Absolute Pacifism

Similar to Servando’s church, many groups in society are practicing naïve realism. Naïve realism is preventing world peace, because groups in society are differing in views. On larger scale, Haidt believes that ideas practiced by naïve realist would affect world peace because there will be split between ideas and beliefs. If groups are not open to understanding other perspectives than there will be a split between views.

George Orwell states “if you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help the other” (283). If we do not prepare for any war that comes toward our way because of pacifism we are automatically helping the enemy defeat us. If we just follow the pacifist believes many historical wars that were won would have resulted in defeat. War preparation is a key that helps win any war and defeats the enemy.

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.”

Throughout history, many conflicts have happened, some with resolution, and other without. We often tend to think of solving conflicts with war, since most of our history classes are based around World War I, World War II, and so forth, but many conflicts were fought, and successfully won using nonviolent resistance. Many people would use Gandhi as a well known example. Gandhi’s plan of civil disobedience revolved around this big idea called “satyagraha,” which he explains as, “a satyagrahi should always possess civility and humility, qualities that indicated self-control and an humble approach to truth” (Gandhi 50). He later explains that satyagraha is “truth-force” and that truth is soul and spirit, or “spirit-force.” “It excludes the use of violence because man is not capable of knowing the absolute truth and, therefore, not competent to punish” (51). He used this strategy to fight for indian independence. Many other incidents in the world have been fought using civil disobedience, including Women’s Suffrage.

An absolute pacifist claims that it is never right to take part in war, even in self-defence. They believe that peace is intrinsically good and should be upheld whether as a duty or on that it is better for humans to live at peace than war. They think that the value of human life is so high that nothing can justify killing a person deliberately. These pacifists claim that they would prefer to die rather than raise their fists to protect themselves. This is because; killing in self-defence is ‘an evil that makes the moral value of the victim’s life less important than our own’. They rely on the fact that there can be no justification for killing which stems from the scriptures of the bible ‘thou shalt not kill’ (Exodus 20:13). Absolute pacifists usually hold this view as a basic moral or spiritual principle, without regard to the results of war or violence, however they could logically argue that violence always leads to worse results than non-violence in other words, there can never be any good that comes out of war or violence.

To them, there was not a valid and justified point in joining the war. Some of these pacifists thought that the first world war was not America’s war to fight. The pacifist belief was that America should focus on its own economy and stop prying into European affairs. Along with the thought that the war was not our own, many believed, and continue to believe, that World War I was a major factor contributing cause toin the Great Depression. Even though that is a possibility, it does not justify as World War I being unjust for

The just war theory opposes the use of force for similar reasons, but concedes that engagement in war may be justified in certain circumstances, under strict moral conditions and only as a last resort, in order to protect the innocent or to restore justice. As with all of its teachings the Church's stance on this problem can be traced back to Jesus. While it is recorded that Jesus drove the taxers from the temple (Jn 2:15) and also stated that he had not come to bring peace 'but a sword'(Mt 10:34) it has to be said that from any reading of the gospels the overwhelming impression of Jesus that emerges is of a person opposed to violence and in favour of peacemaking. He condemned, not just killing, but anger (Mt 5:21-22); He stressed non-violence in his teaching 'turn the other cheek..'; (Mt 5:39) 'love your enemies',(Lk 6:27) 'blessed are the peacemakers' (Mt5:10)

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.

I do not consider myself a realist or a pacifist. I more subscribe to just war theory. The reason why I subscribe myself to just war theory is because I believe that there are legitimate wars and illegitimate wars. In the book Crime Without Borders: An Introduction to International Criminal Justice by Aaron Fichtelberg states, “War is usually a bad thing, but under certain circumstances, it may be justified or even obligatory” (Fichtelberg, 2008, pg. 112).

As explained by William Hawk in his essay “Pacifism: Reclaiming the Moral Presumption”, the pacifist is a person that refuses to participate in war for in any circumstance for two reasons; the grounding belief that war is wrong, and the belief that human life is sacred and invaluable. Many pacifist

Pacifists believe that war is always an unnecessary evil for two reasons: First, is that they are immoral and don’t achieve the goals of the country, even if the goals are legitimate. Second, is that wars are ultimately ineffective and they don’t solve any disagreements. Sometimes they can make them worse ( Barcalow 303-304).

The Superpowers routinely engaged in this behavior, and while the human and financial costs may not have been catastrophic to the Superpowers themselves, the relative impacts to the developing world were enormous and left unfortunate legacies in places such as Afghanistan. Furthermore, many policymakers surmised that consistency in all security commitments was a requirement to maintain nuclear deterrence. Put simply, how a state behaved in one situation would affect its credibility in all other circumstances (Morgan 82). Lastly, maintaining credibility was also tied to expending vast national resources on pursuing cheap victory in the case of a large nuclear war by developing better weapons systems.

The possible negative effect of a foreign policy is a country that could take advantage

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.

Power, morality and ethics, and law are the three categories of activities that mankind has used to achieve this goal. Power is the use of force to accomplish the desired outcome, and when used strategically, it generally is the most proficient way to maintain peace and security. When morals and ethics fail, and international laws are broken, it is the use of power that it used to intervene and stop the violence. The ability to fend off attackers and defend yourself, or to fight for something that is believed to be just with the use of force are clear strengths of power. The United States’ intervention into World War II is a great example of power being used to bring peace. Their aid to the Allied forces helped end the war and also brought one of the most horrific genocides in history to a halt. However, if power is not used in a strategic, controlled manner, it can be very counterproductive. Peacekeeping operations may sometimes be misinterpreted as acts of war and bring more violence to a situation. Also, war and violence do not bid well with many civilians, as they often see death tolls and don’t consider what is to be gained. For example, the United States entered Vietnam with the good intentions of preventing a spread of communist leadership. However, there had been more bloodshed than could have been foreseen, and many Americans opposed the involvement in the war. The US eventually backed out of Vietnam