Calkin’s published “Militant Pacifism” in 1917 during the First World War. As a student of James, she has similar ideas about the necessity of a moral equivalent of war. She, however, has several differences that can help one see the benefits of a moral equivalent without the problematic aspects. Unlike James, she maintained that people did not want war. Writing after James’s death, she argued that the world was united in their desire to stop World War I. Humanity had a larger desire to end all wars. In explaining her pacifism, she stated that: For the great lesson which history imprints on the mind…is the tragic certainty that all wars gain their ultimate ends, whether great or petty, by the violation of personality, by the destruction of homes, by the paralysis of art and industry and letters…even wars entered on from high motives must rouse greed, cupidity, and blind hatred; that even in defensive warfare a people can defend its rights only by inflicting new wrongs; and that chivalrous no less than self-seeking war entails relentless destruction. Calkin’s theory helps …show more content…
However, his essay has limitations that show he was reacting to problems immediately concerning him, but not fully engaged with the problems affecting many in early twentieth century America. However, Calkin’s presents an alternative moral equivalent of war that avoids many of the limitations of James. Unlike James’s, Calkin recognizes economic motivations contributing to war. She is aware of the many injustices occurring against women, people of color, and the poor and incorporates justice into her moral equivalent of war. In proposing a war against human nature, she is not advocating environmental destruction that could lead to further violent conflicts. Additionally, Calkin argued that injustice was a problem for humanity. No one should be limited by gender roles in the battle against
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Pacifism has been understood as a nonbeliever in any sort of violence. Being a non pacifist believe that killing other human beings is not always wrong. Most people think we do not have an option in being pacifist or non pacifist. Every person has the right to participate in war. Although being pacifist and non pacifist can be very contradicting, many people have stated that those who oppose pacifism say that the world is not perfect. Not believing in pacifism had a lot of political and military support, compared to believing in pacifism where violence and war in unnecessary.
The definiton of war will never change. Its ideal prupose throughly is to cause pain of those who go through it or who are somehow involved. Through my prespective, I believe we need less hostility and use other inititatives and methods of reasoning and resolving problems rather than create brutality and increase death in this world. This book, its descriptions, but most importantly, Erich Maria Remarque, has significantly suceeded in emphasizing an in-dept overlook and understandment of what the outcome of war turns out to be which can also be associated with its supporting literature. We cannot prove anything through war; the only thing we have proven is how low us humans in general have sunk in resolving conflicts. Anybody has the potential power to kill someone through a simple pull of a trigger.
In the modern era we recognize pacifism from its great figures on non-violent resistance. Ghandi, and Martin Luther King, Jr. stand as the most recognizable and prominent figures of the ideology. However, these figures do not provide a complete picture of pacifist thought. Pacifism has a long and distinguished history stretching from the origins of Christianity to the modern day. This review will evaluate and compare the ideological characteristics of early 20th century pacifism from two distinct angles: 1.) pacifism based on Judeo-Christian tradition, using Leo Tolstoy as an example; and 2.) pacifism as a secular belief, with a focus on the writings of intellectuals Bertrand Russel and Albert Einstein. While they share the same basic ideological
From the Civil War, to World War I, to the Vietnam War, humankind’s violent tendencies have oft resulted in the loss of an extreme amount of life; the Civil War resulted in an estimated 620,000 deaths, World War I with at least two million, and the Vietnam War with a rough, dastardly amount of 3.1 million. War had - and still has - an effect on everyone whom witnesses its reign of terror.
Throughout our history, both recorded and unrecorded, there have been countless violent battles fought. From small skirmishes to full on declarations of war, humans have been involved with battling on another for all the reasons that they have. The only thing alarming is that, as time and technology progresses, the number of casualties and collateral damage have been increasing as well. In addition, the implications to the human mind, brought upon by the excessive violence, can be equally damaging. With that being said, the psychological implications brought upon by war can be reflected in several art forms, such as poetry.
“The art of war is of vital importance to the state. It is a matter of life and death, a road to either safety or ruin. Hence it is the subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected” by Sun Tzu by of Sun Tzu’s philosophy on warfare in 400-320 B.C. echoes back across time, when the ancient world was being shaped and carved by war.
War has always been an unfortunate part of our society and civilization. War will sadly and undoubtedly be with us as long as we exist. However, the portrayal of war for many centuries gave a sense of patriotism and romanticism. Then the invention of the camera changed how humanity perceived war in the late to mid 19th century. And all of a sudden, images of war became of shear violence and destruction. The violence in these images would play a significant part in the social and political standpoints of war in our nation.
The article “On Instinctive Human Peace Versus War” by professor David P. Barash seeks to find a connection between human genetic inheritance and their aggressiveness or/and peacefulness level. Author is attempting to confront the previous research results of all the scientists and scholars claiming that human beings are instinctively war prone. Professor Barash is not endeavoring to oppose their argument by stating that all humans are peaceful creatures. He emphasizes that we are as inclined to war, as we are inclined to peace. The main purpose of the text is mostly to prove that humans are not inherently violent species as considered by many and that they are able to negotiate and perfectly
War is something that nobody wishes for but unfortunately, the leaders of some superpowers believe that it is necessary when in fact all they are doing is killing the world. The effects of war has had on mankind have had a profound effect as to how the world acts today. Although man has changed drastically, hatred is something that has managed to stay constant no matter where one goes; one could come to the conclusion that hatred is everywhere and there is no escape from it. Unfortunately for the world, this hatred is passed down as the years pass by, thus confirming the Golding’s statement, “Man is inherently evil”. Saying this, humans are the masters of their own fates and history shows that clearly humanity is taking advantage of this fact. Throughout history, man has passed its evil ways from generation to generation and as a result, the world is slowly killing itself because of the hateful doings of mankind.
War is a hard thing to describe. It has benefits that can only be reaped through its respective means. Means that, while necessary, are harsh and unforgiving. William James, the author of “The Moral Equivalent of War”, speaks only of the benefits to be had and not of the horrors and sacrifices found in the turbulent times of war. James bears the title of a pacifist, but he heralds war as a necessity for society to exist. In the end of his article, James presents a “war against nature” that would, in his opinion, stand in war’s stead in bringing the proper characteristics to our people. However, my stance is that of opposition to James and his views. I believe that war, while beneficial in various ways, is unnecessary and should be avoided at all costs.
In today’s world where there are so many conflicts, battles, and wars happen all at the same time it is very important to ensure that the means that are being used will be justified in the end. From the wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan to civil conflicts taking place in Sudan and regions of the former Soviet Union conflicts are happening everywhere. Are these conflicts just or will the outcome not outweigh the losses that will inevitably happen. One such case that we can look at to see if the end did justify the means is by looking at both ...
History is insipidly defined as the study of past events. However, every historian knows that history is more than a mere compilation of facts; it is the study of humanity. Every menial task we do in life is driven by something we overlook frequently: emotion. Emotions are the foundation of our lives, and are capable of altering our nature and actions. Consequently, to truly understand an event in history, we must delve into the emotions experienced, which act as the true human motivators. Throughout its atrocious duration, the Great War was filled with distinctive emotions ranging from anger all the way to sympathy and hope.
When looking back on all of the effects war has on humans, it is shown that many different emotions come from it. But these emotions towards the war have a positive effect that is hidden underneath the negativity of the war. All of people involved, families and friends, mothers and fathers, grandparents all are brought together by the war, even when it can tear the nations
The irony is cruel and unpleasant. How a country who bases their laws off of peace often finds itself in war. In a few simple words, war is not kind, at least according to Stephen Crane. Crane is a poet who lived through the Spanish-American War. He has firsthand experience with warfare, which was what inspired him to write the poem “War is Kind”. All throughout the poem Crane uses many forms of literary devices to help fortify his argument on war but one literary device particularly accentuates his perception of war. In Crane’s poem “War is Kind” Crane uses antithesis to present his opinion on warfare.