John Bloch Pacifism

Elie Wiesel is known to be a deserving recipient of the Noble Peace Prize because as written in Pbs.org, Wiesel “was a witness for truth and justice…not with a message of hate and revenge, but one of brotherhood and atonement” (Egil Aarvik). Almost immediately, Wiesel’s trustworthiness will spark and the audience will feel an immense amount of admiration and trust for him and what he has to say since only a selected, amazing individuals have received the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Peace Prize will serve as a message that the speaker has dedicated an immense amount of time for a greater good and to help others; it is without a doubt prestigious and respected award. Similarly, the reputation of Elie Wiesel and the fact that he advocates for peace and to save suffering victims around the world will make the audience conclude that he has had experience in humanitarian and peace attempts and organizations. As a result, Elie Wiesel’s reputation will without a doubt increase his credibility and authority throughout the text. The audience will be aware of his actions in the past and they will trust and admire Wiesel. The credibility and authority he has built through his reputation and public image will benefit him in regards to persuade his audience to kill indifference and help those who are still to this day suffering. His public image is seen as one of a dedicated individual who is a leader and encourages others to peacefully stop intolerance and indifference and that builds his credibility in the eyes of the

Almost 70 years has being passed since the last world war was declared its end. These days, it is said that if the third world war is occurred in the current world, it should be a total warfare with nuclear weapons (Gunn, 2004:70). In general the World War II (WWII) is often considered as a case of total war; now, there can be a question about the existence of total war in the world history.

The 20th century was a time of brutal wars and eradication of joy. On April 12, 1999, Elie Wiesel stepped up to the podium, reflecting the violent times as they were months before entering a new century. Wiesel knew very well that the uncountable tragedies had to change, and each individual must exercise his or her own contributions in the face of justice and humanity. His devastating experiences and tragic realizations produced a voice that carried around the world, revealing the fundamental structure of humanity.

George Orwell states “if you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help the other” (283). If we do not prepare for any war that comes toward our way because of pacifism we are automatically helping the enemy defeat us. If we just follow the pacifist believes many historical wars that were won would have resulted in defeat. War preparation is a key that helps win any war and defeats the enemy.

Few inventions have shaped war as much as the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb enabled massive indiscriminate destruction on a scale the world had never seen. The offensive capabilities of the atomic bomb were terrifying and many believed a nuclear war could destroy the world. Bernard Brodie, Albert Wohlstetter, Thomas Schelling, and André Beaufre describe the state of war the atomic bomb introduced in the Nuclear Age. Their writings show that atomic bombs changed warfare by changing the focus of arms development to avoid conflict and threats against civilians were now used to force surrender.

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.”

People believe war can help the development of mankind and country. Stated by Emile Zola in her book The Origin of the First World War, “It is only warlike nations which have prospered; a nation dies as soon as it disarms. War is the school of discipline, sacrifice and courage” (Document 1). Zola’s point is very true. After years of war, the winning country can always gain some sort of profit.

Starting from the “two World Wars” to “the tragedy of Hiroshima”, Wiesel elaborately chosen the well known historical violent events to draw attention of his audience. The amount of and scope of events he refers to are much more than sufficient to prove his point that there are many violence events happened due to indifference. These enormous amount of facts would blow up his audience’s minds, setting up the scope and seriousness of the issues of indifference. These familiar past events bridge the audience together with Wiesel to agree on the shared statement that indifference is

War is a human endeavor. Humanity continually pursues solutions to counter evolving threats with the end of preserving power while also enabling peace. Civilizations resort to war to maintain their perception of this equilibrium. Defined threats and adversaries have changed throughout history, however, the essence of human nature and the base concept of conflict itself have not. Carl von Clausewitz’s theories on warfare capture the relationship between humanity and its application of war, remaining relevant in today’s era through their pensive explanations of timeless philosophical principles regarding the concept of war. These theories regarding war in politics, the key factors affecting war, and the extent that war is applied are inherently interconnected, providing insight on the relationships between humanity and its application of war.

The idea that Steven Pinker discussed in his Ted Talk was that over time our world has become a more peaceful place to reside in. Breaking his evidence down into the viewpoint of millenniums, centuries, and decades, he utilized mortality rates due to warfare, homicide, and death penalty. Furthermore, Pinker analyzes the history of warfare from a social perspective that investigates the effect that anarchy, the value of life, and the expanding of one’s circle of acceptance.

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

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

War is controversial, unfortunate, and certainly misunderstood; it is a transforming agent, a catalyst for change. Nonetheless, many people focus on war's negative consequences, while positive effects are downplayed. War is a necessary evil in the sense that it stabilizes population, encourages technological advances, and has a very high economic value. Without war, the overpopulation of the human race is inevitable. It is this reason that war is a useful tool by not only Mother Nature, but also humans themselves to institute population control.

Famous Prussian military theorist Karl von Clausewitz said that "war is the continuation of politics by other means." which supports the idea of war as a culturally influenced situation that is determined by the political power in control. War is a tool in the arsenal of a successful power to use when debating and non-violent persuasion fail to achieve the goals of the power. War is always waged for a reason, war is not a random act of slaughter. It is consequential to both the attacking and defending parties and no matter the amount of casualties, war comes with a heavy price. The financial cost of war is astronomical and the effects of war can be damaging to the political power. This is why war is usually a secondary resort instead of an impulsive decision coming from instinctive biology and not rationale. Biology has shown us that we do have reflexive, self defense mechanisms built in that serve the purpose of defending us from predators. But instead of fighting for a cause initiated out of respect for our self defense, we find these mechanisms being manipulated by the political power in order to gain public support for a war waged for entirely calculated reasons and not based on emotional expression. Denis Diderot, a French philosopher, elaborates on war as a

The previously accepted nature of war stemmed from the Clausewitzian trinity: war is emotional, an experience wrought with passion, violence, and enmity; uncertainty, chance, and friction pervade the medium of war; however, because war is not an end in itself, and because, as a means, it is subordinate to its political aims, war must be subject to reason (Clausewitz, 89). With the first employment of nuclear weapons, however, strategists and military theorists began to question Clausewitz’s foundational ideas (Winkler, 58). Similarly, Allan Winkler, in agreeing with Bernard Brodie’s thesis, opines that the advent of nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the nature of war. Winkler’s assertion stems from his argument that such a nuclear duel would yield a post-war environment incapable of recovery for any parties involved (62). He further describes Brodie’s realization that “[t]he atomic bomb is not just another and more destructive weapon to be added to an already long list. It is something which threatens to make the rest of the list relatively unimportant.” (62) Ultimately, Winkler abridges Brodie’s assessment in stating that “the United States was caught in the paradox of having to prepare for a war it did not plan to fight.” (63)