Pacifism Essay

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.

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.”

Throughout history, many conflicts have happened, some with resolution, and other without. We often tend to think of solving conflicts with war, since most of our history classes are based around World War I, World War II, and so forth, but many conflicts were fought, and successfully won using nonviolent resistance. Many people would use Gandhi as a well known example. Gandhi’s plan of civil disobedience revolved around this big idea called “satyagraha,” which he explains as, “a satyagrahi should always possess civility and humility, qualities that indicated self-control and an humble approach to truth” (Gandhi 50). He later explains that satyagraha is “truth-force” and that truth is soul and spirit, or “spirit-force.” “It excludes the use of violence because man is not capable of knowing the absolute truth and, therefore, not competent to punish” (51). He used this strategy to fight for indian independence. Many other incidents in the world have been fought using civil disobedience, including Women’s Suffrage.

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.

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.

Following the explanation of her terminology, Margaret Mead proceeds directly into the support she has for her argument. The main reason she offers for her claim is that “there are peoples even today who have no warfare,” (Mead 2). Later in the paper, she mentions the assumption behind this claim. Simply stated, Mead assumes that if people do not have the idea or knowledge of war, they will not engage in it. To support this assumption, Margaret Mead offers logos in the form of the example of the Balinese culture compared to other cultures. In the Balinese culture two people who are involved in a serious argument may officially register their argument in the temple of their gods. However, many other cultures of the world have no knowledge of this practice. Since they do not know of this method of argument, these other cultures do not officially register their arguments before the center of their religious beliefs.

Peaceful resistance has been society's way of respectfully bringing to light grievances or injustices they believe have occurred. More often than not these grievances involve some sort of social issue, whether it be under-representation or inequality, as was the case with African Americans during the peak of the Civil Rights Movement, or something more like Constitutional Rights, such as the right to vote as women. Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr., in their lifetimes, both fought hard for opposite ends of the 'rebellion' spectrum, protesting racism and segregation in their own unique ways. Malcolm X preached violence, using angry, fiery rhetoric to sway the public into following him into livid retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr., on the other hand, expressed

For centuries, violence has been the go to way to settle conflicts, but it has also been very controversial throughout the years. While some say war is important in order to maintain our freedom, it is actually a very unnecessary and destructive way of settling conflicts because it kills so many innocent people and it hardly ever accomplishes anything for such a hefty price.

According to our text there are in fact two types of pacifists. Those who feel that violence is never the answer and those who feel that violence can be justified. On pacifism, Lackey (2014) explained that some pacifists are willing to resort to violence in certain acceptable situations. Those situations are vague but a few examples are

<br>I do, however, believe pacifists are very courageous sticking to their principles, despite all action taken against them or criticism. As quoted, "it takes a braver man to walk away than to seek revenge". I do think some negotiation could be considered, as extreme pacifism may be difficult to support, there should be more thought put into

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

"So, non-violence is not about the elimination of conflict. it accepts the realities of conflict and coercion, of desire and aggression, of power and competition and force, for what they are- and works for their paschal transformation. Neither it is without anger. But its anger gives way to, 'passes

It works to create a positive peace through a transformation of conflict. In 1992, United Nations secretary General Boutros-Ghali released his report titled An Agenda for Peace. This document proposed peace building as “Action to identify and solidify peace in order to avoid relapse into conflict,” (Boutros-Ghali 11). While two sides are still in conflict, there is not a chance for communication between sides. Until violent conflict ceases, the two parties will continue to dehumanize one another and decrease the ability to understand one another. However, conflicts cannot always resolve themselves and outside intervention is sometimes needed to avoid a cycle of revenge, which can be a result. “The problem is a well-known bias in human perception, whereby we inflate the value of the wrongs we suffer, and minimize the value of those we ourselves inflict.” (Santa-Barbara 179). Luckily, there are nations such as Canada, with politicians like Lloyd Axworthy, who created the Canadian peace building initiative in 1996. “The initiative suggested a concern for the multidimensional and integrated causes of civil war and thus acknowledged the need to address the economic, social, and political aspects of reconstruction and reconciliation” (Keating 171).

War and pacifism are two completely different things. Everyone has there own opinion, which would have to do with various reasons including his or her religion, his or her beliefs or their family. War is a very dangerous and violent way of sorting out problems but in some ways better than the other solutions that pacifists would use. Pacifists deal with problems in a non violent way because they believe that war is not the way to solve anything when there are other ways to deal with problem using non-violence. When you use war to solve problems there are going to be positive and negative attributes that come with it. When you use pacifism to deal with problem there are going to be negative and positive consequences that come out of it.

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.