Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Reflection on pacifism
Nuclear deterrence for and against
Importance of world peace
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Reflection on pacifism
Pacifism is the belief that violence is not the way to resolve differences. They believe that war can be avoided and that there are better and longer lasting solutions to disputes. There are, however, various categories of ‘pacifist’. A ‘total pacifist’ is someone who completely avoids violence and believes it can never be justified, not even in self-defence or to protect others – this they see as the only morally correct view of war. A relative pacifist is someone who may use violence in certain situations but who supports disarmament. They are discriminating about WW1 but agree that WW2 had to be fought. Nuclear pacifists believe that conventional weapons are acceptable as a last resort if war is inevitable, as it is, but nuclear weapons should never be used. A nuclear deterrence pacifist, on the other hand, believes that one can only achieve peace through a position of strength and nuclear deterrence provides this peace. Many Christians are pacifists and many pacifists are Christian. They believe that, as stated in Mathew 5, “happy are those who work for peace; God will call them His children”. They claim that Christ’s teachings are very clear on the matter. “Do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you”, “love your enemies”. Non violence and pacifism must not be confused with cowardice and inaction. Many of history’s greatest heroes have been pacifists, eg Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King, Gandhi. These people refused to resort to violence even when their lives were ...
where I grew up, I rarely thought of pacifism as meaning that you didn't fight; I ...
...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.”
say that due to the way Jesus reacted at his arrest and the fact that
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.
by God you will see that God was opposed to war, violence and any form
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.
Extreme pacifists have a strict discipline they follow that does not condone war for any reason and believes and advocates peace. Extreme pacifists live a way of life that is strict and adherent to these guidelines to which causes its followers to not be able to participate in many functions or organizations that can result or advocate violence. I don’t necessarily agree with this view and would not find it realistic enough to be able to apply it in our society today. It’s an admirable quality to which extreme pacifists religiously hold and abide by but it appears to me to be to idealistic and not easily attainable in our society, at least that’s the way I see it. The concept of “just war” began with Augustine, and in his own way to rationalize and clarify what he believed outlined a war to be considered just. Augustine was able to outline and categorize just war into jus in bellum, “the necessary …conditions for justifying engagement in war” and jus in bello “the necessary conditions for conducting war in a just manner.” The final stage, jus pos bellum, “…seeks to regulate the ending of wars, and to ease the transition from war back to peace.”
guard and says 'all who live by the sword, will die by the sword.' And
... of war or violence” (Canadian Oxford Dictionary). When Canada revised their peacekeeping methods, they became violent, which is the exact opposite of peace.
Pacifism has been understood as a nonbeliever in any sort of violence. Being a non pacifist believe that killing other human beings is not always wrong. Most people think we do not have an option in being pacifist or non pacifist. Every person has the right to participate in war. Although being pacifist and non pacifist can be very contradicting, many people have stated that those who oppose pacifism say that the world is not perfect. Not believing in pacifism had a lot of political and military support, compared to believing in pacifism where violence and war in unnecessary.
Pacifism is the refusal to participate in any violent actions and or killing. This can be derived from the belief that all life is sacred and that it is morally wrong to take another persons life.
Pacifism covers an array of views and there are many subcategories of pacifism, some of which I will cover, but the main definition of the word pacifism is the opposition to war and/or violence. Perhaps the most famous use of the word pacifism is found in the “Sermon on the Mount”, where Jesus claims the “peacemakers” are blessed. In this passage, the Greek word eirenopoios is translated into Latin as pacifici, which means those who work for peace. One common and simple argument for pacifism among religious groups or god fearing people is the argument that god’s revealed words says, through the bible, “Thou shalt not kill.”
There is a considerable debate about the precise meaning of nonviolence. Some people believe that nonviolence is a philosophy and strategy for social change that rejects the use of violence. In other words, nonviolence is a method for resolving a conflict without the use of physical power nor enmity towards opponents. Instead, it emphasizes you to look beyond convictions and one’s urge for victory, it is the motto behind the saying “hate the sin and not the sinner”. For others it is a way of living and an essential part of their values and norms, for those people, nonviolence is the road which will lead them towards attaining inner piece and moral satisfaction. “Learn and teach nonviolence as a way of life; reflect it in attitude, speech and action” say’s Gerber in his article The Road to Nonviolence. Thus making nonviolence the ultimate behavior towards achieving truthful, spiritual, loving life. Mahatma Gandhi, the nonviolence guru, defines nonviolence as “a power which can be wielded equally by all-children, young men and women or grown-up people, provided they have a living faith in the God of Love and have therefore equal love for all mankind”. (mkgandhi.org) Therefore we understand that nonviolence has some terms and conditions to be met; living faith in God, truthfulness, humility, tolerance, loving kindness, honesty and the willingness to sacrifice. ...
While using violence to counteract violence may seem like a contradiction of sorts it is possibly the only recourse for the oppressed. It is impossible to create a formula of what works and doesn’t work in terms of emancipation because it is highly dependent on the particular situation but it is quite apparent that counterviolence is a necessary tool in this struggle. As we have seen, violence is not the only tool in liberation; the reconstruction of human ethics and perceptions is as, or more, important. Furthermore, it has been shown that sometimes nonviolence can create systemic change and that violence is not always applicable. Other times, violence is the only means to achieve true human emancipation.