Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Solutions to problem of violence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Solutions to problem of violence
Human beings aren’t killing each other as much as we used to. Violent crimes such as murders, rapes, assaults etc. are on a statistical decline, not just in the United States, but on a global average as well. While still far from that ideal utopia mankind dreams of, we have come a long way since the days of World Wars, rampant racism, and wonton infliction of agony. Have we just grown bored of all pillaging and raping? Are we now realizing that violence is not the answer but the problem? Or have men like Mahatma Gandhi and women like Arundhati Roy challenged our intellect and ushered us onto the path of peace? Certain political theorists have been so influential in history that their teachings completely change the course of human destiny and are compelling enough to eclipse the monsters we once were and release the “better angels of our nature”. The idea of non-violence has existed as long as violence has but over the years, we see the core concepts of non-violence emerge. Whether spoken in 20th century India, preached by an African American pastor, or discussed by elderly scholars, three main tenants of non-violence emerge. The analysis of societal causes of violence, reframing of the mentality used to approach violence, and the civil disobedience of oppressed groups are essential to successful non-violent opposition. These three ideas transcend time, race, or society. They are applicable to any struggle in any year by any group of people. While the issues non-violent groups seek to change may vary greatly, only by looking at the violent hegemony around them, changing their mindset and specifically their linguistic approach to violence, and carrying out peaceful civil disobedience can any person hope to change their circumstance... ... middle of paper ... ...self like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world- ‘No, you move’”. It’s easy to let frustration get the best of you and smash up the windows of business you feel have taken advantage of you. It’s easy to justify the assassination of a person by telling yourself its for the greater good. And it is easy to bomb a whole country back to the stone ages (that they never really moved past) in the name of justice. Organizing and protesting unfair business ethics, tolerating and working with the person you think is the devil incarnated, and putting the sword down for the pen is not easy. Non-violence asks people to adopt the notion that cooperation and peaceful collaboration are human nature, not the evolutionary violence of our cavemen ancestors. There is no aspect of our life, no issue contested, which cannot benefit from the practices of non-violence.
¬¬¬Though most American people claim to seek peace, the United States remains entwined with both love and hate for violence. Regardless of background or personal beliefs, the vast majority of Americans enjoy at least one activity that promotes violence whether it be professional fighting or simply playing gory video games. Everything is all well and good until this obsession with violence causes increased frequency of real world crimes. In the article, “Is American Nonviolence Possible” Todd May proposes a less standard, more ethical, fix to the problem at hand. The majority of the arguments brought up make an appeal to the pathos of the reader with a very philosophical overall tone.
Nowadays, this concept of using nonviolence is hard to achieve. This is because people think that peaceful protest aren’t effective compared to taking action with their hands. One example is the Blacks Lives Matter Movement. Although there are peaceful protest, there are times when people turn violent against police. This can be counterintuitive since watching these harsh actions by protestors, people start forming negative views about the organization. This leads to people not supporting the cause anymore. Without the support of the public, an organization can’t
Conflict is constant. It is everywhere. It exists within one’s own mind, different desires fighting for dominance. It exists outside in nature, different animals fighting for the limited resources available, and it exists in human society, in the courts. It can occur subtly, making small changes that do not register consciously, and it can occur directly and violently, the use of pure strength, whether physical, social, economic, or academic, to assert dominance and achieve one’s goals; this is the use of force. Yet, with the use of force, the user of force is destined to be one day felled by it. “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.”
“Violence never really deals with the basic evil of the situation. Violence may murder the murderer, but it doesn’t murder murder. Violence may murder the liar, but it doesn’t murder lie; it doesn’t establish truth. Violence may even murder the dishonest man, but it doesn’t murder dishonesty. Violence may go to the point of murdering the hater, but it doesn’t murder hate.
“I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends.”
Having a non-violent way to approach civil engagement helps people rise from the dark. In the article, “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” by King Jr., he writes, “So the purpose of the direct action is to create a situation so crises-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation”(236). King Jr. suggests that the only way for Americans to see the need to change is through direct actions and that could possibly get them to negotiate. It related to the article, “from Non-Violent Resistance,” by Gandhi because through a non-violent action, people see the value of actually wanting to create justice. He points out, “Non-violence is the supreme dharma is the proof of this power of love. Non-violence is a dormant state”(Gandhi 316). He refers to all people that if someone gives a person pain, the person receiving the pain should not act back in a harsh attitude, but he/she will win if they show love. However, King Jr. also explains one’s right to express verbally. He writes, “If his repressed emotions do not come out in these nonviolent ways, they will come out in ominous expressions of violence. This is not a threat; it is a fact of history”(MLK 242). It is within the first amendment that all people have the right to free speech in any way, and if people express their emotions in an intimidating way, it is not a threat. Approaching all injustices social issues in
Despite the belief that fighting with violence is effective, civil disobedience has been tried throughout history and been successful. Fighting violence with violence leaves no oppertunity for peace to work. By refusing to fight back violently, Martin Luther King Jr. took a race of people, taught them the value of their voice, and they earned the right to vote. Henry David Thoreau presented his doctrine that no man should cooperate with laws that are unjust, but, he must be willing to accept the punishment society sets for breaking those laws, and hundreds of years later, people are still inspired by his words. Mohandas K. Gandhi lead an entire country to its freedom, using only his morals and faith to guide him, as well as those who followed him, proving that one man can make a difference. Civil disobedience is the single tool that any person can use to fight for what they want, and they will be heard. After centuries of questioning it, it appears that the pen truly is mightier than the sword.
In this essay it will be argued that nonviolence encourages violence by the state and corporations. The ideology of nonviolence creates
The role of violence in the fight against injustice is a tricky one. If an oppressor is willing to use violence to maintain control should not the oppressed use violence to achieve liberation? Franz Fanon would argue that the pent up anger and frustration must be released in violent action to tear down the oppressor’s regime. However, there is a better way and that is through non-violence and understanding that Martin Luther King, Jr. champions. Only through creating tension around injustice via non-violent direct action can the conversation begin around mutual understanding and justice. It is this justice achieved through non-violent means that will last as violent action is ultimately unjust in nature.
Since the first day they met, everyone knew that Katie and Ted would stay together forever. He was always telling everyone how he loved her and that she was the perfect wife and mother. However, behind closed doors was another story. Ted was not a kind man in “his” house, he was verbally abusive and constantly accusing Katie of cheating on him. These fits of rage were promptly followed by flowers and apologies. Katie was abused by Ted, however, she did love him and he did promise never to hurt her again.
...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.”
Through out history there have been both violent and nonviolent bids to change the course of human history. The two sides of this argument are liberals who believe in non-violence and radicals who believe this is achieved through violence have backed these bids. Violence tends to be the route that many take in order to shape and control the course of history, however there are some who use non-violent means to make their mark. According to Thomas Merton “Nonviolence differs from violence by arising from humility rather than arrogance and by approaching opponents with respect; it is a victory over hatred in situations where hatred ordinarily is dominate.” (Tinder 222). People like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi are two of 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. ...
First, there is Martin Luther King Jr. who practices nonviolence. He does not believe violence to be an effective approach for long-lasting change. In fact, he states in his Nobel Prize Lecture that, “[he is] not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results (King, 4).” The key phrase is “momentary results” which means that violence only solves a problem for a certain amount of time. His example includes how violence won independence for nations. However, no set peace is achieved by it. King regards it as temporary peace. In fact, he states that it creates more complex, unresolved issues, with a never-ending series of self-destruction. He claims that, “It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends up defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers (King, 4).” All of those claims just portray destruction in itself. There seemingly lacks a positive ring. Instead, he preaches nonviolence because it concerns the majority of the people and their goals concerns the peace and harmony of the community. His nonviolent approaches include persuasion with the use of words. However, if that fails...
DuNann Winter, D., & Leighton, D. C. (2001 ). Structural Violence . Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology in the 21st. New York : Prentice-Hall.