More handpicked essays just for you.
How war affects the innocence of children
Child soldiers and human rights abuses
How war affects the innocence of children
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: How war affects the innocence of children
Is violence a good thing to do?
Is violence justified in order to combat oppression or is nonviolence the most effective solution? Not using brutal force is the most effective way to restrain violence. In a “long way gone: memoirs of a boy soldier” Ishmael Beah goes through a lot, as a kid he should have not needed to experience all the violence he went through.
Nonviolence is the most effective way to solve problems. This is so because once violence starts it's really hard to stop people from doing violent things such as murder rape or just plain old assault.Violence should not be necessary and even less so with children on your hands,because that child will never forget the things he has done and will continue to do them if no one teaches
¬¬¬Though most American people claim to seek peace, the United States remains entwined with both love and hate for violence. Regardless of background or personal beliefs, the vast majority of Americans enjoy at least one activity that promotes violence whether it be professional fighting or simply playing gory video games. Everything is all well and good until this obsession with violence causes increased frequency of real world crimes. In the article, “Is American Nonviolence Possible” Todd May proposes a less standard, more ethical, fix to the problem at hand. The majority of the arguments brought up make an appeal to the pathos of the reader with a very philosophical overall tone.
...able to showcase the great power that nonviolence could have on the world and how by using methods such as that one would be more successful than if one used violence. As Mahatma Gandhi once said “Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.”
Violence usually solves nothing but perhaps sometimes it can For example in the Irish Civil War after brutal fighting and 2500 deaths they finally became independent. Since then this atrocious war has been the inspiration for many works of literature. The purpose of the song “Bloody Sunday” by U2 was to explain the terrible effects of war while in the short story “ The Sniper” by Liam O’Flaherty the purpose was to explain what war was really like from a soldier’s perspective. This makes the two texts different because they were both told from different points of views.
If King defines violence as “immoral and destructive means” (King, 400), and Mitchell claims that violence can be used to bring about peace and equality. And King further states that “immoral and destructive means” (King, 400), can only bring about immoral and destructive ends. Then it is possible to infer that peace and equality are immoral and destructive. This is an error brought about through a lack of a definition to the terms violence and non-violence. As with the time King found new terms to differentiate between the types of love, he must find a number of new terms with which we may differentiate between the types of violence. The lack of variety has led to confusion that can possibly be eased through an ability to discriminate meanings. A possible distinction King could make between his violence and Mitchell’s violence is by using the terms brutality and brouhaha. A brouhaha could be what King calls non-violence, and brutality being what King calls violence. Brutality being a physical, forceful and damaging act of cruelty. A brouhaha is an enthusiastic act of abnormal behavior for the purpose of causing discomfort in others. An example of a brouhaha would be what King would call a non-violent protest. An example of brutality would be smashing in the windows of a store that refused to serve someone. To fix the claim “the type of peace King predicts from non-violence is better than one from violence,” Dr. King need only add a disclaimer stating the fact that such a claim is purely conjecture and wrought with bias. These changes could cause the essay to lose some of its power over the public, a group that has to think very little about the information that moves them, but it is personally believed that the changes would make the document more accurate for the people who
It has been debated though out history whether or not nonviolence “works”. Many societies, and this without question includes the United States, have mostly relied on violent tactics. Many people believe that violence is the only way to stop wars, even though it creates war, and people tend to believe that violence is the one solution to many global and political problems. However, recent literature and research is starting to prove otherwise. Erica Chenoweth, a political scientist, recently published a book, Why Civil Resistance Works in 2011. The research highlights data that shows throughout history, nonviolent tactics are more effective than violent ones in various ways.
Conflict is constant. It is everywhere. It exists within one’s own mind, different desires fighting for dominance. It exists outside in nature, different animals fighting for the limited resources available, and it exists in human society, in the courts. It can occur subtly, making small changes that do not register consciously, and it can occur directly and violently, the use of pure strength, whether physical, social, economic, or academic, to assert dominance and achieve one’s goals; this is the use of force. Yet, with the use of force, the user of force is destined to be one day felled by it. “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.”
...fists can be uneffective in a war minded society. If an aggressor is attacking with no opposition, one cannot rely on the morality of the aggressors to halt the attack. Intervention of the attacks would be impermissible by the standards of absolute pacifism, as it would contribute to the overall amount of violence. The absolute pacifist would become a martyr for their beliefs, and without opposing the aggressive force societies would be annihilated. I believe while pacifism is morally better than war in terms of the amount of violence projected, and diplomatic negotiation should be the main solution to world issues, it is a commonality of society that war can potentially be the quickest solution to stop an aggressor. Although the notion of a Just War is unattainable, the causes of war as described in the theory set a standard for global leaders to promote justice.
The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton proves the point that violence can be justified if necessary. To inflict change in their lives people often fight with violence instead of peace to evoke change. The world strives for change everyday whether or not you like it. How the people create a change in society whether they use peace or war, it is up to them to decide how to modify our ever changing world. Violence and fight between the Socs and Greasers tells us that both can be justified if it inflicts positive change in society. ‘
Once we understand what violence is the question that is raised is how does one decide the difference between a legitimate and an illegitimate act of violence? Since violence is bringing harm to others whether that is individuals, property or organizations why would violence be considered permissible or legitimate on some occasions but not others? Universally, the idea of legitimacy is “that something is right, proper, or appropriate within the bounds of a system of norms, values, or beliefs” (Schoon 779). Since norms and values are changeable depending on the culture, legitimacy can be “shaped by the availability of alternatives to that which is being evaluated” (780). While legitimacy is not solely based on cultural norms and values, it is also based
The role of violence in the fight against injustice is a tricky one. If an oppressor is willing to use violence to maintain control should not the oppressed use violence to achieve liberation? Franz Fanon would argue that the pent up anger and frustration must be released in violent action to tear down the oppressor’s regime. However, there is a better way and that is through non-violence and understanding that Martin Luther King, Jr. champions. Only through creating tension around injustice via non-violent direct action can the conversation begin around mutual understanding and justice. It is this justice achieved through non-violent means that will last as violent action is ultimately unjust in nature.
The Civil Rights Movement brought many accomplishments to African Americans such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The key issues that African Americans fought for were voting rights, integration and racial equality. They were tired of the discrimination and humiliation they received as a result of the segregation laws imposed on them. “State laws mandated racial separation in schools, parks, playgrounds, restaurants, hotels, public transportation, theaters, restrooms and so on” (Blumberg 40). Lawsuits had been tried to gain rights such as the unsuccessful Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 and the successful Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Although, the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka declared the “separate but equal” clause unconstitutional, de facto segregation continued in the South. During the 1960s, two methods were used: nonviolence and violence. Violence proved to be ineffective since it perpetuated social tensions among Whites and Blacks. Nonviolence was the most effective method in bringing social change in America during the 1960s Civil Rights Movement because it attracted sympathy towards Black people, provoked positive media attention, and promoted unity among African Americans.
but, you must always stay disputations to be able to stay on the right path to following your beliefs. But in some cases such as the, African Americans, the violent disobedience was justified to earn equality for the citizens that were treated as less than trash. In addition, when interviewing Steven Saelee to understand his point of view of if violence is ever justified, he had said to me, “violence should only ever be used when harm is coming towards you or another but in certain in cases it can be used to over throw a government that has treated its people unlawfully”. He further went onto say that violence is only acceptable when used to solve a situation where words can no longer solve the issue. Another example is when I was in elementary school, there was a student who was sexually harassing a female student. Now a fellow classmate came to him to tell him to stop but he wouldn 't listen. So in order to stop him I had to break the rules and used my fists to stop him. Which in my eyes, I found that violent disobedience was the only solution because I had to break the rules placed on me by the school district in order to preserve the girl’s
“According to some researchers, our tendency to use violence comes from the fear of death and the need of boosting our self confidence by using its defense mechanism.” This fact stated “onedio.co” may simply be a hoax but surprisingly it is not. The overuse of violence encourages corruption in family and doesn’t settle or divert the dilemma. As a result of violence, it can cause lasting severe damage to close relationships with your loved ones. To illustrate my point, violence is used in several ways to express anger, but it doesn’t particularly solve anything.
Violence Is The Province Of Evil People Natural violence is a form of hurtful action or reaction, which can assume an infinite number of forms, and it is not unusual for people to fashion arguments of one kind or another to justify its existence. Not many typical arguments can be fashioned so as to justify any existence of violence as being the province of and evil people or nation. An argument however is contained in the Biblical records of Genesis 18:19, where two cities Sodom and Gomorra were the provinces (interpreted as location) of evil people, and as a result all persons were destroyed by unusually devastating violent acts of fire and brimstone, which rained on them and also destroyed their entire cities. The substantial argument from this Biblical, historical perspective is that the people were "in grievous sin" as Genesis 18:20 puts it, and such it was the evil in them that perpetrated the violence in the location of Sodom and Gomorra.
Using Violence to Solve Problems Some Christians believe that violence isn't the answer and that it shouldn't be used in any situation. They believe that there are other ways to solve problems. Jesus avoided using violence when he was being arrested.