Pacifism: The Most Significant Tragedy Of War

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.

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

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.”

In the book, War without Mercy, Race and Power in the Pacific War, by John W. Dower and Published by Pantheon Books in 1986, the author powerfully illustrates the extreme racial tensions of Japan and the United States and how they affected policies in both countries. During World War II, the altercations between Japan and the United States were often overlooked, since Germany was taking all of the attention away from the world. But, as described by Dower, the ugly racial battles between Japan and the United States obviously point out that there was more friction between the two countries than most people believe. Another overlooked aspect of

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.

including our adversaries. Truth is too big, and we are each to limited, to think

Many people tend to think war is a part of life that mankind will never be able to rid itself of. This comes from the assumption that war is one of the basic needs of mankind. However, Margaret Mead does not make this assumption. In fact, she denies its credibility in her essay “Warfare is Only an Invention – Not a Biological Necessity.” In this essay, Margaret Mead combines a great deal of logos and ethos with limited pathos to support her pacifist claim that warfare is merely an invention of man, and not a need found in the very nature of man. While Mead’s claim does not agree with the most common beliefs about warfare, its mixture of logos and ethos is as strong as the bricks and mortar of a

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.

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.

<br>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

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 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.

An absolute pacifist believes that it is never right to take part in war, even in self-defense. They think that the value of human life is so high that nothing can

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.

What has been noted by Historians and scholars has been the effect of WW1 on World Peace.