As I wind down (one more one more), it occurs to me to comment that refusing to participate in a system of violence is not in itself condemning that system of violence. Camus is not making the case that violence is never necessary. He himself participated–heroically in the eyes of most–in the French Resistance, by publishing an important underground newspaper, which was called “Combat”. He wrote much of its content. He did so at considerable risk and no doubt supported heartily the Allied invasion and liberation of France.
So violence per se is not the issue. He is simply making the case that it is possible for INDIVIDUALS to reject participation. And it would be inconsistent for him not to grant to all individuals the right to their own moral decisions.
And here is thing: simply because some people choose not to participate in, say, war, we need neither judge them–if they are sincere–nor view this as a contradiction of our own beliefs. Moral variety is as necessary and good in the cultural realm as biological diversity is in the wild. We don’t benefit from endless rows of almond trees, pollinated by a decaying and degenerating hoard of bees overly surfeited on a tedious and unhealthy diet. (an actual example, by the way, in my understanding.)
Again, as William James pointed out, even if we do not ourselves choose a path of saintliness and non-violence, it helps to have such people around. They provide a needed contrast. They help keep things from getting too out of hand.
The mind needs many models.
And it occurred to me as well that Ideology, writ large–which would very certainly include religious ideology–is the OPPOSITE of my own assertions about proper moral judgements.
Where I say a judgement should be “local” they say the same mechanical method should be used in all cases that are even remotely similar.
Where I say they should be necessary, they say that judging is the most important and proper human action, and should be applied to all situations and people, regardless of how remote they may be from us in time or space. To take one obvious and current example, there is no need to judge the participants of the Civil War, or slave-owners in the South, as if they were alive today, and their crimes still relevant.
And for that matter, getting lost in that sort of thing blinds people to PRESENT realities. If slavery is wrong–and I of course believe it is, in all times and places and forms–then why does the Left spend more time and energy on tearing down Civil War memorials than ridding the world of slavery, which is still practiced in many of the same West African nations from where the original slaves came from? There are slaves in Nigeria, certainly, and most likely nations like Chad and the Sudan. The Chinese still keep slaves, even though there has been some small talk about that.
But attacking Robert E. Lee remains “anteater taming“. It takes no courage, no principle, and costs almost nothing. It also achieves nothing other than rancor and division, and obviously those seeking those can in any event only be counted on to keep breaking things if they get power.
When I say they should be “imperfect”, they say that their ideology makes all decisions necessarily perfect. The Party is always right. The Bible is always right. The Church is always right. Tradition is always right.
And so life ebbs and flows. To pick one side is not to oppose the other side. And to pick one side is not to not reserve the right either to change sides, to step out of the arena completely, or create on your own a viable third or fourth or fifth possibility.
In any communication there are many possibilities. There are what you intended to say, what you actually said, what you actually meant or thought you meant, what was heard, what could have been heard, and what might be heard tomorrow or next year, all of them with no necessary connection one to the other.
Life is all movement and relation. The world is shifting under your feet. Peace can be found in feeling, but most likely not in thought, not if we are honest.