Pacifist Vs. Pacifism

999 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: The pros and cons of pacifism

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.
Not being pacifist has led to political support and social systems that support war. Going against pacifism has led to military protection for the United States. Every citizen in the United States has the duty to protect their citizens. It does not matter that pacifist are motivated by respecting the human life and a love of peace. Pacifist refuse to participate in war but people who are failing out to carry out important obligation. The United States was founded upon war. In 1771 people believed in their individual freedom, Britain then came along and suppressed the colonist. The colonist tried a peaceful protest against Britain but resulted in a historical event called The Boston Massacre. Five colonist died in the event and none had any sort of weapon in their hand. The colonist tried being pacifist for years but it led them nowhere. The colonist understood the only option they had was to fight for their freedom and they did. It resulted in a major victory for them and America was born.
Being pacifist means in believing that war and violence is unjustifiable. People who support pacifism believe that it is more of an international organization tha...

... middle of paper ...

...s toward peace”. Proving that being pacifist does not necessarily mean that war is unacceptable, it can also stand for bringing peace by a different point of view.
Being a non pacifist believer can result as a good thing. Being a non pacifist had a lot of political and military support, compared to believing in pacifism where violence and war in unnecessary, showed the two differences in both beliefs. Oddly enough being a non pacifist has led to the security of this country as well as its stableness. There have been so many historical events in history that have showed us the pros and cons about each belief. “You must not confound pacifism with opposition to a particular war, or even opposition to the whole thrust of American foreign policy. They are two separate issues.” stated in the article, describes how we are not the only ones who are non pacifism believer.

Show More
Related

  • Movie Analysis: Cesar Chavez

    1000 Words  | 2 Pages

    Nowadays, this concept of using nonviolence is hard to achieve. This is because people think that peaceful protest aren’t effective compared to taking action with their hands. One example is the Blacks Lives Matter Movement. Although there are peaceful protest, there are times when people turn violent against police. This can be counterintuitive since watching these harsh actions by protestors, people start forming negative views about the organization. This leads to people not supporting the cause anymore. Without the support of the public, an organization can’t

    Read More

  • A Year of Lesser and Miriam Toews’ A Complicated Kindness by David Bergen

    1697 Words  | 4 Pages

    where I grew up, I rarely thought of pacifism as meaning that you didn't fight; I ...

    Read More

  • Rhetorical Analysis Of Is American Nonviolence Possible

    705 Words  | 2 Pages

    ¬¬¬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.

    Read More

  • How the 1961 US Freedom Rides Inspired Aboriginal Activism and Protest in Australia

    1214 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...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.”

    Read More

  • My Brother Sam Is Dead Character Analysis

    833 Words  | 2 Pages

    According to Christopher and James Collier,”War turns men into beasts.” It is true because many people are willing to

    Read More

  • Themes In Chris Hedge's In War Gives Us Meaning

    1027 Words  | 3 Pages

    In a single quote to wrap up the book “When you stop believing, you stop going to war”. This quote is very true when we stop belief in the cause and the myth it will be different.

    Read More

  • The Moral Equivalent of War by William James

    1130 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Man I Killed Analysis

    585 Words  | 2 Pages

    As a pacifist, I disagree with all wars in theory. I am realistic enough to comprehend that conflict is sometimes unavoidable because, of specific circumstances, understanding and accepting are two very isolated ideas. I hold on to the optimistic perspective that situations can be resolved peacefully as long as all parties are willing to contribute to a peaceful outcome. On a more personal level, my resistance towards war also stems from family members and friends who are and have

    Read More

  • The Just War Theory

    1705 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...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.

    Read More

  • The Strength And Weakness Of The Just War Theory

    337 Words  | 1 Pages

    The “Just War Theory” is known as a Christian philosophy that aims at reconciling three things. The first is that it strongly advocates that killing human beings is wrong. Secondly, it claims that the state has the mandate to defend its citizens as well as justice. Thirdly, people should protect innocent human life, should defend the moral values. According to this theory, observing these concepts requires the willingness to make use of force. Therefore, this Christian philosophy advocates for war while safeguarding the rights of its citizens and justice, as well as the innocent and moral values.

    Read More

  • Just War Theory Essay

    763 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • For and Against Pacifism

    778 Words  | 2 Pages

    guard and says 'all who live by the sword, will die by the sword.' And

    Read More

  • Canadian Peacekeeping

    921 Words  | 2 Pages

    ... of war or violence” (Canadian Oxford Dictionary). When Canada revised their peacekeeping methods, they became violent, which is the exact opposite of peace.

    Read More

  • Anti-War Pacifism

    1408 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.”

    Read More

  • Violence in Human Life: King and Freud

    683 Words  | 2 Pages

    First, there is Martin Luther King Jr. who practices nonviolence. He does not believe violence to be an effective approach for long-lasting change. In fact, he states in his Nobel Prize Lecture that, “[he is] not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results (King, 4).” The key phrase is “momentary results” which means that violence only solves a problem for a certain amount of time. His example includes how violence won independence for nations. However, no set peace is achieved by it. King regards it as temporary peace. In fact, he states that it creates more complex, unresolved issues, with a never-ending series of self-destruction. He claims that, “It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends up defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers (King, 4).” All of those claims just portray destruction in itself. There seemingly lacks a positive ring. Instead, he preaches nonviolence because it concerns the majority of the people and their goals concerns the peace and harmony of the community. His nonviolent approaches include persuasion with the use of words. However, if that fails...

    Read More

More about Pacifist Vs. Pacifism

Open Document