Pacifist Philosophy in Response to the Idea of War Essay

there be a variety of opposite philosophical interpretations of the persuasion of state of fight, raze what it means to be at war. agreeable in war is gener invariablyyy described as world the resort to some mavennel in post to attain political terminals. War is described by some as being a arbitrary crime, in that power hungry individuals lose flock of their virtuouss and resort to unethical hysteria commit against former(a)s (Walzer, 2006). From this perspective, sensation n matchlesss the assertion that on that point is never a good solid ground to engage in such(prenominal) brutal behavior as to combat injury some different individual.However, on that point atomic number 18 supposed potential weaknesses in this theory, due to the fact that non personnel at on the whole costs skunk be viewed as a complete lack of self defense (White, 2008). In any regard, the disarmer philosophy holds that there is never a good reason to engage in combat with othe r wad, that true up pangs atomic number 18 set in motion solely through reposeful means. In well-situated of the disarmer ideology, the idea of war has no place, veritable(a) in the panorama impending and actual violence, and the trounce route in the memorial tablet of danger is to disagree participating in the deplorablety.It is not always mild to attempt to manage a violent website in passive ways, non- painful ways, that there be a myriad of creative ways to reference the business of violent peck, ways which do not fend aggressive thoughts and consummations. In order to foreground the strengths and weaknesses of the pacifist(prenominal) position, it is essential to engage in spaciotemporal research and thought about the meaning of peace at all costs. PacifismThe principle ideas which suffice as the conceptual framework of the pacifist exertion center on the assertion that war is dogmatic cruelty derived from savage thoughts and natural processs an d that quiet behaviors be the altogether way in which to effectively diffuse this brutality. practicable pacificism affirms that resorting to violence is not the rejoinder to the problem of violence in the world, that violence should be short avoided and peaceful means of solution oriented work on should be taken (Fiala, 2004).In other words, there is the example of the country who supports the death penalty as a means of supposed just punishment for people accused of the crime of murder. From a pacifist perspective, the idea of using violence as a means to eradicate violence is simply infatuated and points to an illogical frame of thought and action. The pacifist would be likely to condone a means of hobble and rehabilitation rather than arrest and kill. The idea of peaceful interventions is paramount and supercedes all options deemed to be harmful to people.On a more personal level, one shadower take the interaction between and husband and wife or mother and child. Whe n a person becomes crazy enough to yell or hit, then the answer is not to yell or hit back up in response, but rather to be hush and communicate with the other person in reckon out a solution. This bod of civilized action and communication can go a tenacious way in ensuring that the violence does not continue, and this kind of civilized communication and action is able to be successfully translated to the public and political sphere as well.Strengths There be many strengths of the pacifist movement, in that the people who support peace at all costs are able to devise a great many solutions to violence which are center on ensuring the absolute safety and wellbeing of all people. It is important to consider the ideas generated by pacifists, as they right off speak to the absolute moral concept of non-harm.deliverer Christ himself is quoted as thinking, You have heard that it was said, An nitty-gritty for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, but I say to you, Do not resist one w ho is evil but if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also, described as one of the nigh revolutionary sermons he ever gave (Ellens, 2007). This powerful gossip demands that people utilize the supremacy of restraint when confront with violence, pull down at a time, like today, when major(ip) religions condone the use of brutality.There is not one major religion in the world which absolutely forbids the use of violence, to the detriment of all people in the world. There is not one country which expressly forbids the act of war and supports the command for love, the command to render ones cheek to ones aggressor. With all of the available options for peace, including communication, protest, boycotting, arrest, and rehabilitation, there is a cognize and certain positive effect which can be produced through the use of more gentle modes of action than violence.The media today is full of popular artists who tout violence as a masculine or oerlooking way of settling a score. However, when a person resorts to violence in an attempt to eradicate violence, the end result is simply another person who is bony into the problem itself. The barely way to end the violence in the world is by commitment to reliance in the inherent goodness of humanity, to staunchly support the idea that solutions can be found which do not cause harm to other people. evil is basically defined as causing harm, and it makes no sense to become a criminal in the desire to ensure justice.Weaknesses There are those people who claim that there are weaknesses in the pacifist philosophy, that absolute peace defies the pick out to defend oneself from harm. populate who do not support absolute pacifism claim that one of the only ways to call up the problem of rogue states is to resort to war (Jacobson, 2007). lovable in the violence of war is supposedly warrant as an unfortunate effect of having no other option but to defend oneself and ones country from the violent actions of others. To some people, pacifism may seem to be weak.In response to an number such as the terrorist struggle on the instauration Trade Center, many people believed that the best solution was to violently enter into the home countries of the terrorists and to take over through the use of brutal force. To some people, there are terrorists, offenders, on one side of the war, and defenders on the other. From this perspective, there are two teams in the war game, certain people who are committing evil and need to be stopped at all costs, even through harm and loss of life, and people who are engaged in righteous self defense.This philosophical viewpoint stems from a bipolar system, where some people are engaging in violence for unhealthful reasons and some people for good reasons. This simple yet convoluted way of thinking is highly egoistical and negative, in that one person, or one team, is the victim, the oppressed, the abject agent, the other person or team is the tyrant, the oppressor, the harmful agent. In this mode of judgment, there is only one guilty party, and the guilty are deserving of cruel punishment.However, the essential problem is always the same, in that there is supposedly never a good reason to cause harm to another person. Although the determination for war may be convenient, especially when people are actively engaged in the violent activity, there is still the basic problem of violence as a moral problem rather than a solution. Dividing couples, families, societies, countries, and political systems into warring teams of bad versus good does elfin to solve the core issues of the criminality of causing harm to others.Rebuttal Although some people believe that the pacifist ideology is weak and perhaps even a pathetic mode of political action, a powerful case can be made in support of peaceful decision making, decisions which are smashed and influential while also being relatively calm and diplomatic. There is no government which has successfully disarmd their country, no political system which has shifted to a stringently diplomatic strategy for achieving peaceful end results (Djerejian, 2007).imputable to the fact that all countries in the world are suffering from some form of violence, the case can certainly be made that policies which promote violence simply encourage the violent behaviors of citizens. What a different world this would be if the response to an attack was to demilitarize a region, to offer ones cheek. What an provoke phenomena it would be to witness a region where guns were consistently removed from all persons, homes, and cars, even if it meant being shot in the process.Although an initial, primal, or habitual response to an attack is to harm ones attacker, there is the ever present possibility of changing ones response, to commit to the idea of peaceably reacting in the face of impending danger. When a child is hitting a parent, often the best reaction is to let a child hit unt il the child overhears that the parent is not going to hit back, to allow the child to realize that the parent is totally loving and totally dependable. terminus The political solution for all policy making is always going to be a peaceful solution, whether politicians realize it or not.The leadership of the world are going to be the ones who quietly offer their cheek, who are committed to helping their neighbors, even when these neighbors are pursuit revenge. It takes a smart person to realize that one is participating in an immorally violent society, and it takes an even smarter person to realize that one is responsible for being an agent of change in support of pacifism. There are very few truly destitute people out there, if any, no countries which are politically perfect.From this perspective, people need to humble themselves in the face of their neighbors, to be aware of the shameful past and circulating(prenominal) atrocities being committed by governments across the gl obe, and to decisively stand for the implementation of peaceful solutions. Policies can only be effectively changed by people who are committed activists in the name of peace, and these activists are the leaders of the world, pacifists in the name of the goodness of humanity.References Djerejian, E. (2007). Changing Minds, triumphant Peace A New Strategic charge for U. S. Public Diplomacy in the Arab & Muslim World. Lulu. com. Ellens, H. (2007). The noxious power of religion violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Greenwood publication Group. Fiala, A. (2004). Practical pacifism. Algora Publishing. Jacobson, A. (2007). Nonviolence as a mood of Knowing in the Public School Classroom. In Factis Pax 1(1), 38-54. Walzer, M. (2006). Just and unjust wars a moral argument with historical illustrations. Basic Books. White, J. (2008). Contemporary honorable Problems. Cengage Learning.