Social Darwinism-philosophy that used Darwin’s survival of the fittest to justify war and conquering of stronger nations against weaker nations…
now undergoing a process of becoming increasingly a peaceful form of a more aggressive ancestor” (2002; cited in…
During the late 19th century and early 20th century the Social Gospel and Social Darwinism Movements had similar but opposite beliefs; Social Darwinist believed every man is for himself and that big businesses were good for the economy, however followers of The Social Gospel believed in Christianity, favored the poor, and believed that everyone should help one another. Social Darwinism was named after the Naturalist, Charles Darwin, and the belief of evolution in society. One of the founders of Social Darwinism is the philosopher Herbert Spencer, who influenced many Social Darwinist leaders, such as William Graham Sumner; Spencer often used the phrase “Survival of the fittest” in his Social Darwinist lectures. Social Darwinists’ believed in…
“Human nature is complex. Even if we do have inclination toward violence, we also have inclination to empathy, to cooperation, to self-control.” Steven Pinker.…
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.…
In addition, pacifism during a war lowers morale. How can one expect to win a war if we do not fight back and try to end it? The only way people can have faith and confidence in defeating the enemy is if they know we will do what it takes to defeat it. George Orwell addresses how ignorant it is to be pacifism during a war that causes many…
Conflict is inevitable, and constantly present in life. Whether it’s obvious and right in front of your face or hidden beneath a pile of lies someone will always suffer because of it. Although that being said, without it- would we truly understand the importance of peace? There are some out there who believe that some of the greatest triumphs and acts of the human spirit were during times of great conflict such as wars and repression’s. But I believe that these events have caused the most horrific demonstrations of human nature in the act of killing the innocent.…
“The Barbaric Heart is led to conclude that, in fact, prosperity is dependent on violence”(White 838). What is being conveyed in that statement is that you have to be “good” with violence and that being “barbaric” is another form of virtue. If you want to win and winning is everything, like getting everything you want, then you have to have a barbaric heart. But people have to acknowledge how greedy they are for certain things and need to decide what they really need and what they can live without. The barbaric heart in our society is not helping out with the land that is being destroyed, proving that winning isn’t everything. After winning everything, there is nothing else to get since the greedy people have destroyed it all. Everyone has to recognize the sustainability and what it has to offer to others. “Sustainability presents itself as a kind of wisdom,” that can compromise with the destructiveness we have caused already and can lead everyone to a path of healing (White 839). It can be achieved by how we measure…
People in the world will always disagree. That is the one fact of life that can remain constant no matter how much time comes to pass or how far one can travel around the globe. When prompted with Phillip Hammond’s quote, I can completely agree with him. While differences will always remain between populations, using violence to get their point across will never be…
Heffner, Richard D. Heffner and Alexander. A Documentary History of the United States. New York: New American Library, a division of Penguin Group (USA), Inc., 2009.…
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…
Social Darwinism is stated as a social theory which hold to Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection', but this statement can be proven slightly wrong because logically Herbert Spencer, the scientist who is said to have created this theory after reading Darwin's Origin of Species, actually published his book sighting his theories on social darwinism, Progress: Its Law and Cause, two years before Darwin's book was published. The belief of Social Darwinism became popular in the late Victorian era in England, America, France and Germany, the theory states that the strongest and fittest should survive and flourish in society while the weak and unfit should be allowed to die.…
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…
Are humans a peaceful species at heart? It’s a difficult task to pick a clear side but many people have many opinions. There are various people who will say yes, humans are a peaceful species at heart but there are equally many people who would say no. After all, it is a broad topic concerning an unpredictable species. One strong argument in support of this statement would be that if we weren’t a peaceful species how would we co-exist in such a large population in places like mega cities. Furthermore, criminals exist in a minority, how can that tip the scales and make us think that we are a violent species. Also, if we were so violent, why would we organize charities for people we don’t even know? Why would donations exist? If we were not cooperative how would generations of scientists from all over the world discover things such as the atom, medicines etc. The counter-argument to that would be that we could just be cooperating for selfish reasons or from fear of justice. There are many who are against this statement and have just as many points to justify their opinion. The most important point is that if we were so peaceful, why are there such things as wars? A minority of criminals, which is slowly rising, have the ability to kill innocent people, are they not humans too? Why is it that weapons such as guns which were invented to protect the innocent, are now being used to kill them? Terrorism and racism, in other words hatred, have consumed many defenceless beings. It is in human nature in fact, to be aggressive. In our history, there have been massive blood baths for selfish reasons such as a quest for power and even natural resources. We are the reason that the Earth may suffer another Ice Age as we are destroying it on a daily basis. Could it not be that it is a fear of being…
To justify violence and convince people of its truth in science, some assertions were made. The first assertion indicates that people should be only replicates of the past ages without operating their minds, without reasoning and without thinking as it says, “because the coercion of man by man has existed in all ages, it follows that such coercion must continue to exist” (Murthy, 1987, p.52). The second justification uses plants and animals as models for humans to follow. Because there is a constant fight among plants and animals and the powerful survives, why shouldn’t human beings do the same. This statement is evidently lacking the fact that human beings are gifted with brains to think, discuss and find solutions for problems other than triggering wars. The third justification and the most widespread is the right to take decisions of against whom violence should be used. In religion, it is for those who have power but in science it is different. These decisions represent people’s will, science claims, which is under government control to do what its people want. Although these justifications are not weak, they are invalid and serve only those who occupy privileged positions.…