What Are Absolute, Conditional, And Selective Pacifism?

Christian pacifism demonstrates how Jesus indicates rejection of all violence. This is demonstrated in 1 Peter 3:9 “Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing….” This is further evidenced with a Christian denomination known as the Society of Friends, or Quakers, who have a main focus on pacifism, which is to accomplish personal peace. This is indicated through their thoughtful ways of ritual worship. Quakers believe that war and conflict are against God's desires, thus, they are committed to pacifism and actively refuse to fight in war, but instead contributed doing nonviolent

The era of globalization has witnessed the growing influence of a number of unconventional international actors, from non-governmental organizations, to multi-national corporations, to global political movements. Traditional, state-centric definitions of foreign policy as "the policy of a sovereign state in its interaction with other sovereign states is no longer sufficient. Several alternative definitions are more helpful at highlighting aspects of foreign policy

An effective foreign policy could be described as making alliances, gaining land with beneficial resources and

Just war encourages peace for all people and indicates that even though it isn’t the best solution, it is still required. Everyone has the duty to stop a potentially fatal or unjust attack against someone else, even if it meant using violence against the attacker. Plus, all states have some important rights that must not be violated by either people or states, so when they’re violated or potentially getting violated, that state is entitled to defend itself through whatever means necessary. Also, the state that did the violating lost their privilege to not have their own rights violated through means of violence. Therefore, just war is ethically permissible.

According to our text there are in fact two types of pacifists. Those who feel that violence is never the answer and those who feel that violence can be justified. On pacifism, Lackey (2014) explained that some pacifists are willing to resort to violence in certain acceptable situations. Those situations are vague but a few examples are

Pacifism can be defined as people who believe in resolving conflicts without the use of violence. Many folks believe that pacifism is a moral ideal and many oppose of pacifism. Despite, that many people hold that pacifism is righteous, the truth is that pacifism is immoral and it is affecting and harming our society. Michael Kelly, the author of “The Negative Impact on Pacifism” believes that “pacifism is, inescapably and profoundly, immoral… pacifism is on the side if the murderers, and it is on the side of letting them murder again.” Kelly observes that without action within a time where an attack has occurred more people are going to be injured or killed.

Universal pacifists are morally opposed to all violence, not just killing. And many universal pacifists derive their

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.

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.

United States, Britain, and several European countries, have in the past exploited less fortunate ones

Also the appropriate authority must be the persons who have declared war and ensured that this call was done on the basis of last resort, after trying to attempt all other methods which could assist in resolving the conflict. The second principle which is of the just war theory is Jus in Bello. (Anon,[n.d]b), These are rules and guidelines which explain some steps that the state must adhere to whilst in the conflict. In order to follow this principle, the states must follow proportionality and discrimination during the conflict. Those who are in fighting in the conflict must not use excessive force, only the force which is needed to achieve the necessary outcome. It is also important for them to be careful and precise when identifying any enemy combatants, and always ensuring they avoid civilians at all costs including illegitimate targets which could potentially cause destruction and violation on their individual rights. (Anon,[n.d]b),

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

Another principle of just war is reasonable chance of success, these principle advices nations not to resort to war when they see the results will be futile. For example if a small nation is attacked by a greater nation, it should not opt to go to war since it has no chance of success. Such a nation needs to do nothing and hope to make use of diplomatic resolution in the future.

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.

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