Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments for and against pacifism
Pacifism 15 mark essay
Pacifism 15 mark essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Arguments for and against pacifism
During the 20th century America has been involved in many conflicts that have led to war or the taking up of arms against other humans and nations. Although the vast majority of Americans have blindly accepted these actions throughout the century, more and more people are seeing war as morally wrong. Reasons for this epiphany are based off of a variety of things and encompass many other aspects related to war and killing examples include: due to moral and ethical principles, objection to war due to strong religious beliefs, the objection to violence due to the same ideals above, objection to the government's use of force, and the objection to the use of weapons of mass destruction.
Many of the core beliefs of conscientious objection derive from the teachings or beliefs of pacifism. Pacifism has been a system of thinking and living for hundreds of years, and, in the 20th century many objection and pacifistic movements have sprung up all around the nation, more so than in any other time. Pacifism and conscientious objection in the United States have been moral issues that have fallen under question due to the belief of the participants that killing, war, and the act of violence is wrong and immoral.
To begin to understand the workings of conscientious objection, it is important have a clear view of what pacifism is. The roots of pacifism reach back for literally hundreds of years. Practically all of the messiahs of all the chief religions of the world preached for pacifism including: Allah and Muhammad from the Muslim Koran, Jesus and God from the Bible used by Catholics, Christens, and Quakers, and in the Jewish Torah. Other teachers of pacifism include: Plato and Socrates.
The moral and ethical principles of pacifism and conscientious objection have been present throughout United States history. There have been known objectors in every single war that America has been somehow involved, Including: The French and Indian War, The Revolutionary War, The War of 1812, The Civil War, The Spanish American War, The Mexican American War, World War One, World War Two, The Korean War, The Vietnam War, The Persian Gulf War, and into the ongoing War Against "Terror".
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.
War is seen as a universal concept that often causes discomfort and conflict in relation to civilians. As they are a worrying universal event that has occurred for many decades now, they posed questions to society about human's nature and civilization. Questions such as is humanity sane or insane? and do humans have an obsession with destruction vs creation. These questions are posed from the two anti-war texts; Dr Strangelove by Stanley Kubrick and Slaughterhouse Five written by Kurt Vonnegut.
where I grew up, I rarely thought of pacifism as meaning that you didn't fight; I ...
Throughout history, war has been the catalyst that has compelled otherwise-ordinary people to discard, at least for its duration, their longstanding beliefs about the immorality of killing their fellow human beings. In sum, during periods of war, people’s views about killing others are fundamentally transformed from abhorrence to glorification due in large part to the decisions that are made by their political leaders. In this regard, McMahan points out that, “As soon as conditions arise to which the word ‘war’ can be applied, our scruples vanish and killing people no longer seems a horrifying crime but becomes instead a glorious achievement” (vii). Therefore, McMahan argues that the transformation of mainstream views about the morality of killing during times of war are misguided and flawed since they have been based on the traditional view that different moral principles somehow apply in these circumstances. This traditional view about a just war presupposes the morality of the decision to go to war on the part of political leaders in the first place and the need to suspend traditional views about the morality of killing based on this
War has always been an essential ingredient in the development of the human race. As a result of the battles fought in ancient times, up until modern warfare, millions of innocent lives have ended as a result of war crimes committed. In the article, “The My Lai Massacre: A Military Crime of Obedience,” Herbert C. Kelman and V.Lee Hamilton shows examples of moral decisions taken by people involved with war-related murders. This article details one of the worse atrocities committed during the Vietnam War in 1968 by the U.S. military: the My Lai Massacre. Through this incident, the question that really calls for psychological analysis is why so many people are willing to formulate , participate in, and condone policies that call for the mass killings of defenseless civilians such as the atrocities committed during the My Lai massacre. What influences these soldiers by applying different psychological theories that have been developed on human behavior.
war destroys more than just the physical level; the decline of morality has taken place
War is a hard thing to describe. It has benefits that can only be reaped through its respective means. Means that, while necessary, are harsh and unforgiving. William James, the author of “The Moral Equivalent of War”, speaks only of the benefits to be had and not of the horrors and sacrifices found in the turbulent times of war. James bears the title of a pacifist, but he heralds war as a necessity for society to exist. In the end of his article, James presents a “war against nature” that would, in his opinion, stand in war’s stead in bringing the proper characteristics to our people. However, my stance is that of opposition to James and his views. I believe that war, while beneficial in various ways, is unnecessary and should be avoided at all costs.
Engaging in the war in Vietnam brought a whole different set of "American Views" to the topic of war. This time the country did not support the war like we've seen in the past. Mostly by young people, the war effort was criticized and Americans staged massive protests. The Vietnam War's controversy spurred a great many sources of protest, against our government's use of power, how far we could stretch the rights of free expression, and primarily against the violence of the war itself.
In her essay Can U.S. Citizens Be Held as Enemy Combatants, Jennifer Vanklausen explores the ethical question of our government’s policy to hold American citizens suspected of terrorist activity against the United States as enemy combatants, withholding their constitutional rights as provided in the fifth and sixth amendments, during an undeclared war.
The first of the yamas is Ahimsa, whose translation from Sanskrit is non-violence. The yama of Ahimsa is about practicing non-violence in words, thoughts, and actions as well as about practicing compassion, patience, understanding, and love of all creatures. This yama is the one that I am most consciously aware of and that I practice the most in my life, for Ahimsa is the very essence of my religion, Jainism. To me, Ahimsa is much more than a request of being non-violent. It has the positive meaning of intense and detached love for every living creature. Every living creature has the same right to live in peace as you have and all beings should respect that right. Furthermore, Ahimsa does not mean to tolerate or passively accept violence or evil. It means to resist violence and evil, but with detachment and by loving the person through which that evil manifests. Ahimsa also implies a lack of unnecessary criticism. It requests to respect other's views and beliefs, and to listen to and approach with an open mind ideas that vary from your own. One of the ways that I practice Ahimsa in my life is by being a vegetarian. It is extremel...
The just war theory is described by Thomas Massaro in his book Living Justice as the “principle that warfare might be justified under certain conditions” (108). The complexities involved with international relations makes determining a just war very difficult. Even though historically pacifism hasn’t gained much traction within Catholic circles, it currently is gaining popularity with many mainstream Catholics. With so many differing views on military action, one might ask, “What determines a just war? How can we balance the need for peace with self-defense?” An examination of criteria for a just war and critiques written on this topic might shed light on these two questions.
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
...oal of such violence is to obtain a greater moral good. But antiwar pacifists maintain that the ends do not justify the means, if the means are murderous. It is a tragic mistake to believe that there are great moral goods that can only be claimed by war and the amount of moral good obtained by war is often greatly exaggerated and inequitable.
One thing obviously has not changed: war is still an ongoing part of the life of a nation. The United States especially has been involved in so many wars and conflicts from its formation that one begins to wonder whether it has become embedded in American society. According to Sun Tzu, “Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Way (Tao) to survival or extinction. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed”. Sun Tzu stated that there are five factors to take into account when considering who will come out of a conflict victorious. These are: The Tao, Heaven, Earth, the generals and the laws for military organization and discipline. These five overarching themes f...
Non-violence. Many people confuse this term with pacifism. Pacifism is defined as the belief that any violence, including war, is unjustifiable under any circumstances. Non-violence is defined as the use of peaceful means, not force, to bring about political or social change. The difference between the two are fairly simple to see when we define them side by side. Pacifism states that war is unjustifiable, however, it does not specify that Pacifism shows any inclination toward preventing war. Compare this to non-violence, which states that issues should only be solved in peaceful means. In this comparison, it would appear that Pacifism allows war, whereas non-violence tries to completely eradicate or avoid it. Now that we have clarified the