Preview

Pacifism: Nonviolence and Br

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
923 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Pacifism: Nonviolence and Br
Pacifism is the belief that violence is not the way to resolve differences. They believe that war can be avoided and that there are better and longer lasting solutions to disputes.
<br>
<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 nuclear weapons should never be used. A nuclear deterrence pacifist, on the other hand, believes that one can only achieve peace through a position of strength and nuclear deterrence provides this peace.
<br>
<br>Many Christians are pacifists and many pacifists are Christian. They believe that, as stated in Mathew 5, "happy are those who work for peace; God will call them His children". They claim that Christ's teachings are very clear on the matter. "Do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you", "love your enemies".
<br>
<br>Non violence and pacifism must not be confused with cowardice and inaction. Many of history's greatest heroes have been pacifists, eg Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King, Gandhi. These people refused to resort to violence even when their lives were in great danger, and their reputation and influence are long lasting, as they did use other methods of trying to right wrongs. Martin Luther King and Gandhi deliberately broke laws that were about dividing people according to their race. These actions are ‘non-violent direct action' meaning to act against something you believe to be wrong, but without resorting to violence. These are peaceful demonstrations such as labour strikes.
<br>
<br>Most pacifists are committed to

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • 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
  • Good Essays

    Although, there are many methods of non-violence, people choose to be violent in this world. My personal experience with violence is a personal conflict that I had seen when I was in Nepal (civil war) I used saw six to ten deaths every day, neighbors used carried dead bodies by my doorway. I live with these scary minutes in my mind. Gandhi said “Nonviolence cannot act…

    • 933 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    “Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him." Not always do we need to use violence to express how we feel. Anger, people tend to use violence, but I believe that communication is necessary. Communication would help everyone throughout the world.…

    • 677 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good 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

    In What would you do?, Yoder combines outsider arguments and stories about nonviolence in order to strengthen his argument defending pacifism. In Gladys Aylward's story, You Say You Have the Living God Inside You, she offers a moving account of her time in China, and tells a story from when she was a missionary woman. Aylward explains her immediate fear to get involved in a prison riot, but she knew that she must advocate for peace in order to maintain her claim that she had the living god within her. The juxtaposition of stories and arguments allows for the combination of theoretical advice about pacifism as well as real life examples that prove their ability to work. Pacifists do not claim that nonviolence always works, however the collection…

    • 138 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Nonviolent struggle has been utilized countless times throughout the history of civilization. Contrary to popular belief, many of the world’s greatest wars are fought free of violence. Nonviolent actions offer an alternative approach to conflict resolution; one that does not resort to literal war and prevents blood shedding. The motivation behind these struggles vary, but the desired outcome is always to promote or prevent a change. Conflicts are diverse, and typically they are concerned with social, economic, ethnic, religious, national, humanitarian, and political matters (Sharp, 2005, p. 15).…

    • 307 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In order for non-violence to work, people have to be non-violent. Each of these leaders were so powerful that they convinced even aggressive people to fight by not fighting. In Mandela’s case, he viewed nonresistance as the only way to bring democracy to everyone in South Africa because the government was many times more powerful than the movement (document 3). If Mandela had used violence, his people would have been hopelessly crushed and would remain oppressed. Martin Luther King persuaded all volunteers to give up all possible weapons before going to protest (document 5). He convinced the volunteers that all they needed to have was the ideology that they were right. Gandhi wrote a letter to Lord Irwin stating that if something is not done about the injustice of the British, he would lead a…

    • 606 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    However, if we consider civil disobedience to negatively impact a free society, only two options remain: bitter violence or acceptance of the status quo. The premise that violence is worse than pacifism is easy to accept. People who attempt to evoke social or political change through violence are not revered; they are called terrorists, and they shut down the conversation about whatever injustice they are protesting. For every Martin Luther King, there will be a Malcolm X; for every Mohandas Gandhi, there exists a Rash Behari Bose. Although all four contributed to their cause, only two left behind a legacy of hope that carries on to this day.…

    • 747 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Fascists refuse to be apart of pacifism because they do not believe in the possibility of unity of everlasting peace, unlike the pacifists. Fascists feel that those who believe in war and will fight at war are much more honorable than those who do not.…

    • 254 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    Time For Outrage Analysis

    • 1401 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Violence to non-violence can make a huge impact on social matters, because it limits the amount of chaos that can occur. The smallest things like making a small group to protest on a social issue, or even making posters to help make a difference, are very useful examples of non-violence. Hessel’s argument towards non-violence is, “It is along this path that humanity will clear its next hurdle… or say that “violence doesn’t work” is much more important than to know whether or not to condemn those who have recourse to it. In this notion of “working,” of effectiveness, lies a nonviolent hope.” Hessel believes that the past shows how violence solved nearly nothing and created a merely violent world, therefore it is our turn to show our non-violent actions and solutions to making a difference. The younger generation shows their non-violent side through volunteer work, and creating small organization to make changes in their community. It may not seem as powerful as what the older generation was used to, but it is a step forward. Even though nonviolence is a great solution, violence may still occur, because it takes one person to make chaos. It’s okay for violence to happen when its make your words be known, for example the civil rights movement and the women’s suffrage movement. They were violent movements that made a huge difference,…

    • 1401 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Nonviolence was used when SNCC groups, first in North Carolina later in many other locations throughout the South, integrated business like cafes through the use of sit-ins. In some cases they would fill up counters that would only serve white and in shifts sit there all day. They would endure mental and physical torment. If these students decided to retaliate in self-defense against their tormenters they would have most likely been thrown in jail. They would have moved away from the goal of integration because all the students would have been in jail or worse instead of sitting at the counters making the businesses lose profit.…

    • 581 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The rudimentary statement of modern Christians is that was it rarely justified and should be avoided, with the exception of the Just War conditions being met (Just War: introduction, 2014). Although Christianity generally and strongly promotes peace it also believes that there will be times where war might be the only road to peace. Although this can be the only way at times it is deviating from Jesus’s beliefs and no longer adhering to the Christianity beliefs. The understanding of Christianity in today’s era is far from what it used to be and it doesn’t preach about peace as strongly as it used…

    • 842 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    A person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind.…

    • 972 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Another example of successful peaceful resistance was Gandhi. His non-violent movement was a significant part of India’s efforts to gain independence from Great Britain. Throughout his life, he took on many hunger strikes to protest the treatment of…

    • 520 Words
    • 3 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