Abstract

The popular slogan that one ought to fight for what he believes right appears to point a way for persons to witness the moral seriousness of their interest in reform. But exactly what way does it point, and, in particular, does it enjoin resort to violence for the sake of what one believes right ? Pursuit of this question exposes some roots of our indecisive and often confused views about the acceptable means of revolution and reform and the eventual r61e of violence therein. Common understandings of ?violence? and ?fight for? do not carry us far. Further, there are doubtless differences in how the slogan's enjoinment of ?fighting? (and thus, if at all, of violence) is understood to be limited. These differences and the issues underlying them are exposed when we ask whether the slogan is to be understood to enjoin fighting or manners of fighting that might be called premature, gratuitous, or wasteful, and when we ask whether the ?ought? in the slogan is to be understood as, at best, a prima facie ought