Anti-War Pacifism

war is a Holy War. When people fight a Holy War they believe that they

Overall, there will always be droughts whether during war it is best to be pacifist or anti-pacifist. We can forecast that it is best to be anti-pacifist during any war that we may be faced with. This is what’s best because talk about pacifist will always aid the enemy in various ways from encouraging them, making us easy targets, and the preparation of it. We have to be aware that sometimes war is the only answer to defeat evil and establish peace. Before people start judging how bad war is and inhumane they should consider how many evil people we have gotten rid of before they were able to do more harm. It will always be up to the people weather or not they should be pacifist or anti pacifist during a war but we can conclude that pacifism will always aid the

In some countries people, do not have the freedom to choose their own path. Many people live in places with so much conflict and destruction that they are force to follow the orders of a political lieder and force to make decision that are not in accordance to what they believe, but they do it because they are loyalty to their country, family and friends Pauline M. Kaurin provide a scenario of a soldiers killing civilian people that they confused with a suicide bomber, then she asked, “When is killing murder and when is it a legitimate act of war? Whom can one legitimately kill in war?” (Kaurin in page 41). She argues that during combat distinction from the enemy and civilian should be relevant to preserve the essence of true morality. In the contrast to Achilles the essence of true morality is irrelevant when he claims that no Trojan should keep their life, he swore death to all Trojan. (book XXI). During a time, war, is important to accept the fact of the situation in the eyes a devastation believing that one fate must be accepted in other to continue living or accepting the consequence and the faith of their own

Jesus tells us to love our enemies, to love him as you love yourself and part of the ten commandments says; do not murder. ‘Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you’, for instance Desmond T Doss. Doss was part of the American army who refused to use any weapons and kill anyone during World War I; he saved approximately seventy-five people’s lives, without the use of violence. Desmond is an example of a Christian pacifist. But in the Bible sometimes violence is the last option and you have to resort to it to find peace. ‘They will beat their swords into plough shares and their spares into pruning hooks’. Therefore not all Christians should be pacifists.

In the case of military ethics, Killing is justifiable. “From a faithful perspective, while islam accepts war as a fact of life in this world, an armed conflict is also likely to result in human casualties” (Sekar). Therefore, war will have an outcome of death, but not exactly wanting death. “During war our moral duties do not disappear: Actions deliberately contrary

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.

Throughout history, many people have debated over the ethics of war and peace which lead to the creation of the just war theory. There have been a number of wars in the past and even in today’s world that have been proven to be unjustified by the means of this theory. Any war in my opinion, is hard to justify due to the violence, destructiveness, the nature of humans doing during war, and the impact it has on humans and the world. However, I have chosen to discuss why America’s decision to jump in to World War II was justified and by proving it by using the just war theory, mainly focusing on jus ad bellum.

One of the components of war that make it justful is that the cause of the war must be just. In other words, the attacking country must inflict lasting, grave, and certain damage for it to qualify as just to fight back. Also if basic human rights are being violated by a group of people then it is just for another entity to decide to go to war to free the victims of the inhumane aggressors and their torments upon the innocent human beings.

The idea of non violence has stemmed off Gandhi in many forms. Gandhi once quoted “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” and he fulfilled what he said.

But I do not believe that he is a pacifist. A pacifist

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

Pacifism in the Twentieth Century, an expanded version of Peter Brocks 1970 book, is a cogent survey that has a remarkable knack for clarifying complex issues. It is sensitive to the issues of pacifism but does not fall into the trap that so many other similar studies do, of uncritically accepting the arguments of anti-war groups. On the contrary, Brock and Nigel Young directly address the contradictions within the movement, and the degree to which inconsistency and disunity have often been near-fatal weaknesses. Its one significant shortcoming is its bias towards pacifism in the Anglo-American countries. The movement

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

Russell began to develop a pacifist attitude. Pacifism is a movement against war, violence, or militarism. During the war Russell stated “When the war came I felt as if I heard the voice of God. I knew that it was my business to protest, however futile protest might be. My whole nature was involved.” (F-8) He used this as a sort of calling to bring forth his beliefs and gain followers to resist the war. He suggested that the Great Powers of Europe were blind by their government and Russell said “he was quite unable to accept the superficial melodramatic explanations of the catastrophe which were promulgated by all the belligerent governments.”(F-6) Russell was a major peace activist who added on to the era of modernism. After the war he was disliked by the church because he stated that “if God exists, it was surely impossible that an all powerful, all knowing, being would be so vain as to be offended by those who doubt his existence.” (M-3) In this statement Russell questioned the will of God and this made it very hard for him to attract followers outside of his own group. Russell had a meaningful cause but he did not have enough followers to make an impact as the church had done for so many years. Although Russell was completely against warfare and violence he knew that war among humans was inevitable as he concluded that “fighting and killing are among the natural

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.