Anthropologist Margaret Mead declared last night that moral arguments concerning the use of violence have been rendered "academic" by the realities of nuclear destruction. In fact, said Miss Mead. "Nuclear holocaust is not an issue of peace or war, violence or non-violence," and should not be called "war."

In the past, Miss Mead told a Ford Hall Forum audience, men have viewed war according to their views on violence. Pacifists have argued against all violence and all war because of an ethical belief that considers such actions "wrong and against natural law and order."

A second group of people, whom Miss Mead labeled "internationalists," have supported wars which help to effect their goal of a stable world community and have condemned wars which upset the order. In short, said Miss Mead, "they make a distinction between good wars and bad wars."

In dealing with "nuclear holocaust," however, Miss Mead said that "the identification of war and personal violence is invalid, and the distinction between good and bad wars is irrelevant. We are dealing with the issue of whether or not there will be any human beings," she said.

Although recognizing that her thinking on nuclear war resembles pacifism. Miss Mead declared that she is "not a pacifist" because she is not primarily interested in the moral issues of violence.

Miss Mead turned to the question of "the relationship of war to man's aggressive impulses" and concluded that "modern warfare is not a hypertrophy of aggression, but a hypertrophy of idealism. The natural, self-less instinct of men to protect women and children" is at the core of this idealism, she said.

The concept of war as extended idealism is important, said Miss Mead, for if this is correct, rather than the theory that war is the result of man's aggressive impulses, it will be crucial in deciding "the kind of society we are going to try to build."