Pacifism: Nonviolence and Br

While when discussing the history of the world’s power forces, violence makes for stimulating discussion, other tactics were put to good use, one of these alternatives being non-violence. With the guidance of three worldwide heroes - Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela - with contagious optimism and high spirits, it became apparent just how much of a difference could be made carried out through non-violent terms. Mankind was introduced to another way to resolve major problems just as effectively, if not more, than violence could.

Overall, there will always be droughts whether during war it is best to be pacifist or anti-pacifist. We can forecast that it is best to be anti-pacifist during any war that we may be faced with. This is what’s best because talk about pacifist will always aid the enemy in various ways from encouraging them, making us easy targets, and the preparation of it. We have to be aware that sometimes war is the only answer to defeat evil and establish peace. Before people start judging how bad war is and inhumane they should consider how many evil people we have gotten rid of before they were able to do more harm. It will always be up to the people weather or not they should be pacifist or anti pacifist during a war but we can conclude that pacifism will always aid the

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.”

The conflict of war and its effects have been debated throughout history. Some argue that there are other peaceful alternatives besides war that would lead to a better outcome, but in reality this is not the case. War is a natural part of human interactions, and even though it brings death and destruction, war will not cease to exist. Wars are the human way of getting one group to look superior than the other. The idea of a passive approach is ideal, but it is almost nearly impossible and may not always lead to the same outcome as if a war had taken place.

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.

Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.

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.

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

Pacifism is the broad belief that war and violence are unethical and that disputes should be settled with nonviolence. It is divided into three main sections: absolute pacifism, conditional pacifism, and selective pacifism. The different branches of pacifism support its effectiveness as a foreign policy because they provide different ways for nations to incorporate pacifism into their foreign policy. It gives nations the freedom to choose how they want to include peace without being restricted to one branch. For example, absolute pacifism is probably not an effective principle to dictate foreign policy, but the fact that there are other forms, such as selective and conditional, makes pacifism more effective as a foreign policy.

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

It is everywhere and it is something that cannot be ignored. There are times when passive resistance is the absolute last thing needed in order to resolve a conflict. An example of a time like this is the Rwandan Genocide. On April 7th, 1994 a massive, organized effort to eliminate all Tutsi people from Rwanda led by Hutu political parties, government officials, military, and civilians began. Armed with machetes, machine guns, and hand grenades the Hutu population swept through town after town and brutally murdered every Tutsi they came in contact with, regardless of age or sex. The murders were highly organized, publically encouraged, and executed quickly (“Rwandan Genocide”). The genocide lasted only 100 days. 1,174,000 victims resulted. That’s 10,000 murdered every day, 400 every hour, 7 every minute. It’s estimated that only 300,000 Tutsi survived the genocides. Many of which are women, now faced with being HIV positive as a result of the immense sexual violence that also took place during the genocide (Christophe). What did the Tutsi do in retaliation to the attacks? Nothing. They hid in their homes. They tried to flee to other areas. They tried to stay out the Hutu’s range. They passively resisted. Not once was there any organized effort from the Tutsi to fight back, because of this thousands of lives were lost. There are times when violence is necessary, brute force violence. While war is possibly the single

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.

have been numerous examples where a lives could have been saved if a solution had been