Gandhian Pacifism
Pacifism is opposition to the practice of war. Many pacifists have a commitment to non-violence in general in society, making a commitment to achieving one's goals only through actively non-violent resistance or non-aggressive means. Among these pacifists, there may also be differing views as to what constitutes violence.
There are several different varieties of pacifism including those who believe killing is always wrong, those who believe that any kind of violence is wrong, those who argue that personal violence is always wrong but political violence is sometimes right, and those who justify some person
…show more content…
They may have even decided to continue attacking our country because we would seem to be weak and an easy target, had we not protected ourselves and taken a stand.
One writer, Douglas P. Lackey, tries to understand what Gandhi is trying to say about peace and nonviolence. He states that Gandhi believes “By acting nonviolently, pacifists not only purify their own souls but also transform the souls of their opponents”(160). This was known as the “sacredness of life” defense, which basically believed that by sacrificing one life many could be saved, but Gandhi feels that this still does not save souls. If people are being saved but through violence then nobody is really saving their souls (160). He believed that the killer would be perverted by this act, and it would remain on his soul. Lackey examines this in another sense.
“The system of values professed be Gandhi must be kept in mind when considering the frequent accusations that nonviolence alone does not work”(161). The practice of nonviolence did not prevent previous wars from occurring. On the other hand, “the soul of the satyagrahi will be strengthened and purified by nonviolent struggles, and in this purification the Gandhian pacifist can obtain spiritual victory even in the face of political defeat”(161). So basically speaking we should let our enemies suffer the ultimate consequence of carrying this
“The practice of violence, like all action, changes the world, but the most probable change is to a more violent world” (Arendt pg 80). Violence is contagious, like a disease, which will destroy nations and our morals as human beings. Each individual has his or her own definition of violence and when it is acceptable or ethical to use it. Martin Luther King Jr., Walter Benjamin, and Hannah Arendt are among the many that wrote about the different facets of violence, in what cases it is ethical, the role we as individuals play in this violent society and the political aspects behind our violence.
Niloufer Bhagwat’s “The Political Relevance and Global Impact of Mahatma Gandhi” conveys her stance on Gandhi’s influence on how different groups of people combated forms of oppression. Bhagwat says “wherever the political, economic, social, and ecological future of humanity and… earth is debated and discussed, Gandhiji with his simple precepts provides a guidance for all generations” (Bhagwat 33). I believe that her argument successfully convinces the reader that the principles Gandhi followed and the strategies he used, non-violent civil disobedience and non-cooperation, not Gandhi himself, left a lasting impact on the world.
who the victims are. He says, “Examine history. Who gets killed in the case of violent
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.
What is essential here for Gandhi is that nonviolence is inherently linked to sacrifice, not struggle. This is to say that while a warrior participates in violence in an attempt to prevent potential harm to himself (we might term this the courage of self-defense), the practitioner of nonviolence instead learns to accept the harm, and in doing so participates in a higher act of virtue—the courage of willing self-sacrifice.
There are two sides to many things, one could argue that there are two sides to everything. Violence is not excluded from this argument. The two possible sides, or viewpoints, that are a result of violence can easily be seen as extremes of either side. One side could argue that violence is something that is necessary and the other argue that violence is only a tool for destruction. People who insist that violence is necessary in order to move forward view it as a way to sway the outcome to their benefit. For those who see violence as a cowardly tactic to control people, violence is a useless display of power and dominance. Yet violence has also been a way to defend oneself from people who pose a threat. This can lead people who have good
“Violence is never the answer.” This saying has caused many arguments, there are many people who believe that violence is the right thing to do in every occasion. However violence should not be a thing, violence can never be justified. Humans have gotten to comfortable with violence, we don't even acknowledge murders anymore, we act like it is an everyday thing now because we see violence so frequently.
Violence has never helped anyone but instead it has taken away the lives of people. In the essay, Jones says, “…the
For ages, our society has dealt with constant controversies about what is right and what is wrong. In these debates, conflicting perspectives are often exposed to many. People are often taught to permit any different viewpoints, but in reality, continuous acceptance leads to more harm than good. The tolerance of others is essential in our society; however, the line of acceptance is drawn when one’s differences promotes physical violence.
Violence is never justified; even in the most irksome circumstances. Using violence will only result in chaos. Many faced oppression thousands of years ago, and many -still- face oppression like: People of Color, LGBTQ community, immigrants, women, Muslims, and plenty more.
As portrayed in the famous “Washington Crossing the Delaware” painting, George Washington and his men fought with all they can in order to push back against British powers in order to gain the American colonists autonomy from Great Britain they deserved (Source C). This piece of history can explain how using violence in order to break away from another aggressive force that has shown brutality towards the other group can be justified, because that could be the only way to get their message across to show the opposition how they believe they should be treated. And, while violence still happens to be a predominant event in society, many presume that reacting against an oppressor is just. While violence should not be the immediate answer to any problem, many concur that using brutality can be useful in the event of fighting against an opposing influence. In a survey conducted about mass violence, 72% of students concur that acting out against an oppressive power can vindicate violence (Source J). This survey explains that many agree that an oppressed force should have the right to use force in order to get their message across or fight for their liberties, and should have the right to do so. However, not all may believe this, and sometimes force against the abusers is not necessary to voice their
Violence can be justified, but in some circumstances, it is evident that violence is unjust. Self-defence is the most justified act of violence, among other ways. Violence without a cause is extremely unjust to many. The most debatable act of violence is a Violent Protest. In this essay we will go over how some acts of violence are just but others are not. One way to look at all of this violence is to blame human nature. People are naturally violent, goes the argument, and that's why we live in such a violent world.
Violence is one of the most personal and intimate acts between human beings, but it can also be cultural and societal in its implications.
If one were to support the side of violence, and agree that it is a solid and profound way
"So, non-violence is not about the elimination of conflict. it accepts the realities of conflict and coercion, of desire and aggression, of power and competition and force, for what they are- and works for their paschal transformation. Neither it is without anger. But its anger gives way to, 'passes