Differences Between Pacifism And Militarism

Associating Islam with violence is a false impression that the Western public has long cultivated about this religion. An example of this misconception is that Islam is a religion spread by the sword, meaning that Muslims went from one end of the world to the other, conquering nations and forcing the inhabitants to either convert or die. The truth is that Islam spread through the expansion of the Ottoman empire, not that people were forced to convert or die. A modern day example of the Islam=violence misconception is Saddam Hussein. Although Hussein is of the Islamic faith, not all of his actions necessarily represent Islamic beliefs.

War is a scandalous topic where peoples’ views differ as to what war is. Some people see it as pure evil and wicked while others think that it is brave and noble of what soldiers do. Looking at poems which had been written by people affected by war help show the messages which are portrayed. The two sets of poems which show different views of war as well as some similarities are “the Charge of the Light Brigade” by Alfred Lord Tennyson, “To Lucasta, on Going to the Wars” by Richard Lovelace and “Dulce Et Decorum Est” by Wilfred Owen, “The Song of the Mud” by Mary Borden. Both these poets use linguistic devices to convince the reader of their view of what the war is. Tennyson and Lovelace show how war is worthy

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

Militarism is the belief that preparation for war provides moral training and is the best safeguard of peace and national interest. The first nation to do this was Germany. A perfect example of this was the main cause of World War II for me, which was Hitler. Hitler built a political army (the Nazi’s); they abused and killed millions of Jews. The first acts of the war was in 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland. The U.S was trying to stay out of this as well, but sooner or later they entered the war. Not much later the war was ended and the Germans had lost as Hitler escaped and fled into

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.”

Militarism is where a nation should build and maintain a strong military and use it whenever that nation felt like it. Militarism is significant because it started a thing called “The Arms Race” which was a competition were enemy countries would try beat each other in the number of weaponry they had, “Militarism, combined with new weapons, emerging technologies and developments

Militarism is glorifying military power as well as maintaining a big army. In WW1 armies where of course the most important fight. Without an army there was no defense on your side and countries would’ve most likely been destroyed at an instant. When someone glorifies something they usually want it so bad that it ends up happening. If people want war they get war. A powerful country needs a powerful military in order to defend and protect what they stand for. People depended on militarism in order for war to be successful People accepted war as a necessity. “War is life itself. Nothing exists in nature, is born, or multiplies except by combat.” (document B) War was essential and if someone won a war militarism only increased causing people to continue with the world war. If everyone keeps reinforcing their supplies and continues believing that the only way to get something good out of everything is by fighting, then war will not be cut short. We can also see more examples of this in document C where it shows citizens saying “Better war then this perpetual waiting” and “men and women were delighted at the prospect of war”. Lastly in document L it clearly gives an example of how militarism effected people. It made them think that war was the only way out of everything. They took the path because “without power, without a strong army and a strong navy, there can be no welfare.” (document

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.

St. Augustine provided comments on morality of war from the Christian point of view (railing against the love of violence that war can engender) as did several critics in the intellectual flourishing from the 9th to 12th centuries. Just war theorists remind warriors and politicians alike that the principles of justice following war should be universalizable and morally ordered and that winning should not provide a license for imposing unduly harsh or punitive measures or that state or commercial interests should not dictate the form of new peace. “The attraction for jus post bellum thinkers is to return to the initial justice of the war”. This means that war is considered as self-defense.

Pacifists believe that they can defend their country without the use of violence, or war, but with peace. The opposition of war has to be based on a moral stand point, not on the fact that war is inconvenient. Pacifists must not be indifferent to the rights and decisions of other members of the community (Himes, p. 90).The last qualification of pacifism is that pacifism is not a moral obligation, but a moral option, meaning people can choose to participate in war or not (Himes, p. 91). Pacifists believe two wrongs do not make a right, meaning do not use violence to defeat violence. They believe peace is the way to defeat violence.

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

Just War Theory is a theory that is designed to explain how to morally start a war and moral ways of acting during a war. The different sections in the just war theory are Jus Ad Bellum, “right to war” and Jus In Bello “laws of war.” Within the just war theory there has been some speculation from pacifists, people who believe in resolving issues in a non-violent way. Brian Orend critiques a type of pacifism, deontological pacifism, the pacifism that discusses not having a war since it involves killing and killing involves violating a human being’s right to life. He argues that even though humans have a right to life there are certain things that can take that right way.

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

During the 20th century America has been involved in many conflicts that have led to war or the taking up of arms against other humans and nations. Although the vast majority of Americans have blindly accepted these actions throughout the century, more and more people are seeing war as morally wrong. Reasons for this epiphany are based off of a variety of things and encompass many other aspects related to war and killing examples include: due to moral and ethical principles, objection to war due to strong religious beliefs, the objection to violence due to the same ideals above, objection to the government's use of force, and the objection to the use of weapons of mass destruction. Being a conscientious objector is fairly uncommon in the United States military but there are those who have served have identified as one.

Power, morality and ethics, and law are the three categories of activities that mankind has used to achieve this goal. Power is the use of force to accomplish the desired outcome, and when used strategically, it generally is the most proficient way to maintain peace and security. When morals and ethics fail, and international laws are broken, it is the use of power that it used to intervene and stop the violence. The ability to fend off attackers and defend yourself, or to fight for something that is believed to be just with the use of force are clear strengths of power. The United States’ intervention into World War II is a great example of power being used to bring peace. Their aid to the Allied forces helped end the war and also brought one of the most horrific genocides in history to a halt. However, if power is not used in a strategic, controlled manner, it can be very counterproductive. Peacekeeping operations may sometimes be misinterpreted as acts of war and bring more violence to a situation. Also, war and violence do not bid well with many civilians, as they often see death tolls and don’t consider what is to be gained. For example, the United States entered Vietnam with the good intentions of preventing a spread of communist leadership. However, there had been more bloodshed than could have been foreseen, and many Americans opposed the involvement in the war. The US eventually backed out of Vietnam