Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Reflection on pacifism
Essays on nonviolence
Consequences of war on civilians
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Reflection on pacifism
“Full demilitarization can only come about in a society in which power is shared at the grassroots. In the nineteenth century, Henry David Thoreau called upon free citizens to engage in civil disobedience and nonviolent actions whenever there is injustice. Civil disobedience and nonviolence are an integral part of any democratic society. Even in Western democracies, the state seems invincible, and as individuals we often feel powerless, unable to have much effect. We must remind ourselves that the power of the state derives solely from the consent of the governed. Without the cooperation of the people, the state cannot exist. Even as a powerful military state that is nearly invulnerable to violent force can be transformed through nonviolence …show more content…
Petra shows us that we can help out. That by using nonviolence, not letting yourself be pushed around, will get you somewhere. She goes on to quote Gandhi and King and how they use nonviolence as a way to gain support and acknowledgement from the public. “Without the cooperation of the people, the state cannot exist.” (500). This means that if the people do not like something, to not let the government force them into anything. If there is resistance, the government will have to do something that the people want, or else be abdicated (or not reelected). Some people of course will argue that nonviolence is stupid and that it won’t work but we all are allowed our opinions. This is a never-ending issue that relates to us even today. There is the war in Iraq and there are constant crimes happening in different countries today. We all need to do something to stop the violence. Everyday people are getting hurt or worse, killing or being killed. Petra suggests “demilitarization”. This is the same as “civilian based defense.” (500). This means she wants us to stop creating armies and the military. She wants us to stop making and using weapons. Basically we need to stop the killing. She mentions that we have the power, not …show more content…
That is such a strong way of saying that the mind is what is violent and not the actual act of killing. It all starts as an emotion. Anger, hate, greed, something evil that makes people do bad things. Like killing, stealing, lying, etc. The world has too much competition going on, everyone feels the need to have anything and everything that they do not stop to think about the consequences. When she mentions that children are breathing lethal toxins, it makes the reader sympathize for those poor children. They should not have to live in such an environment. They should not be exposed to death and pain. Kelly says we “need” to focus more on feeding and providing health care to these children rather then waste money on supplying and building armies. How is it that we can afford to buy and make weapons, worth billions of dollars, yet there are homeless people and starving children dying everyday because of starvation, malnutrition, and illnesses? This makes a person and stop and think about that. Petra states, “For the cost of one jet fighter, 3 million children could be inoculated against major childhood diseases.” (502). If we spent more on helping children then on wars, we could save the lives of so many children. To the reader, children have always been an issue to sympathize with. They are young, innocent,
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
¬¬¬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.”
King consents that negations are an impressive approach but elaborates of their current unavailability since the matter is merely ignored. Due to this, King argues that the nonviolent actions purpose “to create a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has consistently refused to negotiate is forced to confront this issues” (King). Here, King is consenting to the audience’s opinion of negotiating as well as adding the real issue’s facts so as to justify the reasons for doing it in his own manner. The audience can be made to reason and agree that his deeds are the most appropriate approach through supporting his decision by arguing that the community denies paying attention to the cause and non-violent protest has a huge
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Letter from a Birmingham Jail gave the people an insight into the mind and his unwillingness to give up on his dream for better life and respect for ‘Negroes’. However, it was not just his mentality we have an insight on but also his philosophy, his mantra. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a devoted Christian and refused to use cruel, demeaning words and unnecessary violence to get his points across to the people. He fought against the injustices brought on upon the black people by the ‘white power’ in Birmingham. Letter from a Birmingham Jail also gave insight into his personality and character. Throughout the letter, he never used cruel words, he never used words that could be taken offensively by the people who he was protesting against, in some cases, what he says can be taken light-heartedly and jokingly, and he always talked with respect. He even apologized to the reader, the ‘white power’, and asked for forgiveness from his God. Dr. King’s philosophy, his commitment to the cause, and his unyielding determination for his dream for the future generations made him a hero among the masses, an unforgettable icon for the Civil Rights Movement. His message, no matter what it was or where, shook the very chains that ‘white power’ still had around the black people. His words added weight to the opposite side of the balance beam, giving strength and weight to the black people. His gospel of freedom through nonviolence was the pillar, the foundation of the Civil Rights Movement and the mantra for people struggling for justice throughout the South. Nevertheless, I ask you, in today’s society, is his message still significant? Is there a way to move people to fight with you without using force? The answer will ...
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.
Nonviolent Conflict. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed April 22, 2014).
Gandhi once said “An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind.” This is true in most circumstances but there are exceptions. By comparing acts of nonviolent civil disobedience with acts of violent civil disobedience it is apparent that force or violence is only necessary to combat violence but never if it effects the lives of the innocent. A recurrent theme in each of these examples is that there is a genuine desire to achieve equality and liberty. However, one cannot take away the liberties of others in order to gain their own. Martin Luther King Jr. believed that political change would come faster through nonviolent methods and one can not argue his results as many of the Jim Crow laws were repealed. Similarly, through nonviolent resistance Gandhi was able to eventually free India from the rule of Britain. It is true that sometimes the only way to fight violence is through violence, but as is apparent, much can be said of peaceful demonstrations in order to enact change. Thus, it is the responsibility of we as individuals to understand that nonviolence is often a more viable means to an end than violence.
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.
“I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends.”
Having a non-violent way to approach civil engagement helps people rise from the dark. In the article, “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” by King Jr., he writes, “So the purpose of the direct action is to create a situation so crises-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation”(236). King Jr. suggests that the only way for Americans to see the need to change is through direct actions and that could possibly get them to negotiate. It related to the article, “from Non-Violent Resistance,” by Gandhi because through a non-violent action, people see the value of actually wanting to create justice. He points out, “Non-violence is the supreme dharma is the proof of this power of love. Non-violence is a dormant state”(Gandhi 316). He refers to all people that if someone gives a person pain, the person receiving the pain should not act back in a harsh attitude, but he/she will win if they show love. However, King Jr. also explains one’s right to express verbally. He writes, “If his repressed emotions do not come out in these nonviolent ways, they will come out in ominous expressions of violence. This is not a threat; it is a fact of history”(MLK 242). It is within the first amendment that all people have the right to free speech in any way, and if people express their emotions in an intimidating way, it is not a threat. Approaching all injustices social issues in
Our struggle is not easy, and we must not think of nonviolence as a safe way to fight oppression, the strength of nonviolence comes from your willingness to take personal risks in Kohlberg’s moral stage 5 moral rights and social contract is explained in this political analysis on governmental power and the antiapartheid and central America work when they led protest on campuses with hundreds being arrested and 130 campus withdrawals.
Despite the belief that fighting with violence is effective, civil disobedience has been tried throughout history and been successful. Fighting violence with violence leaves no oppertunity for peace to work. By refusing to fight back violently, Martin Luther King Jr. took a race of people, taught them the value of their voice, and they earned the right to vote. Henry David Thoreau presented his doctrine that no man should cooperate with laws that are unjust, but, he must be willing to accept the punishment society sets for breaking those laws, and hundreds of years later, people are still inspired by his words. Mohandas K. Gandhi lead an entire country to its freedom, using only his morals and faith to guide him, as well as those who followed him, proving that one man can make a difference. Civil disobedience is the single tool that any person can use to fight for what they want, and they will be heard. After centuries of questioning it, it appears that the pen truly is mightier than the sword.
Mohandas K. Gandhi, a great Indian philosopher, wrote the essay “My Faith in Nonviolence”. His essay focuses on the use of nonviolence means on overthrowing the British rule of India. Gandhi’s main claim on this essay is that love is the higher law of life and that “every problem lends itself to solution” (p. 203) , if we followed that law.
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