Dear NvT,
It was interesting to read Dave Keenan's article, A Paradox of Nonviolence
(NvT #30), which is outside to theme of normal articles.  It is refreshing to
have a challenge to our thinking, and to be reminded that we must accept that
'the other' has an equal right as myself to express a point of view. 
However, I am somewhat disturbed that the position portrayed may lead to a
belief in relativism.

Somewhat contrary to the thrust of Dave Keenan's article, the position I wish
to outline can only follow from some common ground of certitude.

A positive role for systematic doubt was outlined by Rene' Descartes in his
Discourse on Method, first published in 1637, in which he enunciated his
famous dictum," I think, therefore I am".  He was concerned to show that
while it was possible to doubt everything that could be brought to mind, it
was impossible to deny that in the very act of doubting that he was thinking
the doubt.  From this certitude he was able to build a system for
understanding his world.

Without the certitude of my identity I must doubt everything. One belief or
course of action can be regarded as good as another, e.g. I could be
cooperative or I could be aggressive. The reality of 'I' and the reality of
the world or 'other' are 'givens'. 

A further 'given' factor is the rationality I experience in the objective
everyday world. For example a stone will fall to the ground if I throw it up
and not continue into outer space.

However it is in human relations, that there appears to be considerable
evidence of irrationality.  It is here that there is a real paradox.  How can
it be that human beings, who identify rationality in the objective world and
understand causality, exhibit many apparently irrational features in their
behaviour towards one another and the world at large?

There are many features of our experience that engender doubt.  Doubt itself
is a rational response to what we cannot identify clearly. On the other hand
there are some elemental features which we can endorse with certitude.  These
may best be identified by the term 'human rights'.  Out understanding of
these factors follow directly from the above 'givens'.  From my acceptance of
"I am",  I understand that every human being stands in an identical position
- I am innately no better, no greater, no more worthy than any other person.

From the acceptance of the 'other' as of equal value to the self, all human
rights follow.  These may be summarised by the words: equality, freedom,
justice, peace.  These are not just empty intellectual symbols but represent
actualities in the lived world.  To give focus to their lived meaning there
is need of another word, love.

While it might be that we cannot say with absolute clarity what these words
mean, consistent action can show and convey meaning.  For example, peaceful
and nonviolent actions that are uncompromising are consistent with human
rights, and while this may be stated with certitude, it is only made clear in
actions that define our understanding.  It is not possible to consider the
use of coercion or violence to obtain compliance with this understanding as
this would be antithetical to human rights.

While it is possible to speak of the paradox of nonviolence as Dave Keenan
has done, or the paradox of rationality as indicated above, it is of
overriding importance to recognise a specific certitude which can be a basis
for action that is both peaceful and rational.
Les Hoey
Eds: This article has been edited for space and relevance to nonviolence.  If
you would like a copy of the full letter, please contact NvT.