Given the ubiquity of violence in our world, the ever present call to renounce violence has the understandable tendency to ring hollow to many of us. There is no shortage of evidence showing that we really don’t oppose violence as much as we claim to. By conceptually analyzing the terms “violence” and “nonviolence,” as well as by offering palpable readings of Gandhi’s thought and discussing how we can better identify with others, Violence, Nonviolence, and Moral Worth offers insight into how we can begin reducing the gap between our professed reverence for nonviolence and our everyday practices. Sanjay Lal argues that neither our inability to perfectly uphold nonviolent practice nor the reality that moral worth is often exhibited through acts of violence should be an obstacle to affirming the value of a more comprehensive ethic of nonviolence. Peace theorists, activists, and anyone interested in a less violence-filled existence will find much to take away from this work.

Robert Holmes is one of the leading proponents of nonviolence in the United States, and his influence extends to the rest of the world. However, he has never presented his views on nonviolence in full-length book form. The Ethics of Nonviolence brings together his best essays on the topic, both classic works and more obscure pieces, as well as several important essays that have never been published. Holmes started his career by following Dewey and James, and then turned toward metaethics. The Vietnam War finally led him toward moral problems related to war and violence. For the last forty years he has been a great proponent of nonviolence and pacifism in the style of Tolstoy and Gandhi. If ethics is meant to be more than a purely academic exercise, the theoretical ethics of philosophy must be shown to be relevant to applied morality; the ongoing process of making moral judgments must add value to the world we live in. For Robert Holmes, no aspect of reality is more in need of ethical thinking and reform than the culture of war and violence that cannot be ignored. There are morally viable alternatives to this violence, Holmes argues, and he scrutinizes the sources and implications of such positions. Holmes shows that nonviolence and pacifism can lead us toward a more peaceful and humanely dignified world.

Judith Butler’s new book shows how an ethic of nonviolence must be connected to a broader political struggle for social equality. Further, it argues that nonviolence is often misunderstood as a passive practice that emanates from a calm region of the soul, or as an individualist ethical relation to existing forms of power. But, in fact, nonviolence is an ethical position found in the midst of the political field. An aggressive form of nonviolence accepts that hostility is part of our psychic constitution, but values ambivalence as a way of checking the conversion of aggression into violence. One contemporary challenge to a politics of nonviolence points out that there is a difference of opinion on what counts as violence and nonviolence. The distinction between them can be mobilised in the service of ratifying the state’s monopoly on violence. Considering nonviolence as an ethical problem within a political philosophy requires a critique of individualism as well as an understanding of the psychosocial dimensions of violence. Butler draws upon Foucault, Fanon, Freud, and Benjamin to consider how the interdiction against violence fails to include lives regarded as ungrievable. By considering how ‘racial phantasms’ inform justifications of state and administrative violence, Butler tracks how violence is often attributed to those who are most severely exposed to its lethal effects. The struggle for nonviolence is found in movements for social transformation that reframe the grievability of lives in light of social equality and whose ethical claims follow from an insight into the interdependency of life as the basis of social and political equality.

A study in comparative virtue ethics.

The threat to the survival of humankind posed by nuclear weapons has been a frightening and essential focus of public debate for the last four decades and must continue to be so if we are to avoid destroying ourselves and the natural world around us. One unfortunate result of preoccupation with the nuclear threat, however, has been a new kind of "respectability" accorded to conventional war. In this radical and cogent argument for pacifism, Robert Holmes asserts that all war--not just nuclear war--has become morally impermissible in the modern world. Addressing a wide audience of informed and concerned readers, he raises dramatic questions about the concepts of "political realism" and nuclear deterrence, makes a number of persuasive suggestions for nonviolent alternatives to war, and presents a rich panorama of thinking about war from St. Augustine to Reinhold Niebuhr and Herman Kahn. Holmes's positions are compellingly presented and will provoke discussion both among convinced pacifists and among those whom he calls "militarists." "Militarists," we realize after reading this book, include the majority of us who live a friendly and peaceful personal life while supporting a system which, if Holmes is correct, guarantees war and risks eventual human extinction. Originally published in 1989. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.

This provocative thesis calls violence the driving force not just of war, but of politics and even social stability. Though violence is commonly deplored, political scientist Ginsberg argues that in many ways it is indispensable, unavoidable, and valuable. Ginsberg sees violence manifested in society in many ways. "Law-preserving violence" (using Walter Benjamin's phrase) is the chief means by which society preserves social order. Behind the security of a stable society are the blunt instruments of the police, prisons, and the power of the bureaucratic state to coerce and manipulate. Ginsberg also discusses violence as a tool of social change, whether used in outright revolution or as a means of reform in public protests or the threat of insurrection. He notes that even groups committed to nonviolent tactics rely on the violent reactions of their opponents to achieve their ends. And to avoid the threat of unrest, modern states resort to social welfare systems (a prudent use of the carrot instead of the stick). Emphasizing the unavoidability of violence to create major change, Ginsberg points out that few today would trade our current situation for the alternative had our forefathers not resorted to the violence of the American Revolution and the Civil War.

“The issues of South Africa and the nuclear bomb and theologies of liberation have for some time spotlighted the question of violence and non-violence. The strength or weakness of Gandhian non-violence often comes up in discussions on the subject. This manuscript analyzes Gandhian non-violence. The analysis is able, thorough and—this is what I most respond to—marked both by rigorous Western-style scrutiny and a familiarity with Gandhi’s philosophical and religious roots. He provides a strong theoretical basis for the instinctive reactions of many of Gandhi’s non-violence, for the widespread and commonsense belief that in general non-violence is sound and beneficial but that non-violent extremism may not be. His treatment of Gandhian non-violence in the context of Indian philosophy and metaphysics is of high calibre. His approach is both fresh and successful.” — Rajmohan Gandhi “Borman shows in great detail where Gandhi’s thought arises from the Upanisads, The Bhagavad Gita, and a few other ancient documents. He also shows clearly where Gandhi deviates from his sources. As to argument, Borman uses a close-grained approach characteristic of analytic philosophy. Borman claims that Gandhi’s principles are extreme and unsupportable, and eventually lead to contradiction. It is not an intellectual biography, and it does not deal with the development of Gandhi’s thought. Rather it analyzes the logic of his position, and shows how he came to defend it from new angles in different circumstances. The text is well related to historical events, but does not pretend to history.” — Robert C. Neville “The manuscript is not, and does not pretend to be, a historical analysis of Mahatma Gandhi’s experience. Its notable strength lies in its unique and commendable examination of Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence, and in this particular respect it is the best study of the subject that I have read among the hundreds of books that deal with aspects of Gandhi’s contribution to our understanding of non-violence.” — Dennis Dalton “It is refreshing to read an author who has a basis for understanding Gandhi since so many writers fail to understand or appreciate the spiritual essentials that form the core of Gandhi’s life and message. This book rings with clear, accurate, insightful understandings of Gandhi. It explores fully Gandhi’s philosophy of action and brings in scriptural sources for concepts that Gandhi practiced in his everyday affairs. I think the Western reader will gain a much needed clarification of Gandhian philosophy, methods, and actions, and especially of the source of his inspiration and intentions.” — Jean B. Mann