Arguments Against Pacifism

In the 1960s, many of the colonial nations of Africa were gaining independence. The ANC was encouraged and campaigned for democracy in South Africa. They were mild campaigns at first, but as the government became more hostile, so did ANC protests. In November 1961, a military branch of the party was organized with Mandela as its head. It authorized the limited use of arms and sabotage against the government, which got the government’s attention—and its anger! Mandela went into hiding in 1964, he was captured, tried, and sentenced to life imprisonment. It was a sad day for black South Africa.

Is it realistic pacifism worth the work? Yes, as discussed throughout this paper, not only does it ensure that it is not perpetuating the same violence it wishes to end, but that it contributes to lasting change. This is comparable Niebuhr’s objection that it is irresponsible to not only believe in, but to encourage the use of nonviolent methods as a means of addressing inequality as there is no basis that it will work. This too is proved to be untrue through the principles involved with these methods. It is not for the cowards, and one must be aware of the extreme amount of perseverance, and dedication involved within it to be successful. I personally find something oddly compelling about how it is encouraged to not internalize any hate, which is something that I think we should do more often as no one should bring up low enough to hate

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.”

War is Peace – If there was no war the citizens would not have peace, war is used as a way to control and regulate peace.

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.

All Christians should be pacifists because Jesus has told us to live in peace and that God is the one to judge. However, god also has told us to prepare for war in the Old Testament which means all Christians cannot be pacifist if they are preparing for war.

Would a peaceful pacifist support the American Revolution? Although many would believe it would impossible for a pacifist to support the American Revolution since it involved violence, it is possible because Americans used other methods besides violence to revolt against the British government. After studying “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau and the American Revolution, I learned that although Thoreau was a pacifist, he would still support the American Revolution.

In these past couple stories we have been reading their is three different types of responses to conflict, Passive, Peaceful, and Violent. The characters I chose to represent this are Spear from “Spear” he will be representing the Peaceful response. Julian from “Everything that rises must converge” he will be representing the Passive response, and representing the Violent response is baldwin from “What’s so proudly we hail”

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

In my opinion I think that non-violence means when a person does not use force. The person is someone who is understanding. Yes, I am familiar when it comes to non-violence. My mom taught me and my siblings non-violence. I grew up poor so of course we had to understand that we can’t get everything we want. So when people would start fights of course we would back down . They would call us names for backing down but we understood what nonviolence meant. I would say yes that my mother succeeded in teaching me and family about non-violence. If my mother hadn’t have taught me and my siblings non-violence . We would have been in so much trouble that we probably wouldn't have gotten where we are

Instead they (re)engage with notions of pacifism, violence, suffering, and compassion to disprove that pacifism cannot exist within a modern society. Further, engagement with pacifism does not mean removal or retreat from the world, nor does it mean that violent actions cannot be taken by those who claim pacifism.

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

The Just War Theory is a doctrine founded by Saint Augustine which has helped bring much discussion and debate to wars and the morality to fight in them. Wars and fights between people have gone on forever and are not perceived to stop anytime soon so it is important that some people thought about when and why they should ever fight. For many years Christians never part toke in this fighting due to teachings of the Bible and Jesus' teaching on 'turning the other cheek' and 'live by the sword, die by the sword'. Saint Augustine would be one of the first to talk about how a Christian could be a soldier and serve God at the same time. Through this thought we would receive the Just War Theory which gave a set of requirements for someone to partake

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.