Extreme Pacifist Negotiation

For generations, mankind has talked of peace. It’s a subject that seemingly everyone wants, but no one can achieve. How is this? A common goal that cannot be achieved seems like a foreign idea, but as of now, it is reality. Could it be because it’s much easier to say than to accomplish? Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” This means that as the absence of light cannot help guide one journey through darkness, we cannot expect to continue to spread hate and, in turn, obtain peace. Humans as a whole should all pitch in to this goal of treating others well because everyone can use love, it is never clear what all someone is going through,

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.”

As a young man, while living and working with various ethnicities, I learned that certain elements of social location cannot be altered and this can affect our reality. It has been my personal experience that the social location of a particular group of people may generate a very different set of values and beliefs for them to a group in a different social location. Thus, this principle can help us to better understand our worldview and its effects on the way we view and interpret other cultures.

In the movie Miss Congeniality, all of the contestants are asked what they wished for. Coincidentally, all of the pageant contestants replied confidently with ¨world peace.” That famous line has now turned into a well-known punchline due to how stereotypical and obvious it is. All joking aside, that is actually what everyone strives for in their lifetime. World peace has unfortunately been absent in past occurrences. For example, blacks were greatly mistreated by many in a harmful and unkind way. Back when slavery was present, kindness was absent. Despite all of the past happenings, hope for a more loving world still has a chance to prosper.

Social location is how age, race, social class, religion, gender, location, jobs, etc affect people’s ideas and behavior. According to our book, “To find out why people do what they do, Sociologists look at social location” (Henslin, 2015, p. 2). Social location gives people their unique personality and beliefs and are basically what make us unique individuals.

This peace, however, is not always guaranteed. Societies have managed to fall under the foolishness of their hierarchy due to mistakes or abuse of their power. Additionally, if peace is obtained the only problem is that it’s always temporary. This problem related to peace is the foundation for the great struggle within societies.

What is peace? To me peace is non violence, The act of not killing and solving issues formally in person or on paper. Peace cannot be implemented if we are killing other people and countries and letting our neighbors and love ones die. If we can prevent people dying then what is stopping us? Negative peace is when violence ends. While positive peace is where it ends but brings either a change for the better or is positively impacted.

Pacifists believe that they can defend their country without the use of violence, or war, but with peace. The opposition of war has to be based on a moral stand point, not on the fact that war is inconvenient. Pacifists must not be indifferent to the rights and decisions of other members of the community (Himes, p. 90).The last qualification of pacifism is that pacifism is not a moral obligation, but a moral option, meaning people can choose to participate in war or not (Himes, p. 91). Pacifists believe two wrongs do not make a right, meaning do not use violence to defeat violence. They believe peace is the way to defeat violence.

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

The world today doesn’t know peace. What does peace mean to you? What would it be like to live in a world in a state of peace? The expression "Utopia" portrays a flawless world was initially begat by Sir Thomas More, in 1518. More composed a novel delineating an awesome new society, free from issues. More set this apparently

Peace is walking to school alone, having a responsible government and having a day to remember the ones that fought for our country. To begin, peace is like walking to school because not everyone one has a proper or any education. I know in some places like South Africa only 30% of kids have a proper education, 70% don’t have any or very bad education system. Moreover, in Canada we have a good government and we live in a democracy were we get the chance to vote/elect a voice that could be heard. I belive in some countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and more were they don’t have a proper government, wich leads them to protests and they just get put in jail, where as the Politian’s that they elect don’t even care and

Pacifism in the Twentieth Century, an expanded version of Peter Brocks 1970 book, is a cogent survey that has a remarkable knack for clarifying complex issues. It is sensitive to the issues of pacifism but does not fall into the trap that so many other similar studies do, of uncritically accepting the arguments of anti-war groups. On the contrary, Brock and Nigel Young directly address the contradictions within the movement, and the degree to which inconsistency and disunity have often been near-fatal weaknesses. Its one significant shortcoming is its bias towards pacifism in the Anglo-American countries. The movement

My topic of World Peace began to develop as I felt the need to address the idea of World Peace. In addition, I selected this topic to confirm that the idea was impossible to achieve. Through a long period of research, I began to learn about World Peace. As I was studying the topic, I was lead to many websites and articles to support my claim, a possible way to achieve World peace was nonchalant. Scholarly articles, written news stories, and credible websites assisted me in learning more about the possible conflicts that can prevent this idea from becoming true. I learned how many of the

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 issue of whether or not states should be pacifistic is a question that causes controversy among states that appear to be in conflict with each other. Liberal Pacifism is a theory that claims states should be non-violent in order to resolve differences. This theory argues that war can be avoided and that there are better, longer lasting solutions to disputes, and offers insight to how conflicting countries may be able to be at peace with each other. The two states Turkey and America have conflicting cultural backgrounds. Both states have different understandings of politeness, gender roles in society, and have different cultural and political meanings behind their words. Liberal Pacifism is an excellent theory for this issue because since the USA and Turkey are intense trading partners and are involved in the world economy, they will not go to war.