Should We Resolve Disagreements With Violence?

1472 WordsDec 14, 20166 Pages
Our world connects with each other by resorting to violence when we come across disagreements. Should we resolve disagreements with violence? This a very tough question to be asked especially in the world we live in today. My answer would be, “With my moral principles, all types of violence are not acceptable, until myself or loved ones is being threatened”. Not many people in this world today are complete pacifists. I believe violence can be averted using soul power, self defense and brotherhood, taking advantage of the benefits of non-violence, defending against the non-violent weaknesses and invoking creative methods of education and passive actions. There are two great philosophers that have a strong opinion about the use of violence, but both have different views. In simple terms, Robert F. Williams believes that an individual shall use his gun if he/she is being threatened to the extent that nonviolent acts will not be successful. On the other hand, Martin Luther King believes when an individual is being oppressed, or threatened they should always resort to nonviolent acts. In all situations I believe King has the correct answer. However, I believe in self defense for myself and family members. Granted, our world is an exceptionally violent place, it is within the individual 's principles to believe in nonviolence and act upon them in all situations necessary. In any given situation Martin Luther King would say to use soul power. King’s definition of soul power is
Open Document