This is an opinion website which usually discusses violence from the outset.

This is a slightly adapted version of a longer article on pacifism that you can find here.

---

There are several myths about what pacifism is. Here’s what it is not.

1. Pacifism is not passive: Pacifism is often confused with passivity, as if pacifists simply choose to do nothing. This is not the case. Many people who stand up conscientiously against war and violence are very active, through campaigns and commentary, whether in person, blogs or on social media.

2. Pacifism is not laziness, it’s actually a daily practice; a commitment to putting more calm and peace into the world, and rejecting hate and harm. This takes energy and requires a fundamental shift in our thinking, away from the normalisation – and desensitisation of – violence.

The idea that pacifists simply do nothing in moments of conflict, is also not supported by facts.

3. Pacifism is not cowardice: There was a time (and some still hold the view) that those arguing against violence, especially in times of war, are simply cowards. Yet it’s incredibly brave – and sometimes dangerous – to challenge the use of violence.

Pacifism is a legitimate expression of care for our global community; even the Imperial War Museum has a page dedicated to conscientious objectors to war (sometimes referred to conchies, both neutrally and in a derogatory way), explaining that “evil cannot overcome evil.”

Rather than “doing nothing”, some “conchies” chose to support emergency services during WWII, becoming ambulance drivers, stretcher bearers and medical orderlies to help literally pick up the pieces.

But for those who felt they could help in another way, let’s look at the formidable example of Noor Inayat Khan, a pacifist who was recruited by the Special Operations Executive (SOE). Her efforts undoubtably helped pave the way to freedom, without ever taking a life.

In later years, people who promoted peace and opposed violence included Dr Martin Luther King, Jr and Gandhi, who promoted peace and nonviolent principles, were assassinated. The evidence does not support that people who choose peace are not brave.

It doesn’t take much courage to be violent. It is ultimately the courageous man who is nonviolent. – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

4. Pacifism is not ignorance: People who choose peace and reject hate and harm, generally have deeply held moral values, including harmony and justice. They may come from any community, and they are alive to privilege and inequality. They are not “utopian fantasists” (see point #5) and, far from being ignorant to power, pacifists are acutely aware of it (see also note on feminist pacifism above). Pacifists have also probably spent much time and energy researching pacifist ideas (as this website has), before opening up about them.

5. Pacifism is not unrealistic: By the nature of what they talk about, pacifists are actually realists, especially about war and misplaced nostalgia, which often positions wartime – and particularly life under authoritarianism – as if that was “the good old days”. In reality, wartime could be chaotic, terrifying and, of course, often deadly. 

This means pacifists tend to say it like it is. For example, they will highlight the reality that in WWII food was rationed from January 1940 until the 1950s and, globally, more people died during the war of starvation, than from military action. Why would anyone want those days back?

Far from being an unrealistic utopia, pacifist living is already promoted in some parts of the world, such as in Japan* described in the Global Peace Index as one of the most peaceful places in the world, and Iceland (which currently has no standing army) cited in the World Happiness Report as one of the happiest. *It’s worth noting that Japan’s post-war pacifism was directly shaped by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As a further point of interest, Okinawa is one of only five blue zones where people regularly live to 100.

6. Pacifism is not disrespect: Being anti-war and anti-militarism is about rejecting violence and domination, as if these are the only means to solve a problem. It is not being disrespectful to those who are currently serving, or who gave their lives in service to their country – it actually speaks in defence of them. The reasons people “do their duty” or serve “King and country” are honourable, especially where those roles predominantly focus on peace keeping. But we must also remember those who were conscripted and from such a young age, regardless of how they felt about war. Some people argue that the military teaches “discipline” – the UK is currently the only country in Europe to recruit children as young as 16 years old – but there are other, less potentially damaging ways of shaping the moral compass of a child. Critics actually say that the high drop-out rate among under-18 army recruits makes it a poor means of tackling youth unemployment.

Remembrance services are also an act of pacifism, because they are a reminder of war and the need to resist it. People must remember that heroes died so that war and violence in the face of oppression would cease; their deaths must stand for something. 

To remember is to keep confronting what it costs and what it takes to prevent it from happening again. – Unite Nations Institute for Disarmament Research

It would be much more disrespectful to spout the same hateful, divisive rhetoric as the oppressors of WWII did, while claiming to support the military personnel who died in efforts to defeat them. Lest we forget.

Pacifism does raise questions, particularly about leadership decisions, recruitment campaigns or “family fun days” that might glorify violence or target certain groups. 

Pacifists will also challenge any narratives that seek to “justify” violence (as this website does) as “natural”, whether that’s harm in the home, on our streets or among nations. 

The 1986 Seville Statement on Violence – drafted by 20 scientists across biology, psychology, neurophysiology and anthropology – declared it scientifically incorrect to say humans have inherited violent behaviour from animal ancestors, that war is genetically programmed, or that humans have a “violent brain.” This assertion still holds water today: just because humans have the capacity for violence, doesn’t mean they have a compulsion for it. If violence isn’t hardwired, it isn’t inevitable – and what isn’t inevitable, must be a choice.

In essence, pacifism challenges the idea that wilful violence and oppression can ever be “just”, especially when those harmed are disproportionately women and children (see below). Pacifists might ask, then, in the face of all this evidence, how we ever became so desensitised to violence – that society still feels an inevitability for it – or an apathy to prevent or end it.

In any event, it feels important to interrogate any narrative that implies peace is the problem, but violence is not. Before judging someone for choosing peace, ask why on earth anyone would choose war.

---

© The Peace Gap 2026 – All rights reserved. This is an opinion post which may have appeared on other, affiliated websites. For full terms about accessing this content, click here or to find out more about this website click here.