The Negative Impact On Pacifism By Michael Kelly

“The practice of violence, like all action, changes the world, but the most probable change is to a more violent world” (Arendt pg 80). Violence is contagious, like a disease, which will destroy nations and our morals as human beings. Each individual has his or her own definition of violence and when it is acceptable or ethical to use it. Martin Luther King Jr., Walter Benjamin, and Hannah Arendt are among the many that wrote about the different facets of violence, in what cases it is ethical, the role we as individuals play in this violent society and the political aspects behind our violence.

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.

Universal pacifists are morally opposed to all violence, not just killing. And many universal pacifists derive their

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.

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.

Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.

One of the most influential songs of all time, “Imagine” by John Lennon, envisions a world of peace; “Imagine there’s no countries…nothing to kill or die for…imagine all the people, living life in peace.” During the 1970’s the hippy movement was very pro-pacifism and love, however, it ended almost abruptly. This was not the only cultural movement to advocate for peace, Mahatma Gandhi was the strongest advocate for non-violence in the last century, and he was assassinated. But can life really be lived completely peacefully? History has proven that violence is inevitable and that peace, while a beautiful concept, is nothing more than such. Since the beginning of time our race has shown that fighting is inescapable. There must be some reason as to why humans are violent creatures. Ayush Midha wrote an interesting article, “The Neuroscience of Aggression” which attempts to answer this question. Her authoritative work makes the claim that our species has a complex connection and desire for violence. Midha’s main argument is a claim one of cause and effect. All cause and effect claims have very opinionated and debated points of view. This makes her job hard to convince the reader of her standpoint. However, Ayush Midha’s effective use of Toulmin’s argument style makes her position strong and compelling.

“At the center of nonviolence stands the principle of love”~ Martin Luther King Jr. All violent actions can be avoided. If people were to be more open minded and use compassion there would be more peace. In the play of Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare a lot of things could have been avoided if violence was not used. Violence does not solve problems. Violence is never needed.

One of the oldest traditions in religious ethics is that of the just war. The "Just War Theory" specifies under which conditions war is just. Opposition based on the Just War Theory differs from that of pacifists. Oppositionists oppose particular wars but not all war. Their opposition is based on principals of justice rather than principles of pacifism (Becker 926).

Violence has never helped anyone but instead it has taken away the lives of people. In the essay, Jones says, “…the

The idea of non violence has stemmed off Gandhi in many forms. Gandhi once quoted “Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man” and he fulfilled what he said.

Most pacifists are committed to finding new and imaginative methods of conflict resolution. “The Quakers”, for example, are a Christian group who are famous for their pacifist stance. This is not a doctrinal tradition and there is no rule to say that Quakers must not fight under any circumstances, they have chosen to follow this path, as they have done for over 300 years. Quakers believe there is something of God in all people. They believe that more can be accomplished by appealing to this capacity for love and goodness than can be hoped for by threatening punishment or retaliation. Instead of harming and killing, they us “spiritual weapons” – love, truth, imagination and laughter – weapons that heal, not destroy.

Violence is an issue in human nature. Everyone has their own definition and their own interpretations of violence. The big question is if the world is still growing in its violent nature, or is it finally reaching its solemn, peaceful generation. The evolution of violence has grown in many different paths from survival of the fittest, genocide, slavery, etc. According to Steven Pinker’s article “Violence Vanquished,” he explains how the world is entering an era of peace because we do not deal with the same violence our ancestors did in the past. That is true. We abolished slavery, stopped brutal wars, and revolutionized with strategies such as commerce. Pinker analyzes his arguments very well, but negates common issues of violence that we still

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

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.