The War On Israeli Occupation

The War On Israeli Occupation
War is generally considered a to be a heinous act, a harbinger of death, destruction and disaster. War is often fought for ignorant reasons such as
wealth and property, although defence and fighting for the greater good is often exhibited through history. Its facile to claim that war is unjustifiable
under personal or political reasons, or that it's a waste of human life and that passive resistance is the key. Nevertheless, in opposition, there are
particular circumstances in which war is justifiable. Examples of this are: Under international bodies of law (Geneva and Haug conventions), the
principals of the 'just war theory' which is in stark contrast to 2 other approaches on the concept of war, being 'Pacifism' and 'Realism', as well as
Islamic reasoning on the conduct, "darurah" (necessity) and justifications of initiating or continuing conflict as well as theoretical and historical
understandings of what it means for a war to be just. An ongoing example being the war on Israeli occupation by the Palestinians, another example
being the British interference in the Second World War against the belligerent Nazi regime. Although, in retrospect, the Second World War is also used
in pacifist ideologies, against war justification. Various academic enumerations interpret and apply the renowned "just war Theory" including Peter
S.Temes's "The just war: an American reflection on the morality of war in our times as well as discussions on the Islamic etiquettes of war in Youssef H.
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

The Negative Impact On Pacifism By Michael Kelly
Pacifism can be defined as people who believe in resolving conflicts without the use of violence. Many folks believe that pacifism is a moral ideal and
many oppose of pacifism. Despite, that many people hold that pacifism is righteous, the truth is that pacifism is immoral and it is affecting and
harming our society. Michael Kelly, the author of "The Negative Impact onPacifism" believes that "pacifism is, inescapably and profoundly,
immoral... pacifism is on the side if the murderers, and it is on the side of letting them murder again." Kelly observes that without action within a time
where an attack has occurred more people are going to be injured or killed. This prompts the idea that pacifism is immoral and that we need people to
become more than pacifists. Using non–violence in a time where violence appears, being a pacifist is unethical. I have personally been taught to use a
firearm and I am glad that I have been taught the skills I need. Although, I will never use the weapon in self–defense, I'm able to defend myself when a
deadly conflict happens. This proves that when being a pacifist, nonviolence is not going to solve all issues that arises. Ultimately, when an nation has
an attack, being a pacifists is not moralistic and solving ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Michael Kelly mentions in his article that "pacifists see themselves... on the side of higher morality" and believe that they are on the right side of
society. With Michael Kelly's statement, many pacifist argue that they are moral in the eyes of society and do not need violence. Moreover, he adds
that pacifists argue that "violence only begets more violence." This proves a point that in certain times violence is not the key. Yet, when an deadly
attack is being occurred answering it without violence will not solve the overarching issue of being attack. Thus, being a pacifist in certain situations
where violence does not present itself is a righteous

Pacifism: The Most Significant Tragedy Of War
Pacifism movements impact both soldiers and civilians. Pacifism may embrace in some instances self–defense. However, reasons to support the
preservation of ourselves does not justify war. War is considered an unpardonable desecration of humanity. Antiwar arguments include that self
–defense
is not qualified since surrender is an option, soldiers kill other when they are in no danger (Johnson,1975). War may exonerate soldiers from legal
liability because, during war, the enemy is expected to be killed however it is morally unjust (Shaw,2014). Lackey states that the excuse of
self–defense can be avoided by surrendering. Perhaps the most significant tragedy of war and one opposed by Lackey's argument is the innocent
killing of civilians (Shaw,2014).

Is The War On Terror Ethical?
Is the War on Terror ethical? Since the establishments of governments, since human societies had kings and queens, since governments were ran
under a religious doctrine, there has always been conflict among different groups of people. There will always be differences among people of
different cultures, religions, race and ethnicity. There has always been a division of power between people and inequality in the world. There
was a point in human history that slaves were bought and sold as property, as if life was insignificant and could be bought again. It was the norm
between cultures to push away any new movement that threatened ideologies of their regime and it was necessary to maintain control of their
people. It is difficult to imagine a world where people didn't have a voice, but there was a time in our history that these inequalities in government
really mattered and defined you as a person. How did governments and regimes handle conflicts and upheavals? War. War was the first and last
defense, it was not used as a noun but an action verb. It was the only thing that gave a sense of security and to an extent it was necessary. Not so
much because we were unmoral people, but simply because it was another established norm. War was the way to settle differences among
governments it gave right to peace between people after a war. Flash forward to modern society war is not our only solution to problems. There have
been many strong leaders like Gandhi, Martin Luther King and

Pacifism In Mexico
The Mexican government's past pacifism has enabled cartel strongholds throughout the nation. With agreements between the Mexican cartels and the
PRI ruling political party, extreme violence was considered under control, in the 1970s through the 1990s (Madrid 2013, 100). However, in a 2015
Congressional Research Service (CSR) report addressing crime and drug trafficking organizations in Mexico, the document reveals Drug Trafficking
Organizations (DTO) are not a new trend, and in fact have been around for nearly a century (Beittel 2015, 6). The Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) in the National Drug Threat Assessment in 2015, lists the Mexican cartels as the greatest threat to theUnited States and the largest suppliers of
illicit drugs, like methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, and marijuana (DEA 2015, 1–2). Moreover, the President's National Security Strategy in 2010,
lists transnational criminal organizations as national threats that are continuing to expand in size, scope and influence (Curran 2015, 348). Described
as a global business, DTOs manage the supply and demand of their products much like a legitimate international business would. However, DTOs
heavily utilize two tools a legitimate business could not, the ability to bribe and use ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Accordingly, the authors present six factors to base their assessment of poverty levels which include, earned income, children in school, sanitation,
water, shelter, and education as elements indicative of poverty. The researchers analyze the location where people are deprived of basic necessities
and equates to less privileged areas. Following the data, rural parts of Mexico, are considered greatly deprived in four out of six basic needs. These
numbers of the underprivileged, soar well above, those who live in urban communities in the nation (Battiston, et al. 2013,

Conuncianitarianism And Confucianism
Confucianism does not explicitly encourage war given its emphasis on humanity. This combination of moral vision and political realism combined with
his advocacy of strong political authorities that nevertheless rule justly in service of the common good. Xunzi's vision of the good society and how it
fits into a multi–state world which undergirds his critique of alternate discourses about war and the government. Xunzian's vision of politics and war as
a source for contemporary Confucian theory of civilian military relations. The early Confucian figure Xunzi (xunzi, during 310–c. 220 BCE) gives a
sophisticated analysis of war, which he develops on the basis of a larger social and political vision that he works out in considerable detail. This
larger vision of human society is thoroughly normative in the sense that Xunzi both argues for the value of his ideal conception of society, and relates
these moral arguments for the Confucian Dao or Way. Xunzi's led him to argue about war in ways that look distinctive to Western ethicists, but still
his preferred issues are revealing themselves as suggestive in relation to current debates in military ethics. Judaism does not regard violence and war
to promote justice as always wrong. It accepts that certain kinds of war will be ethically justified, and that it is sometimes morally acceptable to kill
people. Before declaring war or starting a battle there must be a genuine attempt to make peace and avoid the conflict. In much

The Conflict Of War And Peace
Intro
In todays society there are many conflicts,or disagreements these conflicts and disagreements need to be solved. Some can be felt with by simply
talking it out but others are on a global scale, and these will need more than talking to settle. Some conflicts on a global scale can lead to war, and others
can be negotiated using peace. If you believe in only peace then you are a pacifist. Today's society has war and peace as a solution to conflict but it is
in everyones beliefs and values that will help them to form their own opinion on weather they are a pacifist or they believe in only war or bits of
both, it is different for everyone .
P1–war
War is a large scaled, deadly, serious and emotional battle of conflict between two or more sides. War involves weapons that kill, so the survivors
are honoured especially if they are high up in the ranks. War is "good for few, bad for most"Latuff. If you are fighting in war then your time is
precious as you only have one life. There are many dangers whilst fighting in war, there are risks of gas,bombs, surprise attacks, snipers and
shooting. If you are fighting then you are most likely going to be sent out onto no mans land. Before and during the troops sending of on their attack
a bagpipe is played to block out the noise of men dying as they sprint. One man is left in the trench to kill those who flee and turn around as this
shows cowardliness. "if anyone turns to retreat, shoot them" War Horse. Some are shot and left to

Is The War On Terror Ethical?
Is the War on Terror ethical? Since the establishments of governments, since human societies had kings and queens, since governments were run
under a religious doctrine, there has always been conflict between different groups of people. There will always be differences among people of
different cultures, religions, race and ethnicity. There has always been a division of power between people and inequality in the world. There
was a point in human history that slaves were bought and sold as property, as if life was insignificant and could be bought again. It was the norm
between cultures to push away any new movement that threatened ideologies of their regime and it was necessary to maintain control of their
people. It is difficult to imagine a world where people didn't have a voice, but there was a time in our history that these inequalities in government
really mattered and defined you as a person. How did governments and regimes handle conflicts and upheavals? War. War was the first and last
defense, it was not used as a noun but an action verb. It was the only thing that gave a sense of security and to an extent it was necessary, not so
much because we were incapable of compromising, but simply because it was another established norm. War was the way to settle differences among
governments it gave right to peace between people after a war. Flash forward to modern society war is not our only solution to problems. There have
been many strong leaders like Gandhi, Martin

Persuasive Essay On Torture
people will look at scenarios differently when one scenario is a bombing mission where the soldier is on the plane dropping bombs and the other
is to hear that same soldier killed five innocent girls and their mother (Harris). There is no doubt there will be women and little girls killed from
those bombs dropped at such high points in the sky (Harris). It is just a matter of perspective and how it may sound to the people of the world.
Also, it is a fact that the terrorist group, Al Qaeda tells its detainees to accept torture regardless of what happens to them in U.S (Harris). Al Qaeda
knows America tries to hold their morals and standards very high and America's greatest weapons are their freedom and mercy (Harris). With this
type of policy in place, America will always have a weakness against terrorist groups such as Al– Qaeda (Harris). So, with the enforcement of torture
warrants, there will be no weaknesses against any type of terror group because America can issue a warrant whenever it deems necessary. Also, with
the audience of people that think torture should never be accepted because of how people generally behave in their torturing session, this can be
avoided pharmacologically (Harris). The drug used in the interrogations are called paralytic drugs which makes the one being tortured never to be
seen screaming or writhing in pain (Harris). For all who oppose torture, an image of a dungeon or prison with a chair in the middle of the room and
straps on it should not

Alabama Bus Boycott : A Civil Association For The...
Following the seemingly successful 1950s Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott, a protest for segregation where African Americans under the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) refused to ride Alabama buses, ended after 381 days when the Supreme Court ordered
Alabama to integrate its bus systems, the state figuratively dragged its heels in changing its transit. In fact, ten years later when the Supreme Court
ruled segregated buses unconstitutional nationwide yet southern states still refuse to integrate their buses, despite attending college for a ministerial
career and knowing the likelihood that the southerners would violently resist, James L. Farmer Jr. , a Gandhi–influenced activist, saw the opportunity to
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In 1938, intending to pursue a career in religion, James L. Farmer Jr. decided to take after his father, James Farmer Sr. (a methodist minister), by
attending Howard University's Divinity program (Titus). During his time there, Farmer Jr. studied Mahatma Gandhi 's "Satyagraha", a non–violent
resistance technique that requires those who follow it to seek truth in a spirit of peace and love as well as refuse to cooperate with violent objectors
(britannica.com). Four years later, James L. Farmer Jr. graduated in 1941 with a divinity degree; however, despite his father disapproving, Farmer
chose to cofound Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) as the organization's director with George Houser, a college classmate, in 1942 rather than
continue on with ministerial work (biography.com). Altogether, Farmer graduated Howard with: support from those who joined CORE and inspiration
from Gandhi's Satyagraha technique, both of which he could then apply to resist segregation in the South. In fact, fourteen years later, Farmer
recognized the opportunity to incorporate his non–violenct, civil resistance when several southern states continued to separate blacks from whites on
their transit system after the Supreme Court ruled segregated buses unconstitutional in 1956. This inspired Farmer to initiate "Freedom Rides",
consisting of civil–rights activists from CORE testing the new law by riding in designated white

Analysis Of ' The Raid ' By Leo Tolstoy
While reading "The Raid" by Leo Tolstoy, one is instantly struck by the strong contrast between the peaceful nature scenes and the violent battle scenes.
One minute the sounds of crickets and frogs are charmingly echoing through the night, and the next you can hear the "clang of a heavy gun" and the
"sound of bayonets touching one another" (Tolstoy 20). In one scene, the generals and majors stand watching the gory battle below, yet they continue
to discuss the beautiful nature around them as if nothing else could possibly be worth their attention (Tolstoy 25). However, upon closer readings, it
becomes evident that the war and nature scenes are not as separate as they seem. As the story progresses, the two begin to weave together, until
distinguishing them is nearly impossible. Indeed, this subtly merger can be seen throughout multiple scenes as the story evolves. From the start, nature
and war are both extremely prominent in the story. But, they are presented separately from each other. The best example of this is on page thirteen.
"The sun had done half its journey, and cast its hot rays through the glowing air onto the dry earth...the motionless air seemed full of transparent dust,
the heat was becoming unbearable" (Tolstoy 13). This entire paragraph describes the nature all around the marching soldiers. Then, it is followed by a
separate paragraph: "Half–way on their march the troops reached a small stream and halted. The soldiers stacked their muskets and rushed to the

Absolute 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 different branches of pacifism support its effectiveness as a foreign
policy because they provide different ways for nations to incorporate pacifism into their foreign policy. It gives nations 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 dictate
foreign policy, but the fact that there are other forms, such as selective and conditional, makes pacifism more effective as a foreign policy. Selective and
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
If pacifism was a set belief with no variations, it would be hard to adopt as a national foreign policy and people would have disagreements. For
example, if absolute pacifism was the only section of pacifism, it would not be effective as a national foreign policy because it is unrealistic, hard
to follow, and puts the nation at a very high risk of invasion. However, the different branches within pacifism make it easier to adopt as a foreign
policy, because selective and conditional pacifism are much more practical ways to interact with other nations. Selective and conditional pacifism
allow a nation to fight in wars, while still promoting ideals like peace and nonviolence. Therefore, the three types of pacifism support its effectiveness
as a foreign policy because they allow nations to select which aspects of pacifism they want to follow in their foreign policy instead of being restricted
to one

Realism : A World Of Love And Peace
In a world of love and peace, there is also war; to be specific, there are three types of wars, and I identify with realism. Realism is shown to be the
view that suggests that war happens, and perhaps it needs no reason to be justified and violence will occur. Mentioning that, just war, another theory, is
a three–part view that shows the reasoning prior to a war, the concerns during and after war, and essentially requires the person to see what difference
the war could make. While, pacifism, another type, is the view that war is not needed; and is seen by pacifists who are against not only to killing but
to violence. However, if anyone asked me, war can change your view of it; you may start off in pacifism, but end war thinking about realism; or
starting off with a just war view of it, and finishing with pacifism; in hopes that the world would be like you imagined it before. The idea that
realism is essentially realistic, and the reason I identify with this view is because wars do happen; even if we do not want them to. Ironically, or
maybe not, realism is the most realistic choice of view; since war just happens sometimes when we do not want it to. Realism can be seen as
realistic, because we expect something from the world, and sometimes war is apart of that thought; because humanity needs to evolve, not only as a
body, but as a moral thought. In the real world, we are either realists or idealists; I think that being realistic is helpful in the world, because you do not

Anti-War Pacifism
Pacifism covers an array of views and there are many subcategories of pacifism, some of which I will cover, but the main definition of the word
pacifism is the opposition to war and/or violence. Perhaps the most famous use of the word pacifism is found in the "Sermon on the Mount", where
Jesus claims the "peacemakers" are blessed. In this passage, the Greek word eirenopoios is translated into Latin as pacifici, which means those who
work for peace. One common and simple argument for pacifism among religious groups or god fearing people is the argument that god's revealed
words says, through the bible, "Thou shalt not kill."
Universal pacifists are morally opposed to all violence, not just killing. And many universal pacifists derive their ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
If the Germans, instead of being resisted by force of arms, had been passively permitted to establish themselves wherever they pleased, the halo of
glory and courage surrounding the brutality of military success would have been absent, and public opinion in Germany itself would have rendered any
oppression impossible." He taught non–resistance as proper defense to violence. For such antiwar pacifists, all participation in war is morally wrong.
A universal and unavoidable product of war is that soldiers get killed. Most people accept these killings as a necessary evil and that the ends
justify the means. If the war is "justifiable",the killing of enemy soldiers is deemed as a necessary triumph of what is right. If the war is
unjustified, it is seen as honorable to fight for one's country, whether you agree with them or not. But antiwar pacifists do not take the lives of
soldiers for granted. Everyone has a right to life and killing on the battlefield is a direct violation of that right. In a standard interpretation of basic
rights, it is never morally justifiable to violate a right in order to produce some good. In war, the argument goes, kill or be killed, and that type of
killing is killing in self–defense. But, according to anti–war pacifists, killing in the name of self–defense during times of war cannot be justified unless
a) they had no other way to protect their

Dorothy Day Research Paper
In a general public of hero superheroes inside books and TVs all over the world, what makes a genuine legend? Is it initiative, leadership,
determination, courage, dedication?To all, Dorothy Day is the greater part of the above. To many she is a holy person. A lady of genuine
magnanimity, who sympathetically put the lives of the broken before her own. She is the symbol of the sort of person that everyone can be, not by
changing other individuals but rather by evolving themselves. For the duration of her life, Dorothy Day was a pioneer to the state, and a promoter for
poor people.
Dorothy Day was born on November 8, 1897, in New York City. Day was a radical her opportunity, working for such social causes as pacifism and
ladies' suffrage. She ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
While in Europe Day writes The Eleventh Virgin, an autobiographical novel addressing the conflict between social action and personal life affecting
many female radicals. When Day is returning to Staten Island, NY, After returning she had a common–law marriage with biologist and anarchist
Forster Batterham, and in 1927 gave birth to their daughter Tamar Teresa Hennessy. When Dorothy started to find interest in the Catholic church and
had herself and Tamar baptized, Forster joined most of her atheist friends in alienating her completely. After a short time of being a scriptwriter for a
Hollywood studio, and really bad confusion about the break with her friends and partner. Dorothy began to gain back her Christian faith and
communist beliefs by writing for the Catholic journal Commonweal. On May 1, 1933, the begining of the issues "The Catholic Worker' – 8 newspaper
pages, it was put together by Dorothy Day in her kitchen then latered published. Each copy cost a penny, so that nearly anybody could buy it and see
her work. By December 100,000 copies were being distributed each month. In spite of the fact that it was basically a devout paper, in its pages
journalists examined radical social alter, back for specialists, issues of industrialisation and the development of

Sister Hong Kong Summary
Keown speaks to the construction of violence and pacifism within Buddhism assumes a dichotomous understanding of pre–modern and modern times.
For Keown to claim that pacifism seems not align with living in modern society, he must first assume that pacifism is uniquely passive (2005, 83). Yet,
as the writings and lived experiences of Sister Chan Kong display, pacifism, or a turning away from violence, is anything but passive. Sister Chan Kong
and Thich Nhat Hanh choose to step out the dichotomous understanding of passive pacifism versus violence. Instead they (re)engage with notions of
pacifism, violence, suffering, and compassion to disprove that pacifism cannot exist within a modern society. Further, engagement with pacifism does
not mean removal or retreat from the world, nor does it mean that violent actions cannot be taken by those who claim pacifism. ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
The engagement of Sister Chan Kong during her most formative years with social work shaped her views on the construction of pacifist work (2007,
18). When, Sister Chan Kong later encountered Buddhist monks and their teachings in regards to social work, which were contrary to the experiences
of Sister Chan Kong, she continued her engagement with both social work and Buddhism (2007, 14). In meeting Thich Nhat Hanh, Sister Chan Kong
began exploring a (re)engagement with Buddhist teachings that opened space for an active form of pacifism against traditional passive pacifism and
state sponsored

The Tactics Of Nonviolent Action
To accept Gene Sharp's argument that the techniques of nonviolent action are more effective than the violence of military action, we must first
comprehend Gene Sharps interpretation of what military action is. Gene Sharp defines military action, when he states "Military action is based largely
on the idea that the most effective way of defeating an enemy is by inflicting heavy destruction on his armies, military equipment, transport system, and
cities." Sharp accuses weapons for being the reason society accepts military action as the most effective means of defeating an enemy, for that weapons
are designed to murder or destroy with maximal efficiency. Sharps belief, that any prospective replacements for war in the aegis of freedom must
involve possessing and utilizing strength, colliding and testing an invaders military ability and power, and conducting efficient combat, can be
achieved through nonviolent action. The techniques of nonviolent action follow Sharps credentials for being a substitute of war, by wielding power,
confronting and engaging an invader's military might, and waging an effective fight. For that, when performing a method of nonviolent action by
declining aid and cooperation to a ruler's power, it makes it impossible for a ruler to exercise authority over the population. A ruler can only
successfully possess complete power, with public conformity over the people he or she rules. This ultimately constitutes nonviolent action as the most
suitable

Political Violence : The Philosophy Of Nonviolence And...
Introduction Political violence as recognized by political scientists is a strategic tactic that is most often used to gain power. In contemporary political
theory, non–violence has become more emphasized as a legitimate type of strategy. While the general consensus of the philosophy of social struggle is
that nonviolence is more beneficial in the long run, the effectiveness of nonviolence and violence as means of resistance is very dependent on the
individual situation. However, with regard to the complexity of political and social struggles, nonviolent resistance tactics are effective up until the
point that the government or regime turns its power against its citizens and cuts off their ability to peacefully campaign for political reforms. I will
first lay out some of the philosophical theories regarding non–violence before examining the contextual aspects that determine how effective
non–violence is in comparison to violence.
The Philosophy of Nonviolence The central concept within the philosophical theory of pacifism is that nonviolence is the most effective at bringing
about lasting political peace. While theories of nonviolence are generally applied to instances of warfare or political resistance, the philosophy itself
tends to stem from deep moral convictions. Gandhi endorsed the theory that violence is always morally wrong and that our reasoning abilities as
human beings should take precedence over any propensity for violence we may have (Gandhi 2014). In Civil

Essay on Dorothy Day, Saint-Worthy?
Dorothy Day, Saint–Worthy?
Almost immediately after her death in 1980 controversy arose about whether Dorothy Day should be canonized a Saint by the Church. Now that the
Vatican has approved the late Cardinal John O'Connor's request to consider Dorothy Day's "cause," the controversy is being rekindled.
After converting, she dedicated her life to New York's poor and immigrants, building hospitality homes that operated much like homeless shelters. Her
endeavor grew into the national Catholic Worker movement, a social justice crusade conducted in revolutionary tones new to the church.
When she died, a multitude came down to the old dwelling off the Bowery to pay their ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Her basic message was stunningly simple: we are all called by God to love one another as He loved us (Forest).
Hospitality, she explained, is simply practicing God's mercy with those around us. Christ is in the stranger, in the person who has nowhere to go and
no one to welcome him. "Those who cannot see the face of Christ in the poor are atheists indeed," she often said. Hardly a day passed in
her adult life when she didn't speak about the works of mercy. For her these weren't simple obligations which the Lord imposed on his followers. Day
brought many gifts to the church–her perseverance, her holiness, her journalist's critical vision–but perhaps her greatest gift was pointing the 20th
century American church in a new direction, to the vulnerable and voiceless among us. She was the presence of the church to many people who
otherwise would have been forgotten. Her example of profound personal spirituality and sacrifice, lay leadership, and uncompromising pacifism makes
Day a daughter of the church and a "Servant of God" worth emulating by all Catholics–and all people of good will (Anonymous).
Voices opposing the process say thatDorothy Day shunned the suggestion she was a saint and believe she would rather have any money

Just War Theory and Pacifism
As a citizen of the United States, I am part of an institution that has been, and is currently, killing people. Whether or not all or some of these killings
are ethically defensible is a difficult question to answer and most people simply never confront the issue. I will evaluate literature on the topic, identify
the different justifications for killing in time of war and decide if they legitimize our actions. After describing some compelling arguments, I will defend
my own position that pacifism is the only ideal which mankind should embrace.
According to traditional just war theory, a just cause must serve peace and not simply protect an unjust status quo. War must be used as a last resort and
all pacifistic approaches must be ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Killing the 5th child however is justifiable because it was a preemptive act and did not bring new evil into the world. The difference between a just
and unjust warrior, to Lackey, is that an unjust warrior doesn't wait until he can be sure there are no other options and someone is going to have to die
before using military force.
The assumption that there are a morally significant achievements that can be made in war seems paramount to just war theory. Taking a life without
certainty of of the necessity of doing so undermines the value of that life. Because international relations provides such an ambiguous and subjective
subject matter to apply just killing theory to, pacifism seems to be the approach most likely to encourage peace.
If someone threatens your life and you have time to deliberate and act, what are you most likely to do? Hunt the person down and kill them as
quickly as possible? No, such an action would be considered immoral. There is no justifiable reason to assume that pacifistic alternatives won't work.
To justify war is not simply to justify killing in such a situation, but also to kill many innocent people in the process of doing so.
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

Bayard Rustin was a nonviolent activist who advocated for...
Bayard Rustin was a nonviolent activist who advocated for societal change during his life that spanned over 75 years from 1912 until 1987. While
history primarily knows Rustin as a leader in the African American civil rights movement, Rustin was prominently involved in pacifist movements
against war and militarization. While he took many roles throughout his 75 year life, history best know him as the chief organizer for the 1963 March
on Washington for Jobs and Freedom––one of the largest protests and most important protests in United States history. But his legacy goes far beyond
organizing one event: Rustin brought a heightened sense of pacifism to the civil rights movement. Through enacting his Quaker values, Rustin infused
his ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Out of wedlock and so young, Julia decided to raise Bayard as her own son because of her religious tradition and the societal stigmas of young mother
head present during the time. Bayard grew up thinking that Florence was his sister. Sexuality and religious values, even before his birth, played a
prominent role in shaping Bayard Rustin's life.
Julia ensured that Rustin understood basic principles embedded within the Society of Friends (a term synonymous with Quaker) including teaching
him "to treat everyone equally––with compassion, understanding, and empathy." Julia was "the chief moral and religious influence" for Bayard and
the most influential in his adolescence. She promoted egalitarianism in everything she did. Rustin would later write about his upbringing: "My
activism did not spring from my being gay, or, for that matter, from my being black. Rather, it is rooted fundamentally in my Quaker upbringing and
the values that were instilled in me by my grandmother." According to Rustin, being a Quaker was a more important factor in shaping his activism
than his black or gay identity. His Quaker values of pacifism and egalitarianism played prominent roles in his upbringing and in his life.
The reality of Rustin's world was in stark contrast to the values of equality he was raised with: Racial segregation was quite prominent in West Chester
during his childhood. Rustin attended a segregated elementary school, and the somewhat

The View of Pacifism Essay
The View of Pacifism
Works Cited Missing
The question of whether or not going to war is appropriate is a pragmatic question that causes controversial answers. A great range of opinions exists
to answer this question. The idea that war is never appropriate is called pacifism. Although pacifists have several beliefs in common, different
varieties and different variations exist. "Pacifism is not a single unitary theory about war and peace but rather a collection of related theories... there
are different varieties of pacifism" (Teichman 1). Pacifists portray a general rejection to the violence that takes place during war.
Particular religious beliefs urge us to consider violence to be wrong. An example is Buddhism. Buddha even ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
6). Most of us would agree that citizens of Japan who had nothing to do with the war effort were innocent. Lives were forever altered by injuries and
deaths. Pacifists are extremely opposed to those deaths, which they view to be unnecessary and unfair.
Pacifists believe, however, that even soldiers fighting in combat can be innocent victims when they are killed in battle. According to Robert L.
Holmes, even if one assumes that a war is vindicated, only one side at a time can be acting justly. It is impossible that both sides can be in the
right. A war exists because one side is in the wrong. Therefore, any person on the side who is fighting for an appropriate, or "right," cause is an
innocent person. That means, "the killing of anyone who has done no wrong relative to the war in question is, in the relevant sense, the killing of an
innocent person" (186). If the war is valid and the cause of battle appropriate, then the soldiers whose lives are taken are just as innocent as the civilians
who have nothing to do with the war.
Innocent victims in a war include both civilians and soldiers fighting for the just side. Pacifists believe that the innumerable deaths of innocent men,
women, and children that take place during war far outweigh any benefit that war could bring. After all, most wars are fought for the sake of human
lives. It is ironic that

The Ethics of War and the War in Iraq Essay
We are here tonight to talk about the ethics of war. Now to some minds this phrase "the ethics of war" will likely cause raised eyebrows. "The ethics of
war? What can ethics possibly have to do with war? Isn't war evil?"
Well, of course it is. War is a terrible thing. The existence and prevalence of war in history is, in fact, ample testimony to the depravity and wickedness
of Man. The conduct of war involves the intentional killing of human beings and the destruction of property. War inevitably causes untold suffering. I
do not think that any rational person can ever say without qualification that war is good. War is something that we would all rather do without. And as
Christians it is our earnest hope that someday God, in his mercy ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Of course, it is also possible that both sides in a given war may be unjust. But, to reiterate, there can never be a just war in which both sides are
justified in fighting the war. At least one side in any war will be unjust. When we look at the criteria for a just war later, this will become more clear.
Now I have already indicated that I believe that war can sometimes be morally justified. So, it should be obvious that I reject pacifism and embrace the
JWT. So let me now turn to discuss pacifism in more detail and explain why I reject it and why you ought to reject it too.
An Evaluation of Pacifism
Let me first address Christian pacifism, the view that Christians should not participate in war, though it is morally permissible for non–Christians to do
so. In other words, those who advocate Christian pacifism recognize that human government has a responsibility to protect its citizens from harm, and
that this governmental responsibility may require that a country go to war to fend off foreign aggression. In such cases, those who hold this view
would say that most citizens of the country (the non–Christian citizens) can go to war, but not the Christian citizens.
Why would someone hold to this position? Ordinarily what is permissible for people in general is permissible for everyone. If it is just and right for
the non–Christian citizens to fight off a foreign invader, why would it be wrong for Christians to help out? Well, according to

Essay about Violence and Christianity
Violence and Christianity 'If a Christian loved his neighbour he would not fight.'
There are many arguments agreeing and disagreeing with this statement.
The bible teaches Christians that they should not fight. An example of this is "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." This is
telling Christians that they should love everyone and not fight them. Another biblical teaching is "If someone strikes you on ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
This is an example that some Christians follow. They choose to follow Jesus and the example that he gave.
There are other Christians that believe that under certain circumstances war is eligible. One of these circumstances is if the war is a Holy War. When
people fight a Holy War they believe that they have God on their side. An example of a Holy War is the Crusade. This was between the Christians and
the Muslims fighting for the Holy Land–Palestine. This is different from Pacifism as this type of Christian believes that a certain type of war is
acceptable– although it is the last resort.
Another type of war that some Christians find acceptable is a Just war. There are seven criteria that a war must pass to be known as a just war. These
seven criteria are:
–The war must be declared by the head of state.
–A just cause is required. Those attacked must deserve to be attacked.
–The reason for the war must be to advance good and not evil.
–The war must be the last resort.
–There must be a good chance of

What Does It Mean To Say That All Christians Should Be...
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.
Some Christians believe achieving peace means rejecting the use of violence. Christians who hold this reject this view focus on Jesus teaching on
'love thy neighbor', even when Jesus faced his own enemies (the Romans) Jesus gave himself up to death. Also, when Jesus own follower slices off
an ear of a servants, Jesus heals the ear of a servant and criticizes his follower for using violence to interfere with God's plan. This shows that Jesus used
pacifism instead of violence and that means all Christians should be ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Jesus tells us to love our enemies, to love him as you love yourself and part of the ten commandments says; do not murder. 'Love your enemies and
pray for those who persecute you', for instance Desmond T Doss. Doss was part of the American army who refused to use any weapons and kill
anyone during World War I; he saved approximately seventy–five people's lives, without the use of violence. Desmond is an example of a Christian
pacifist. But in the Bible sometimes violence is the last option and you have to resort to it to find peace. 'They will beat their swords into plough
shares and their spares into pruning hooks'. Therefore not all Christians should be pacifists.
In conclusion, all Christians should be pacifists but is highly impossible because some of the teachings in the bible state that violence and war is
good. As a Muslim I believe God is the only one to judge and is forgiving. If I do murder god will judge me and no one else. On the other hand I
believe not just Christians but everyone should be pacifists because the world would be a better place and no one would have to worry about
anything. However, there is every bad in

Short Story : ' Entertaining Angels '
Nichole Berkheimer
LAS 492
Professor Marci
December 12, 2016
Dorothy Day The film, Entertaining Angels, shows the life of Dorothy Day. She is an editor, religious figure, women's right activist, anti
–war activist
and journalist. She grew up living a bohemian lifestyle and then she became Catholic. She was an activist that worked for social causes as pacifism and
women's suffrage through the prism of the Catholic Church. She was a co–founder of The Catholic Workers; it is a newspaper that promotes Catholic
teachings. Day was involved in the Catholic Workers Movement that looked at issues of social justice. In addition, Day opened her home to help others
in need. According to Aristotle and Ashe, Dorothy Day would be considered a good woman. Day is a courageous woman because she was faced with
poverty and dispute and that did not stop her from helping others around her. During the film it showed Dorothy being poor herself. She was
working doing any job she could get and living with families in exchange for doing domestic work in their home. She was so focused on making
changes that she never let her poverty status affect her. When she opened her home to all the poor people that needed help she put all of her money
she made towards helping them. She was a strong woman for giving all she had to the Catholic Workers because at this time many Catholics were
poor. Dorothy Day was shamed by the cardinal and other Catholics. The cardinal went to Day and told her she needed to

Pacifism And Anabaptism In The 16th Century Europe
Introduction Life in 16th century Europe was short, difficult and tumultuous. One hundred years after Luther started the Protestant Reformation by
nailing his 95 thesis to the door of the Wittenberg church, religious and state relationships were ever shifting and evolving. Traditions and beliefs
were being threatened by new discoveries and schools of thought while those with contradicting beliefs were singled out for persecution. Food and
shelter were not guaranteed, especially for the poor, and disease and war were an ever–looming dark cloud of death and destruction. The members of
the newly developing religious group called Anabaptism were often the main target of persecution and were faced with the options of migrating,
recanting and most harshly, execution. They had many reasons and opportunities to resist and revolt using violent measures, as was customary at the
time, but instead they held fast in their pacifistic beliefs, rejecting any and all violence. The 16th century Anabaptists demonstrated their dedication to
pacifism even when challenged with scripture that opposed their beliefs, persecution and war.
Definition of Pacifism Anabaptists were often described as pacifists due to their rejection of the sword and opposition to violence. However, it is
important to note that pacifism is a moderately new term, coined in the 20th century and that their beliefs are perhaps better explained using the
terms absolute pacifism and nonresistance, or Gewaltlosigkeit in German. Pacifism is "[t]he belief that war and violence are unjustifiable and that all
disputes should be settled by peaceful means." It can be seen as an active stance against violence, specifically war, to settle disputes, whereas non
resistance implies a passive stance, avoiding involvement in any form of violence or event that could lead to violence. Pacifism can be religious or
non–religious, political or not, and is "anchored largely in a basic belief in the goodness and perfectibility of man and the reformability of the general
human society on rational grounds." On the other hand, nonresistance is seen as "an outward manifestation of the peace of God within the soul, and is
the peace of God applied to our relation with our fellow man."

Just War and Pacifism Essay
The question "Can war be justified?" plagued mankind since the first war. The Just War Theory holds that war can be just. The theory has evolved
for thousands of years and modern theorists, such as Michael Walzer, author of Just and Unjust Wars, puts forth criteria for a just war, such as jus ad
bellum and jus in bello. Jus ad bellum includes reasons for going to war, and jus in bello deals with the people who wage war. The criteria in jus ad
bellum include; just cause, declaration by a proper authority, right intention, a reasonable chance of success, the end proportional to the means, and war
as a last resort. Jus in bello includes keeping innocents outside the field of war, and limiting the amount of force used. Just War Theorists... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
In Locke's "State of nature" the government's primary objective is to protect individuals. For example, if one was in a state of nature and a gang of
savages attacked him or her, he or she would do anything necessary to defend themselves. They would then form a group with a common objective of
protection. With life now insured, the group can pursue liberty, happiness and estate. Just War Theorists claim the governments of today are essentially
the same, only on a larger scale.
Walzer and other Just War Theorists hold that self
–defense justifies pre–emptive strikes. If an outside force is obviously endangering a state, it is then
justifiable to stop the attack before it happens. Pre–emptive strikes can prevent a future war that has worse effects. Walzer has what he calls a "general
formula" for a just pre–emptive strike, "States may use military force in the face of threats of war, wherever the failure to do so would seriously risk
their territorial integrity and political independence" (87). Walzer uses an example to justify his "general formula" of a justifiable pre–emptive strike.
He claims that the Six Day War in 1967 was indeed a just pre–emptive attack on Egypt by Israel. Israel was under real threat because Egyptian
President Nasser massed an army and was positioning for attack, while simultaneously closing the Straits of Tiran to Israel, and publicizing his goal to
destroy Israel. Israel went

Gandhi 's Theory Of The Indian Subcontinent 's Enslavements
In 1906, a young Mohandas Karmachand Gandhi, carried out his earliest deed of Satyagraha–a doctrine to practice passive or nonviolent resistance. He
was successful in standing up against the Transvaal province's government in the Republic of South Africa. It was only two years later when Gandhi
gained access to a letter written by the renowned Russian author, Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy to the editor of the Free Hindustan newspaper in South
Africa. In this letter, referred to as Letter to a Hindu, Tolstoy addresses the roots of the Indian subcontinent's enslavements by the British as well as
methods to alleviate it.
Intrigued by the letter, Gandhi wrote to Tolstoy, asking for permission to translate the letter to Guajarati, in an effort to share Tolstoy's wisdom with the
others in the community. Gandhi continually sought advice from Tolstoy from that point onwards; the correspondence between the two went on until
1910 when Tolstoy passed away. The letter profoundly shaped young Gandhi's Satyagraha ideology, setting a robust basis that Gandhi further develops.
Tolstoy starts each segment of the letter with a quote from one of the four Vedas, the Bible, Vivekananda, the Hindu Kural, or Krishna. Each quote
speaks of the chief themes addressed in Tolstoy's letter: nonviolent resistance and love. Krishna, for instance, is the god that personifies love and
obliterates obscenity and agony. Born to institute love, Krishna is the most quoted of the five. Vivekananda is a 19th

Compare And Contrast Conservatism And Non Pacifism
This article expresses to both pacifists and non–pacifists that one does not have to settle for the world's current state of affairs regarding peace and
stresses the importance of active resistance against evil. It puts forth several ideas to aid in the progression of a more peaceful society through the
reduction of military force. This article acknowledges that many Americans believe that there is no solution to the current military system. In response,
it argues that the answer to this problem is the practical implementation of religious truth and love in human relations. It is my contention that through
a thorough exploration of the article itself, the circumstances surrounding the article, and by investigation of how it relates to themes... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
This group has strived to achieve peace through publishing a series of works thoroughly discussing problems of peace around the world and the
methods to be used within these societies to reduce conflict. Such articles include The United States and the Soviet Union (1949) and Toward
Disarmament Through Security (1952). The current issue is called Speak Truth to Power and deals with the innermost truth of the Quakers and
comes to the understanding of three aspects of power which are those who are of authority to make decisions on war and peace, Americans and their
standard of behaviour which sets then sets the standard for those who create and enforce policies regarding peace, and last is power itself and how it
impacts the past century. These articles were approved by a committee board as a means to stimulate discussion surrounding peace which in hopes will
ultimately lead to changes in the policies surrounding peace. While the article thoroughly discusses steps for pacifism to take to better society, it admits
to the lack of pacifist input in recent discussions of peace but expresses that the pacifist opinion has been deemed irrelevant in discussions of these
matters for possible reasons like seeming ignorant to the sacrifices that must be made in certain instances in the name of peace or

##ifism In Virginia Woolf'sThoughts On Peace In An Air Raid?
Virginia Woolf maintains her pacifism as an arm of "thinking," rather than physical fighting. She writes in her essay "Thoughts on Peace in an Air
Raid, "unless we can think peace into existence we...will lie in the same darkness" (Woolf 242). In arguing the same point, she mentions that "there is
another way of fighting for freedom without arms; we can fight with the mind" (Woolf 242) which indicates a pacifism that is not tolerant of violence
in any capacity. Instead her essay argues that violence in the hearts of men is a result of the "subconscious Hitlerism that holds us down. It is the
desire for aggression; the desire to dominate and enslave" (Woolf 243). Woolf argues primarily that women are simply not directly responsible forwar
because "there is no woman in the Cabinet; nor any responsible post" and that "all idea makers who are in a position to ideas effective are men"
(Woolf 242). She is, however, is quick to dispel the idea that women must, as a result, "bury the head in the pillow...and cease this futile activity of
idea–making" (Woolf 242). Woolf calls women to action within the arenas that they operate, in this case the "tea–table" (among others) and stresses that
women must think more even though they are not able to effect broad change based upon their thinking. Woolf's argument is to fight mentally; to
"think against the current, not with it" (Woolf 243). In her essay, Woolf agrees with Freud's notion of "Thanatos" being theinstinct that drives men to
violence. In her essay, she quotes those who name Hitler as being "aggressiveness, tyranny, the insane love of power made manifest" (Woolf 243).
Both Woolf and Freud recognize the inherent idea that men are driven by instinct; in Woolf's essay that is subconscious Hitlerism of Englishmen, and
in Freud's letter that is Thanatos. War, aggression and bloodlust provide men with an outlet for these "ancient instincts, instincts fostered and
cherished by education and tradition," (Woolf 244) as Woolf writes. Freud would agree along these lines, and may go further to say that these
instincts are a necessary part of the 20th century, so long as national identity still exists. This idea is made clearer when Freud writes that, "Moreover,
all forms of war

Pros Of Nonviolent Activism
"There is no such thing as defeat in nonviolence" ("Cesar Chavez Quotes," 2017.) This quote by nonviolent labor activist Cesar Chavez characterizes
one of the many practical arguments for nonviolence: the success rate of nonviolent activism, which has been found to be significantly higher than for
violent efforts, and that nonviolent movements that fail lead to a higher rate of success in the future. Although many countries and groups still choose
violent methods, numerous studies and examples have demonstrated the practical advantages of nonviolent activism. First, studies such as a 2011
study by Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan have demonstrated that nonviolent movements have a significantly higher success rate than nonviolent
movements. Second, numerous examples, such as the United States' violent involvement in the Middle East, demonstrate that violent endeavors by
countries, also known as hard power, are extremely costly, particularly from a monetary perspective compared to diplomatic efforts, known as soft
power. Third, the field of peace psychology, through examples such as Post–Traumatic Stress Disorder found in people who participate in violent
activities, demonstrates that violence is not inherent in humans and that significant psychological harm can result from violent actions. Together, these
practical arguments demonstrate that nonviolent actions are superior to violent actions. Over the past few decades, numerous studies have
demonstrated that that success

The Communist Manifesto Calling On The Workers Of The World
Few events in history capture the attention of scholars and the general populace alike more than revolutionary contentious politics. Revolts and social
movements have for centuries brought about the most radical of changes to the political order of societies, at times even engulfing entire regions of
the world in a contagious, fevered upheaval. Revolutionaries have fought not only against political systems and institutions such as aristocratic and
colonial rule; they have also fought for their beliefs, values, and ideals. In 1848, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published The Communist Manifesto
calling on the workers of the world to unite. Revolutionaries radicalized by the ideas of liberalism and nationalism took to the barricades as socialists
promoting the concept of regional and world revolution – helping to spark the modern spread of the notion referred to as revolutionary "waves". What
factors are attributed with influencing an individual to rise up against an entrenched political system and possibly risk their life to completely upend
the historical order of things and wipe the slate clean to enable present and future generations to create their own reality? Until recently, the power of
the people and their ability to mobilize and demand had often been underestimated. Thomas Schelling once reflected that tyrants and subjects are in
somewhat symmetrical positions. Subjects are capable of denying the tyrant most of what it wants through refusing to collaborate. The

Project For Perpetual Peace
'War. War never changes.' The tagline from the popular video game series, Fallout, suggesting that although the weapons used and how wars are
fought my change, conflict in human nature never changes. Is war an inevitable part of global politics? According to Immanuel Kant the answer is
no. Kant would have us believe that a perpetual peace is possible. In this essay I will discuss whether war is an inevitable part of global politics, and
whether or not perpetual peace is possible, with reference to the work of Immanuel Kant. The body of my essay will consist of four main sections.
What is meant by war and peace, in the global political perspective, Immanuel Kant's position on the questions, and other theories and ideologies that
would seek to... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
(Waltz, 1979, p.103) Neo–realists thus explain that state's serve their own interests in the international system by following a strict code of self help
due to the absence of any authority above them. Possibilities for peace in the neo–realist perspective which is pragmatic in its view of international
politics amidst anarchy and security competition are limited. Unlike their neo–liberal counterparts, neo–realists are pragmatic when it comes to
discussions of peace in international

War Pacifism
The question of whether war is justified or not has been debated through time. There is the side that war is not justified since humanity ultimately gets
hurt by war. The other side is that war is justified because in it humane to have issues and the only way to solve some issues for the better of the
world is to have a war. Thomas Aquinas and George Orwell believe that people can justify offensive warfare, but Mo Tzu is in opposition of war.
War can either be seen as it is self defense and justifiable, or that it is never justifiable to hurt one another. Thomas Aquinas wrote "Summa
Theologica", a summary of theology that discusses what makes a war become justified. George Orwell was a considered socialist and political liberal,
who was also ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The weakness of pacifism greatly outweighs the strengths of pacifism because pacifism in war does not solve any real problems. (Topic) People
have to realize that no matter what, people are going to be in some way fighting one another. (Point) George Orwell in "Pacifism and the War"
wrote about how pacifism is ignorance because "the idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on
food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security" (Orwell 509). (Evidence) People
have to be completely ignorant to be living off of what has been provided to them by fighting, because they don't realize that they wouldn't have all
they do without the wars going on. (Explanation 1) People have to be fighting in some sort of way to obtain the freedom and utilities for all. The
world does not have an unlimited amount of what is needed, and so we must fight for our resources. (Explanation 2) An educated person would be
able to realize this and be able to pick a side that would benefit them, because war is unavoidable and therefore justified. George Orwell correctly
describes how joining in on a war effort is better than disregarding the responsibility that people have to solve issues. (Explanation 3) Being a pacifist
does not make the war any more justifiable, it just ignores it.

Pacifism
Self–Immolation as Pacifism: Violence for Peace Keown speaks of the construction of violence and pacifism within Buddhism assumes an inherent
codependence between nonviolence and pacifism. For Keown to claim that pacifism seems not align with violent actions taken in the name of peace
(pacifism), he must first assume that pacifism is uniquely nonviolent (2005, 83). Yet, as the writings and lived experiences of Sister Nhat Chi Mai
display, pacifism, or a turning away from violence, can be anything but nonviolent. Sister Chi Mai choose to step out the dichotomous understanding of
nonviolent pacifism versus violence. Instead, she (re)engaged with notions of pacifism, violence, suffering, and compassion to reimagine violent
pacifism within a modern society. Pacifist actions within a Buddhist setting can, and do, take on violent means in order to promote peace and
compassion for all life.Pacifism does not inherently exclude all types of violent action. Sister Chi Mai , as well as many others, engaged with the
practice of self–immolation to protest against the violence with Vietnam during the resistance war against America (2007, 103). The practice of
self–immolation is not without controversy. For those opposing self–immolation,... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The self–immolation of Sister Chi Mai demonstrates a form of violent pacifism. Through the violent act of self–immolation Sister Chi Mai called for
peace, life and compassion within Vietnam. Self–immolation does not neatly fit into the dichotomous understanding of nonviolent pacifism and
violence. Instead, self–immolation calls for a reconsideration of our dichotomous framing. Self–immolation is pacifist, but it is not nonviolent, yet is
not simply violence. Self–immolation occupies a gray space of disruption, as displayed by the self–immolation of Sister Chi Mai and the after effects
of doing

Pacifism Essay
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.
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 ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
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.
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.
Far from ignoring the problems associated with and cause by war, they actively work to solve these problems in creative and effective ways. They
often review and debate the issues involved in current development and are responsible for bringing many hidden issues to the public eye, and their
work is effective.
There are a number of other benefits the non–violence and pacifist policy has. They believe that wars only lead to

The Two Concepts Of Just War Theory And Pacifism
There are two types of theories that are related to war. They are: 'Just War Theory' and 'Pacifism'. Just war theory (Jus In Bello– "Law of war") is a
belief and a tradition on the ethics of war and peace. It justifies how and why are fought. The justification can be separated into historical or theoretical.
The founders of "Just War Theory" are Aristotle, Cicero and Augustine. The historical aspects/ the just war theory deals with agreements or rules
that are applied for a long time. For example, The UN Charter and The Hague and Geneva Conventions are international agreements that were
organised by Just War Tradition and was considered whether it should be changed or not. Therefore, it is said that the tradition is very influential,
controlling both morality and legally discussions about the war. There are 6 criteria / principles of Just War Theory. By fulfilling these criteria's, the
government/country can go to war. Those are, firstly it is "Just Cause". It is the most important rule out of the 6 principles. It is said that only if
there is a right reason to go to war, then a state can't go to war. The second principle of Just War Theory is the "Right Intention". This principle's
criteria explain about why wanting to go to war. They cannot just go to war because they want to have war with other countries. The government
needs to have an actual motivation and needs to be morally appropriate in order to go to war, for instance, to defend the country. The third principle is
talking about "proper authority and public ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The rest of the three principles are consequentialist, which is considered as a consequence when declaring a war. Therefore, Just War Theory is very
reliable providing both deontology and consequentialism requirements to the issues of

The War On Israeli Occupation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Ginger Martin

More from Ginger Martin (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The War On Israeli Occupation