Militant Pacifism In Calkin's The Moral Equivalent Of War

Calkin’s published “Militant Pacifism” in 1917 during the First World War. As a student of James, she has similar ideas about the necessity of a moral equivalent of war. She, however, has several differences that can help one see the benefits of a moral equivalent without the problematic aspects. Unlike James, she maintained that people did not want war. Writing after James’s death, she argued that the world was united in their desire to stop World War I. Humanity had a larger desire to end all wars. In explaining her pacifism, she stated that:

For the great lesson which history imprints on the mind…is the tragic certainty that all wars gain their ultimate ends, whether great or petty, by the violation of personality, by the destruction of homes, by the paralysis of art and industry and letters…even wars entered on from high motives must rouse greed, cupidity, and blind hatred; that even in defensive warfare a people can defend its rights only by inflicting new wrongs; and that chivalrous no less than self-seeking war entails relentless destruction.

Calkin’s theory helps

However, his essay has limitations that show he was reacting to problems immediately concerning him, but not fully engaged with the problems affecting many in early twentieth century America. However, Calkin’s presents an alternative moral equivalent of war that avoids many of the limitations of James. Unlike James’s, Calkin recognizes economic motivations contributing to war. She is aware of the many injustices occurring against women, people of color, and the poor and incorporates justice into her moral equivalent of war. In proposing a war against human nature, she is not advocating environmental destruction that could lead to further violent conflicts. Additionally, Calkin argued that injustice was a problem for humanity. No one should be limited by gender roles in the battle against