Preview

Advantages Of Selective Pacifism

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1004 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Advantages Of Selective Pacifism
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 fact that pacifism has different branches supports its effectiveness as a foreign policy because it provides different options for nations to incorporate pacifism into their foreign policy. It gives the nation 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 add to a foreign policy, but the fact that there are other forms, such as selective and conditional, makes pacifism more effective as a foreign policy. …show more content…
Consequently, selective pacifists believe that weapons of mass destruction (like nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons) should not be used in warfare. Selective pacifism, just like the other forms, has issues when applied to foreign policy. Even though a selective pacifist nation can still have a strong military, their decision to refrain from the use of weapons of mass destruction puts them at a disadvantage in warfare. For example, if a selective pacifist nation is involved in a war against a nation that uses a powerful nuclear weapons, the selective pacifist nation would most likely lose the war. However, if a selective pacifist nation can keep positive relations with other nations or form a pact with other nations to not use destructive weapons, then selective pacifism might be effective as a foreign policy. Selective pacifism could have positive consequences as a foreign policy as well. The choice to not use destructive weapons can save many human lives in a war. Furthermore, other nations might follow in the footsteps of a selective pacifist nation after seeing that not using weapons of mass destruction prevents the unnecessary loss of human lives. Selective pacifism makes a nation less of a target than a conditional or absolute pacifist because they can still have a strong military. Additionally, selective pacifists argue that refraining from the use of extremely devastating weapons in warfare helps to make a war winnable. Selective pacifism can be an effective foreign policy under certain

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    The first thing we did when we performed this experiment was gather our materials. We needed the clear, plastic experiment container, fresh grass, sand, and 20 Sowbugs. Next, we measured the amount of grass…

    • 669 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    History 1378 Review Terms

    • 1296 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Appeasement – the policy of acceding to the demands of a potentially hostile nation in the hope of maintaining peace…

    • 1296 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the chapter about False Dichotomies, Waal's discussed about four different ideas, which are good aggression, bad peace, the individual & the group and captive vs. field studies. Aggression is unavoidable elements, and it would have significant impact in social structure. Waal states different example in his writing and explains that people tend to categorized themselves in different groups, and act in diverse way. One villagers see another villagers as outsider, and when they have some disagreements, they see others as enemy. To killing enemy or destroying their territories are example of bravery and people believe in victory and feel proud. Waal's argument is that we all have some degree of aggression, which is in practiced throughout the civilization process. Aggression is not necessarily ruthless, it also a means of good for the society. Waal's also argues that, "peace, may be good, the crucial question is good for whom? Everybody wants peace on their own terms." It can be interesting discussion in current international politics. There are many peace builders, such as organizations, government, NGOs, and leaders. Many of them are talking about peace building in different kinds of conflict. However, there is no clear answer about the beneficiaries or parties. Peace for one party may not be real peace.…

    • 250 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Chapter 23 of History

    • 4184 Words
    • 17 Pages

    Pacifists, interventionists, isolationists pacifists oppose war and violence. Interventionists are those who intervene with affairs of a foreign country. Isolationists are…

    • 4184 Words
    • 17 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    1. The main legislation that governs the use of medication is The Medicines Acts 1968. The following is a list of legislations that have a direct impact upon the handling of medication within a social care setting.…

    • 1245 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The Just war theory maintains that war may be justified if fought only in certain circumstances, and only if certain restrictions are applied to the way in which war is fought. The theory that was first propounded by St Augustine of Hippo and St Ambrose of Milan ( 4th and 5th centuries AD) attempts to clarify two fundamental questions: ‘when is it right to fight?’ and ‘How should war be fought?’. Whereas Pacifists are people mainly Christians who reject the use of violence and the deliberate killing of civilians but claims that peace is intrinsically good and ought to be upheld either as a duty and that war can never be justifiable. However, Realists agree that, due to the nature of humans, force is a necessary action to be used to maintain a just and ordered society. Therefore, since the Second World War, people have turned their attention to Just War again establishing rules that can serve as guidelines to a just war- the Hague and Geneva conventions.…

    • 1943 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Atomic Bomb Dbq Essay

    • 701 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Wars have occurred for various different reasons all around the world, each nation involved using their best means of defensive and offensive attacks. Weaponry has been updated as time went on, leading us from arrows and bows to powerful guns. In the 1940s during World War II, however, one weapon in particular left a huge impact. The United States’ decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II was not justified due to the fact that it was ethically wrong, an excessive use of force, and unnecessary.…

    • 701 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    A fundamental component of the proliferation debate revolves around the perceived or alleged efficiency of nuclear deterrence. Proliferation optimists argue that, “more may be better” because nuclear weapons increase the cost of nuclear conflict, ultimately deterring states from engaging in nuclear warfare with a nuclear-armed state (Suzuki 2015). Optimists argue that nuclear deterrence works reliably, thus there seemingly less to be feared from nuclear proliferation and beneficial to a state to…

    • 581 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Georges Clemenceau once said “war is too important to be left to the generals.” In Dr. Strangelove, Col. Ripper remarks that now “war is too important to be left to the politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought” but Kubrick’s message implies that war is too important to be left to anybody at all. So with the persistence of nuclear technology as weapons of mass destruction, the question arises: Do we, as decision-makers, have the restraint not to use such weapons on one another? The question remains unanswered, but if there is to be peace, we must remain cautious and aware of their implications. Nuclear technology gives humanity an incredible opportunity to move forward, but if misused, it could send all life on earth back to the stone…

    • 1243 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Just War

    • 634 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Force should be used when there are legitimate reasons for using it, and when it is the last resort for the government, who is responsible for civic peace. Elshtain uses Augustine to discuss justice and war. A paradox between war and peace is introduced, Elshtain uses an Augustine quote to discuss the similarity of two words that are complete polar opposites, “Peace and war had a contest in cruelty, and peace won the prize.” In history, there are many instances where evil and horrible things are done in the name of ‘peace’. Elshtain continues with the early Christian beliefs that under Jesus’ teaches forbid force in anyway, even under authority. Later, it transforms to the necessity of force to protect others. This leads to the four qualifications that Elshtain wrote to justify a war, the first is that the war must be publicly declared by a legitimate jurisdiction. The second criteria is that an unjust violence must have occurred against the government’s own people or a defenseless group. Third, the war has to be start with the proper motives. Finally, all other alternatives must be exhausted before leading to war. In the end, Elshtain includes a final criteria that must be met for a war to be ‘just’, the possibility of actually winning the conflict. If there is no chance of succeeding, the conflict should not be…

    • 634 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    This article “Just War Tradition” also refer to as Just War Theory is related to war because it explains the principles and morals behind on taking war as a last resort solution only if the options don't meet the requirements. Also, in the case of war was to happen they discussed on when and where warfare is appropriate to be taken place. Including that, the Just War Tradition was originally discovered by the Christians and their based it on their philosophy. Then theorist Saint Augustine made who made other factions to their philosophy for a better outcome. As years passed another theorist named Michael Walzer stepped in but this time around modernize the principles. The government must apply two principles the first principle is Jus ad Bellum…

    • 346 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The Kellogg-Briand Pact

    • 1507 Words
    • 7 Pages

    While during this time period there had always been an existing presence of pacifists throughout the world, the Kellogg-Briand pact was one of the first attempts at global pacifism, in which war was “renounced...as an instrument of national policy…”. Although war was arguably never part of any nation’s legitimate “national policy”, it was frightening to America that the potential of war was always on the table. Negative feelings following the end of war did not simply go away when peace treaties were signed. Out of the devastations of the Great War came a renewed desire for a period of isolation and peace. Regardless of how unrealistic it may have been, people were so traumatically scarred from the horrors for the First World War that they did not want war to even be considered an option. “Leave me alone” was America’s brand new policy. Considering the impracticable nature of the of the Kellogg-Briand pact’s goal of global pacificity, it came as no surprise to many that as it was passed many would ultimately deem the agreement, “largely meaningless”. Accepted and signed by representatives of nearly all of the world’s nations, the pact was only backed by “the good faith of the signers”. However, in spite of the little actual effect that it had on diplomatic regulation, the pact was yet another symbol of the United States’ growing preference towards isolationism. Whether or not the other participating nations would choose to honor the pact was uncertain, but avoidance of war was on the top of the new isolationist U.S. list of priorities - a list that would continue to be developed as the Great Depression followed in the years to…

    • 1507 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    The Things They Carried

    • 2057 Words
    • 9 Pages

    There are many people who instead of staying in the middle, gravitate to either end of the spectrum. Some who fall on the far right believe that war is extremely necessary and disregard the negative aspects all together. Pacifists say that war understand the cons of war but fail to realize the good that can come from the…

    • 2057 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Things We Carry

    • 753 Words
    • 4 Pages

    It’s what compels you to either flee from danger or address it head on. We often reward and cherish the instinct to fight while we shame those who follow the flight instinct. This illustrated in the the book “The Things We Carry” by … In the book he states that the primary motivation for fighting in the Vietnam War for many soldiers was, they would be embarrassed not to. They feared being called cowards by their contemporaries. This is profound because of what it says violence in America. Circumstances aside, many of the characters believe pacifism is weakness and something to be ashamed of. This severe and negative connotations seem inherently wrong. Pacifism is objectively beneficial. All major religions agree that pacifism is a virtue. This fear of non-violence is abnormal but strong in our society. During World War I, a man named Evan Thomas refused to fight because he thought it was immoral. He was court martialed and prosecuted. During his prosecution, a debate about cowardice verse pacifism arose. The prosecutor is quoted as saying “The very foundation of every civilized government from the first beginning of history down to the present time has been based absolutely upon force of arms… Gentlemen, if we don’t punish these cowards who appear in this land…

    • 753 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Living by this moral principle can cause a greater harm by turning the other cheek than by using force to deminish a greater threat. There is always going to be people seeking out power or people who have different beliefs and morals because it is engraved within ourselves through generation after generation. Jan Narveson directly states a pacifists view, "His belief is not only that violence is evil but also that it is morally wrong to use force to resist, punish, or prevent violence. We are aggressive and greedy people and to change the thinking of the entire world with out the threat of force seems nearly impossible. Hypathetically, if pacifism was put into law, the use of any type of force will be breaking the law and the sentence is life in prison. Now imagine if a man breaks into a house of a young lady and rapes this lady and then pulls a gun out to shoot her. If the woman grabs the gun and shoots the man, she would also be sent to prison for life because any use of force is labelled as unacceptable. In our society today, violence is happening everyday even though we have laws in place to minimize them. Violence is not only a thing of the past but it is a thing of the future and without a proper punishment, violence will increase drastically. Narveson communicates a second version of pacifism where " one might argue that pacifism is desirable as a tactic: that as a matter of fact, some good end, such as the reduction of violence itself , is to be achieved by 'turning the other cheek'. " This again is a good theory, but if it was put into action, the consequences would be great. A human has the right to defend themselves, or help a person that is in need. In war it is the same thing but instead of one person needing help, it is a population worth of needed help. A person claiming they are a pure hearted pacifist by " turning the other cheek" does not necessarily make it the best…

    • 1929 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays