war. It has proven willing to abandon virtually everything worth living for, to do things all agree are abhorrent, for reasons few understand, and for ends (such as peace) that history shows cannot be secured by these means.

If one thinks of nonviolence as a way of life, then it works to the extent that one lives nonviolently and infuses everyday conduct with a nonviolent spirit...whether we act nonviolently, considerately, and respectfully of others in all that we do is within our control. Nonviolence in that sense cannot fail to work if we resolve to see that it works.

The threat to retaliate massively in the event of a nuclear attack is not rationale...contrary to the usual wisdom, we have no good reason to believe that nuclear deterrence has worked in the past, or that if it has, it will continue to do so in the future...even if nuclear deterrence should be one hundred percent effective, it still increases the probability of nuclear war.

What I mean by saying that war is wrong is not only that it is bad but that it ought not to be waged, that governments ought not to declare and fight wars, societies ought not to provide them with the means by which to do so, and individuals ought not to sanction, support and participate in wars.

We will never know whether there is a realistic moral alternative to violence unless we are willing to explore the potential of nonviolent action.

A necessary condition of the justifiable pursuit of any objectives in war by any means whatever.. is that one be justified in engaging in such killing and violence in the first place.

Plausible moral theory must have at its center a concern for the lives and well-being of persons.

It is presumptively wrong to do violence to innocent persons.