Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Reflection on pacifism
nuclear deterrence for and against
importance of world peace
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Reflection on pacifism
Pacifism is the belief that violence is not the way to resolve differences. They believe that war can be avoided and that there are better and longer lasting solutions to disputes.
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 weapons should never be used. A nuclear deterrence pacifist, on the other hand, believes that one can only achieve peace through a position of strength and nuclear deterrence provides this peace.
Many Christians are pacifists and many pacifists are Christian. They believe that, as stated in Mathew 5, “happy are those who work for peace; God will call them His children”. They claim that Christ’s teachings are very clear on the matter. “Do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you”, “love your enemies”.
Non violence and pacifism must not be confused with cowardice and inaction. Many of history’s greatest heroes have been pacifists, eg Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King, Gandhi. These people refused to resort to violence even when their lives were ...
where I grew up, I rarely thought of pacifism as meaning that you didn't fight; I ...
...able to showcase the great power that nonviolence could have on the world and how by using methods such as that one would be more successful than if one used violence. As Mahatma Gandhi once said “Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.”
In Walter Wink's “Beyond Just War and Pacifism,” Wink interprets . He believes that instead of us taking nonviolence as not fighting back and letting ourselves be attacked. We should instead try to find nonviolent, but is not a cowardly submission, way to fight back against the evil.
“Non-violence is a powerful and just weapon without cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.” - Martin Luther King Jr.
To reiterate, while both author’s share common beliefs of anti-militarism, shared equity and human rights, it is the justifications for such beliefs that differ. There is a level of rationalism vs. traditionalism in this difference. Russell and Einstein hold their base for pacifist belief in focusing on the well-being of others and shared human experience. Tolstoy uses Jesus’ teachings of non-violence to arrive at the same conclusions as Russell. Both Author’s show concern over the human experience, Einstein and Russell plead for the future of humanity, while Tolstoy discusses the persecution of pacifist cultures throughout history. The concern for the human condition is a common feature of pacifist ideology, emphasizing the citizen over the state. They both speak of the destructive power of continued violent policies by nations and the mutual benefits, from a humanitarian perspective, of the adaptation of pacifist policies. This is a very idealistic view, and idealism is another important characteristic of pacifism, but in a practical sense goes against human nature. It is this view of human perfectibility that provides the biggest critic against pacifism. While the visions for the world to end all violence seem, at times, overly ambitious, it is because of the ideological influence provided by these pacifist minds that real action to disarm some WMD’s was taken, as well as the development of human rights, it is
Extreme pacifists have a strict discipline they follow that does not condone war for any reason and believes and advocates peace. Extreme pacifists live a way of life that is strict and adherent to these guidelines to which causes its followers to not be able to participate in many functions or organizations that can result or advocate violence. I don’t necessarily agree with this view and would not find it realistic enough to be able to apply it in our society today. It’s an admirable quality to which extreme pacifists religiously hold and abide by but it appears to me to be to idealistic and not easily attainable in our society, at least that’s the way I see it. The concept of “just war” began with Augustine, and in his own way to rationalize and clarify what he believed outlined a war to be considered just. Augustine was able to outline and categorize just war into jus in bellum, “the necessary …conditions for justifying engagement in war” and jus in bello “the necessary conditions for conducting war in a just manner.” The final stage, jus pos bellum, “…seeks to regulate the ending of wars, and to ease the transition from war back to peace.”
The question "Can war be justified?" plagued mankind since the first war. The Just War Theory holds that war can be just. The theory has evolved for thousands of years and modern theorists, such as Michael Walzer, author of Just and Unjust Wars, puts forth criteria for a just war, such as jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Jus ad bellum includes reasons for going to war, and jus in bello deals with the people who wage war. The criteria in jus ad bellum include; just cause, declaration by a proper authority, right intention, a reasonable chance of success, the end proportional to the means, and war as a last resort. Jus in bello includes keeping innocents outside the field of war, and limiting the amount of force used. Just War Theorists hold that all of these criteria must be followed for a war to be just. I will analyze The Just War Theories most debated arguments, self-defense, pre-emptive strikes, and the killing of innocents. In the second half of this paper, I will briefly explain Pacifism, and provide a counter argument for each Just War argument.
Bothe this belief system leads to tell us that war can sometimes leads to complete destruction but also, something good and beautiful. The Buddhism states the same thing but without the violence. All three worldviews tells me only one thing nonviolence is greater than the violence. Wars can lead to ruining the world and might not leave anyone behind. In the history I have learned that there was a time when two major powers of the world almost were head to head for killing each other. Imagine if that history was true I, we would not be able to look back at all and would not be even born. That tragic time was defeated by the power of nonviolence and peace. So, My thinking is that even in the future if we have to deal with the war we should answer the attacker with the power of the nonviolence that god has given
Prominent leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Theresa and Martin Luther King Jr. are known all around the world for teaching and practicing nonviolence while fighting for human justice and peace. They are graced throughout history books, not only for their commendable actions but for their effective manner of inducing change around the world. Although these prominent figures leave everlasting footprints on the soil of this earth, there are many more that have contributed and still contribute to the struggle of human survival.
Diener, Sam. "A Pacifist Critique of Gandhi." 1 September 2006. PeaceWork Magazine. 10 March 2014 .
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.”
Non-violence. Many people confuse this term with pacifism. Pacifism is defined as the belief that any violence, including war, is unjustifiable under any circumstances. Non-violence is defined as the use of peaceful means, not force, to bring about political or social change. The difference between the two are fairly simple to see when we define them side by side. Pacifism states that war is unjustifiable, however, it does not specify that Pacifism shows any inclination toward preventing war. Compare this to non-violence, which states that issues should only be solved in peaceful means. In this comparison, it would appear that Pacifism allows war, whereas non-violence tries to completely eradicate or avoid it. Now that we have clarified the
There is a considerable debate about the precise meaning of nonviolence. Some people believe that nonviolence is a philosophy and strategy for social change that rejects the use of violence. In other words, nonviolence is a method for resolving a conflict without the use of physical power nor enmity towards opponents. Instead, it emphasizes you to look beyond convictions and one’s urge for victory, it is the motto behind the saying “hate the sin and not the sinner”. For others it is a way of living and an essential part of their values and norms, for those people, nonviolence is the road which will lead them towards attaining inner piece and moral satisfaction. “Learn and teach nonviolence as a way of life; reflect it in attitude, speech and action” say’s Gerber in his article The Road to Nonviolence. Thus making nonviolence the ultimate behavior towards achieving truthful, spiritual, loving life. Mahatma Gandhi, the nonviolence guru, defines nonviolence as “a power which can be wielded equally by all-children, young men and women or grown-up people, provided they have a living faith in the God of Love and have therefore equal love for all mankind”. (mkgandhi.org) Therefore we understand that nonviolence has some terms and conditions to be met; living faith in God, truthfulness, humility, tolerance, loving kindness, honesty and the willingness to sacrifice. ...
Mohandas K. Gandhi, a great Indian philosopher, wrote the essay “My Faith in Nonviolence”. His essay focuses on the use of nonviolence means on overthrowing the British rule of India. Gandhi’s main claim on this essay is that love is the higher law of life and that “every problem lends itself to solution” (p. 203) , if we followed that law.
Conflict and violence is around us throughout the world and the mass media has made a huge impact of what we think of violence and the relation to religion, especially in the last couple of years. In addition violence has been considered as being part of human nature and comes from our biological structure of aggression. It is an out let for us to relieve stress levels and some believe that it can be a device of vengeance and a positive mechanism to human survival. For example it is a system for the survival of the fittest and reproduction. Another way that we can look at it on a different spectrum is the way religious beliefs utilise non violent mechanisms that try to diminish the impacts of aggressive behaviour. When we think of religion and violence we do not think to situate them together. This is because “theologically, it can certainly be concluded that all religions have the goal of peace” . People who are outsider of a religious tradition can make many generalisations. In this essay it will discuss why some religious traditions in South East Asia oppose violence. In addition the rejections of violence have shaped and changed religious practices within Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism. There have also been many generalisations about the above traditions. Moreover I will try and answer why non violence has become a generalisation and how it has impacted India as a whole.