Pacifist Philosophy in Response to the Idea of War Essay

in that respect atomic number 18 a variety of different philosophical interpretations of the view of war, notwithstanding what it delegacy to be at war. lovable in war is broadly described as creation the resort to delirium in localize to attain political give ups. War is described by some as being a tyrannical crime, in that power hungry individuals f all a look sight of their clean-livings and resort to unethical wildness committed against new(prenominal)s (Walzer, 2006). From this perspective, whiz notes the assertion that on that point is n incessantly a sizeable originator to oblige in such brutal behavior as to disparage another(prenominal) individual.However, thither ar supposed potential weaknesses in this theory, due to the position that nonviolence at all costs target be viewed as a complete lack of self defense (White, 2008). In both regard, the pacifist philosophy holds that there is never a good reason to engage in combat with other people, that true consequences atomic number 18 rear solely through nonaggressive heart and soul. In light of the pacifist ideology, the subject of war has no place, even in the verbalism be and real violence, and the best route in the face of danger is to resist act in the cruelty.It is not always easy to attempt to manage a cherry-red situation in pacifistic ways, non- counterproductive ways, yet there ar a myriad of creative ways to address the problem of violent people, ways which do not bind aggressive legal opinions and carry outs. In bon ton to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the pacifist position, it is essential to engage in comprehensive seek and thought about the meaning of peace at all costs. passivismThe principle ideas which serve as the conceptual framework of the pacifist private road center on the assertion that war is dictatorial cruelty derived from malefic thoughts and actions and that peaceful behaviors are the still way in which to effective ly administer this brutality. Practical pacifism affirms that resorting to violence is not the answer to the problem of violence in the world, that violence should be absolutely avoided and peaceful means of resultant role oriented action 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 acc utilised of the crime of murder. From a pacifist perspective, the idea of using violence as a means to eradicate violence is simply unreasonable and points to an illogical frame of thought and action. The pacifist would be likely to cond cardinal a means of stoppage 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, ane can take the interaction between and husband and wife or mother and child. When a person becomes angry enough to yell or hit, then the answer is not to yell or hit spinal column in response, but rather to be calm and communicate with the other person in figuring out a solution. This kind of civilised action and communication can go a long 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 in that respect are many strengths of the pacifist movement, in that the people who support peace at all costs are able to stand up a great many solutions to violence which are centered on ensuring the absolute safety and wellbeing of all people. It is important to con steadr the ideas generated by pacifists, as they directly speak to the absolute moral concept of non-harm.deliverer Christ himself is quoted as saying, You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, but I say to you, Do not resist cardinal who is evil but if any integrity strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other alike, described as wiz of the most revolutionary sermons he ever gave (Ellens, 2007). This regnant commentary demands that people utilize the supremacy of restraint when set about with violence, even at a time, like today, when major pietisms condone the use of goods and services 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 need for love, the command to offer ones cheek to ones aggressor. With all of the available options for peace, including communication, protest, boycotting, arrest, and rehabilitation, there is a known and authorized autocratic effect which can be produced through the use of more spicy modes of action than violence.The media today is full of popular artists who tout violence as a masculine or commanding 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 drawn into the problem itself. The only way to end the violence in the world is by consignment to faith in the inherent uprightness of humanity, to staunchly support the idea that solutions can be found which do not bear harm to other people. Criminality is basically defined as causing harm, and it makes no sense to become a criminal in the desire to visualise justice.Weaknesses There are those people who claim that there are weaknesses in the pacifist philosophy, that absolute peace defies the need to defend oneself from harm. People who do not support absolute pacifism claim that one of the only ways to address the problem of rogue states is to resort to war (Jacobson, 2007). Engaging in the violence of war is supposedly justified as an ill-fated effect of having no other option but to defend oneself and ones country from the violent actions of others. To s ome people, pacifism may come out to be weak.In response to an event such as the terrorist feeler on the World 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 bad reasons and some people for good reasons. This simple yet elusive way of thinking is highly selfish and negative, in that one person, or one team, is the victim, the oppressed, the suffering agent, the other person or team is the tyrant, the oppressor, the harmful agent. In this mode of judgment, there is only one inculpatory 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, particularly 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 little to solve the core issues of the criminality of causing harm to others.rebutter Although some people believe that the pacifist ideology is weak and mayhap even a pathetic mode of political action, a powerful case can be made in support of peaceful decision making, decisions which are strong and influential while also being relatively calm and diplomatic. There is no government which has successfully demilitarized the ir country, no political system which has shifted to a purely diplomatic strategy for achieving peaceful end results (Djerejian, 2007).Due 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 interesting phenomena it would be to witness a region where guns were systematically removed from all persons, homes, and cars, even if it meant being chap 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 response is to let a child hit until the child fetchs that the parent is not going to hit back, to allow the child to realize that the parent is all loving and totally dependable. Conclusion The political solution for all indemnity making is always going to be a peaceful solution, whether politicians realize it or not.The leaders 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 desire 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 trusty for being an agent of change in support of pacifism. There are very few truly innocent 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 current atrocities being committed by governments across the globe, and to resolutely stand for the implementation of peaceful solu tions. 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, Winning Peace A New Strategic armorial bearing for U. S. Public Diplomacy in the Arab & Muslim World. Lulu. com. Ellens, H. (2007). The destructive power of religion violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Greenwood Publishing Group. Fiala, A. (2004). Practical pacifism. Algora Publishing. Jacobson, A. (2007). Nonviolence as a Way of Knowing in the Public School Classroom. In Factis kiss of peace 1(1), 38-54. Walzer, M. (2006). Just and unjust wars a moral argument with historical illustrations. staple fibre Books. White, J. (2008). Contemporary Moral Problems. Cengage Learning.