Andrew Fiala writes for a general audience interested in politics and war. His first book, The Philosopher's Voice: Philosophy, Politics, and Language in the 19th Century, was published in 2002 by the State University of New York Press. An Associate Professor of Philosophy and Humanistic Studies associated with the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, he has written many articles for Philosophy in the Contemporary World, Metaphilosophy, Res Publica, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and The Humanist.

In “Practical Pacifism,” Andrew G. Fiala challenges readers to reconsider their stance on peace, war, and the responsibilities of American citizens in today's world. Written in the context of post-9/11 America, where many find it...

In “Practical Pacifism,” Andrew G. Fiala challenges readers to reconsider their stance on peace, war, and the responsibilities of American citizens in today's world. Written in the context of post-9/11 America, where many find it difficult to imagine pacifism as a viable approach, this book argues for a pragmatic form of pacifism that transcends religious boundaries. Instead, it seeks a moral consensus through rational dialogue. Fiala makes the case that the United States, as a democratic superpower, has the opportunity—and responsibility—to lead the charge for global peace.

Exploring the Foundations of Just War Theory: Fiala discusses the complexities of Just War theory and the doctrine of double effect, examining their relevance in the contemporary world. These frameworks have long been used to justify warfare, but “Practical Pacifism” scrutinizes whether these theories hold up under modern circumstances. By exploring philosophical perspectives from John Rawls to Lao-Tse, the book provides readers with a broad understanding of historical and theoretical justifications for violence, offering a counterargument for pacifism rooted in pragmatic morality rather than idealism.

A Pragmatic Path to Pacifism: At the heart of the book is the notion that peace can be achieved through pragmatic means. Fiala argues that peace is not an unrealistic utopian ideal but a practical objective that can be developed through dialogue and consensus. The author contends that pacifism can be anchored in a universal moral framework accessible to all. By promoting an overlapping consensus—where different belief systems find common ground—Fiala envisions a pathway toward ending war that is both achievable and sustainable.

Moral Dilemmas and Human Responsibility: Fiala raises pressing moral questions that challenge readers to reflect on their own values. Much like Simon Wiesenthal’s “The Sunflower,” which dealt with the limits of forgiveness, “Practical Pacifism” explores questions such as: Under what circumstances is aggression justified? Can it ever be forgiven? And how do we, as a society, determine when violence is warranted?

America’s Role in Promoting Global Peace: Does the US have a special responsibility in the world? With its democratic foundation and immense global influence, Fiala proposes that our country has the ability to play a pivotal role in promoting peace. However, Fiala argues that this responsibility comes with a need for introspection—citizens must critically evaluate the actions taken in their name. Is military intervention truly the best path forward? Or can the U.S. lead the world by demonstrating a commitment to pacifism through diplomacy and dialogue? The psychology of terrorism and fear almost inevitably drives voters to react defensively, yet it is up to us to think carefully and rationally when the stakes are so high.

The Doctrine of Double Effect and Practical Ethics: Fiala does not shy away from addressing the ethical complexities of modern warfare, particularly in relation to the doctrine of double effect, which justifies certain violent actions if the intended outcome is positive. He examines whether this theory can ethically stand in today’s world of indiscriminate warfare and civilian casualties. By questioning the principles behind this doctrine, Fiala urges readers to consider if pacifism may be the more morally consistent and effective approach to resolving international conflicts.

Conclusion: “Practical Pacifism” is not a call for passive inaction but a reasoned and moral approach to resolving conflicts without resorting to violence. Andrew G. Fiala presents a compelling case for why pacifism, often dismissed as impractical, can be a powerful tool for achieving peace in today’s world. By drawing on historical examples and philosophical insights, the book invites readers to engage in thoughtful reflection on the moral dilemmas surrounding war and peace. It is an essential resource for anyone interested in ethics, political philosophy, and the future of global relations.

"Practical Pacifism" challenges the reader to define his beliefs about justice, compassion, and human responsibility. Under what circumstances is aggression forgivable? How can we be sure aggression is warranted? This book will be a stimulating resource for classes debating issues in the Middle East and the moral dilemmas that face the world’s sole superpower. Includes Index, Footnotes.

Practical pacifism is not absolute pacifism; it does not reject violence in all cases. Rather, it develops out of the idea that sometimes war may be justified, even as it questions whether any given war is in fact a just one. This book attempts...

Practical pacifism is not absolute pacifism; it does not reject violence in all cases. Rather, it develops out of the idea that sometimes war may be justified, even as it questions whether any given war is in fact a just one. This book attempts to articulate a certain uneasiness about the justification of war. Most of us do not know whether the wars that are fought in our names are justifiable. Most of us do not have access to intelligence information and classified documents that might help us understand the wars we fight. Moreover, history shows us that governments and the media present us with biased, incomplete, or false information about the wars we fight, the causes of these wars, and the way they are fought. War is so horrible that we should resist engaging in it until we are certain that it is necessary and justifiable; but in most cases, we simply cannot make that determination. Therefore, the thesis of practical pacifism is that we should be reluctant to consent to war, in most cases. I came to this argument as I reflected on the events of the last several years — the attacks of September 11, the US declaration of war on terrorism, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the invasion of Iraq. The more I thought about these events, the more I realized that I lacked the sorts of information I would need to make good judgments about them. The skeptical standpoint of practical pacifism can be derived from the history of warfare as well as from current events. Citizens have often been manipulated into supporting wars that were neither necessary nor just. This Socratic insight into our pervasive ignorance about the justification of war left me feeling uneasy about the military actions that Americans and our allies have all been asked to support in the last few years. We must be honest about our ignorance. We often cannot say with certainty whether a war is just or unjust. This acknowledgement of ignorance should make us more careful in our judgments about war. Recent events show us, however, how reckless people can be. In the prelude to the invasion of Iraq, many controversial claims were made on both the pro-war and anti-war sides. Critical thinkers need to learn to see through the unfounded claims and hyperbolic rhetoric made by those on all sides of such debates. The first step toward making a better world is to learn to ask critical questions — even of oneself — in pursuit of the truth. But we must still decide, and act, even when we are uncertain. The main question this book asks is: What should citizens of democracies do when they realize their own lack of certainty about the wars they are asked to support? Typically, we are told that we should stifle our doubts and trust our leaders. This response effectively asks us to give up our responsibility and judgment. But this abdication of responsibility is unacceptable: when one’s country goes to war, one needs to know that the war is a just one. Especially in a democracy, where we are asked to consent to war, we must be certain that the sacrifices and suffering that will be caused are justified. Until it can be adequately proved that a specific war is justifiable, we should continue to question and resist. The notion that we might support a war assumes that war can be just — that good reasons for going to war sometimes exist, and that war can be waged justly. The long tradition of thought about war and its justifications, known as “just war” thinking, is the jumping off point for the argument of practical pacifism. Once we understand the notion of just war, we must then seek to understand the details of the war we are asked to support. Unfortunately, we often discover our own ignorance as we pursue knowledge about actual wars. This is especially true for those of us — ordinary citizens — who are not privy to governmental secrets, proposed battle plans, and other details. A bit of selfawareness shows us that much of the information we have about proposed wars comes through the filters of the government and the media, which have their own goals. An analysis of history shows us that the information provided to citizens about war is often false or incomplete. Moreover, as we reflect on psychology we realize that during times of crisis citizens tend to become more credulous and trusting of authority....