Peter Brocks Arguments Against Pacifism In The Twentieth Century

The late 1940′s were a time when much change happened to the American society. As a result to the expanding threat of the Soviet Union, or its Communistic ideals, America took a stand that lead it to the Cold War.  Although the war didn’t involve fighting directly with Russia, it still affected the American society and domestic policy. The war affected America so much that it lead to a fear of livelihood; precisely when Joseph McCarthy began his “witch hunt”. The Cold war lead to an enlarged fear of nuclear war; as well, it affected many of the domestic policies.

Is it realistic pacifism worth the work? Yes, as discussed throughout this paper, not only does it ensure that it is not perpetuating the same violence it wishes to end, but that it contributes to lasting change. This is comparable Niebuhr’s objection that it is irresponsible to not only believe in, but to encourage the use of nonviolent methods as a means of addressing inequality as there is no basis that it will work. This too is proved to be untrue through the principles involved with these methods. It is not for the cowards, and one must be aware of the extreme amount of perseverance, and dedication involved within it to be successful. I personally find something oddly compelling about how it is encouraged to not internalize any hate, which is something that I think we should do more often as no one should bring up low enough to hate

While when discussing the history of the world’s power forces, violence makes for stimulating discussion, other tactics were put to good use, one of these alternatives being non-violence. With the guidance of three worldwide heroes - Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela - with contagious optimism and high spirits, it became apparent just how much of a difference could be made carried out through non-violent terms. Mankind was introduced to another way to resolve major problems just as effectively, if not more, than violence could.

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

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.”

After the American people experienced a decade of dissatisfaction with the discouraging results of political movements and a lack of faith in the government’s ability to create change during the 70s, Reagan’s political charisma and newly strengthened economy rejuvenated the people with a new hope. Reagan rallies the people to turn to religion to battle the sin and evil that exist in the world. That evil is found most concentrated in the teaching of Marxist-Leninists. Those Soviet leaders have renounced religion and all the moral teachings that come along with it. Therefore, it comes to no surprise that the way to fight communism is through embracing the teachings of Christianity. Reagan's use of religious rhetoric when discussing nuclear warfare as a means to downplay the arms race between the United States and the Soviet

Some ask the question, was the Vietnam War just? Some may say yes it was just,and others say that it is unjust. However,Certain people view justice as slippery concept. There are always ways to get aroud justice, and that is why people believe that justice is a slippety concept. Even Plato one of the brightest of his time could not figure out whether war was just or unjust. A Certain individual, by the name of Aquinas, also attempted to elaborate his view on the war through the document Summa Theologica. His reasons consisted of, First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged(Article 1). The second reason being, a just cause is

Pacifism is the broad belief that war and violence are unethical and that disputes should be settled with nonviolence. It is divided into three main sections: absolute pacifism, conditional pacifism, and selective pacifism. The different branches of pacifism support its effectiveness as a foreign policy because they provide different ways for nations to incorporate pacifism into their foreign policy. It gives nations the freedom to choose how they want to include peace without being restricted to one branch. For example, absolute pacifism is probably not an effective principle to dictate foreign policy, but the fact that there are other forms, such as selective and conditional, makes pacifism more effective as a foreign policy.

I do not consider myself a realist or a pacifist. I more subscribe to just war theory. The reason why I subscribe myself to just war theory is because I believe that there are legitimate wars and illegitimate wars. In the book Crime Without Borders: An Introduction to International Criminal Justice by Aaron Fichtelberg states, “War is usually a bad thing, but under certain circumstances, it may be justified or even obligatory” (Fichtelberg, 2008, pg. 112).

Instead they (re)engage with notions of pacifism, violence, suffering, and compassion to disprove that pacifism cannot exist within a modern society. Further, engagement with pacifism does not mean removal or retreat from the world, nor does it mean that violent actions cannot be taken by those who claim pacifism.

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

Before WWI, An industrialist by the name of John Bloch predicted the degree of devastation a war would have due to the technological advances of the Industrial Revolution. John Bloch received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1902 and is know for his writing on pacifism (Pieczwski 2016). His works titled, The Future of Wars was referred to as the “bible of pacifism” (Pieczwski 2016). Bloch earned the nickname “father of contemporary pacifism”, in which he correctly predicted Europe would give away civilizations and economic leadership of America would rise (Pieczwski 2016). Bloch was far from the first pacifist leader but contributed to the resistance of the wars in the twentieth century.

Pacifism is a belief, lifestyle, or idea that war and violence is unjustifiable. Three types of Pacifism are Absolute, Conditional, and Selective Pacifism. Pacifism effects the different layers as a foreign policy because, peace and antiwar movements , have been combined groups of people have been working together with different policy issues in mind.

Sometimes the longest and toughest journeys are inside one’s mind; and although others cannot notice them instantly, they change personalities profoundly. Dan, the main character, is a gymnast-student for Berkley University, California. His life seems perfect, he has everything he wants: friends, girls, good grades, his talent and passion for gymnastics and the strive to go to the Olympics. Until he meets Socrates. Socrates is a gas station attendant who leaves a mark in Dan’s memory right from the beginning. When they start to get to know each other, Dan understands that he’s nothing but a fool, and that he needs Socrates’s guidance to wake up and reach a deeper state of knowledge, a state of enlightenment.

For my book project I read the book Way of the Peaceful Warrior, by Dan Millman. Set in Berkeley California, Dan Millman a college student struggles to find the part of himself that has always been missing. One night while out walking from his dorm, Dan comes across a gas station and a strange man that is soon to turn his life upside down. This man, known as Socrates, shows Dan a side of existence that only few people had ever seen. To become a warrior like Socrates and have the mind to not allow the regular struggles of life to control a single part of you. Socrates takes Dan in and tries to create a warrior from a young star athlete with the ignorance of every other human on this earth. Through his