I never previously understood the implications of pacifism. I had always just assumed that a pacifist was an individual who believed any sort of violence was unacceptable. I now realize that pacifism encompasses a wide variety of beliefs on the topics of violence and appropriate action. It is based in morality, and morality is a gray area. By that I mean, true morality is incomprehensible and impossible to determine. Therefore, that which determines passivity is based on an individual’s perception of morality.

At the beginning of “A Pacifist Continuum”, Ronald W. Clark is quoted to have said, “Perhaps in pacifism, as in space, there are no absolutes.” That is an intriguing thought. He is suggesting that pacifism is subject to contextual influence. Are there absolutes in pacifism? If so, what are the implications of that?

The pacifism continuum is very diverse; but it seems as if it always comes back to the same principle: nonviolent action to acquire positive reaction. This of course leads to the question: is any violence acceptable as absolute pacifism implies? Or, is war an acceptable means to bring peace, like technological pacifism would have you believe? Both passive arguments present strong cases, and are inherently similar.