The debate between pacifism and use of violence is a subject that is much discussed. Pacifism is the opposition to the use of force under any circumstances. When one broaches this issue, one is confronted with questions like practicality versus morality, and the comparison of lives lost in war with the liberty or values lost by avoiding war. .
Pacifists believe that violence is not justified under any circumstances. Life is sacrosanct, and no values or beliefs allow you to take the life of another. However, when someone is using violence to encroach upon another person's rights, or to take other lives, it is hard to advocate complete abstinence from violence. One can argue that doing this would merely allow the rampant spread of evil in the world. .
There rarely emerges a victor from war. Both sides end up suffering, and issues are often left unsettled by war. The first world war, for example, led to the second world war, which left most of the world in devastation. Often the innocent suffer, like the people of Hiroshima, when the USA dropped the atomic bomb. However, there have been times when war helped to change things for the better. The Second World War prevented the spread of fascism through Europe. Had the Nazis not been resisted by violence, we might now be living in a Nazi world. The Gulf War also served a purpose - it led to Saddam Hussein's withdrawal from Kuwait. In these cases, had there been no action, millions of people would have been oppressed, and the "bad people" would triumph.
To contradict this, there are arguments that pacifism can solve most issues. Pacifists do not accept things the way they are, or run away from affairs. They simply believe that violence begets violence. Mahatma Gandhi used a method that he called "Satyagraha" to further his pacifism. The ultimate goal of Satyagraha is winning the opponent over with love. Satyagrahis make their point by suffering. They know that they might be physically harmed, perhaps even killed, but do not retaliate against their opponents.
Are we Ever Morally Justified in Breaking the Law? Is anyone ever morally justified in breaking the law? ... The insecurity regarding what you can keep leads to violence. ... Van Dusen claims that civil disobedience courts violence... (Van Dusen) Van Dusen argues people should not execute actions that encourage violence. ...
After thinking about things that have happened over time, and things that have happened recently in the world, you could assume that it is at times justified to have political violence against your government. ... So, in the since of violence against the government, this is a perfect example of when it is justified, and necessary to have, in order to have a greater quality of life, and a successful life of your nation and government. ... In the since of a democracy I do not think that it is justified to have political violence. ... If you were to use violence in a political manor in the ...
Some leaders have felt that violent acts can be justified while others strongly disagree. ... Violence only causes more violence, and hatred only leads to more hate. ... Gandhi does not feel that violence can be justified whether it is done for religious purposes or for personal satisfaction (Document 1). ... He led a non-violent protest against the British and ever though the British beat him and his people they did not fight them back. ... Violence, whether in war or not, cannot be justified. ...
Personally, there is no such thing as justified violence but in the eyes of others a belt whipping, a spanking, a slapping, and other forms of violent punishment are justified. So therefore, there is no one true distinction between justified and unjustified violence. ... Maybe hinting to the reader that the spur of the moment violence may not be justified in her eyes. ... Hitting on the other hand, is not justified violence to Fisher. ... This was the first time she had ever been "hit". ...
Video games have become more refined, more realistic, and more gruesome than ever. ... Further evidence that exposure to such violence effects youth negatively is provided by the article "How Violent Video Games Communicate Violence.... It was found that in almost every game, killing was justified and players were rewarded for their acts of violence (Hartmann, Krakowajak, and Tsay-Vogel). ... Lastly, players are rewarded for their acts of violence, and this is the largest and most true form of distortion of consequence to violence. Violence is such a relevant part of video games, and on...
If people feel that war is justified do they believe that bullying is sometimes justified or "okay". In school they teach us never to resort to violence and that violence never solves anything. ... Violence is okay if you have a whole country behind you but if it's just you and your fists its wrong. ... Wars have reason but this does not make them justified. ... Nothing good ever comes out of war. ...
Some believe that violence in movies can promote violence in reality. ... Viewers are easily manipulated by violence in movies psychologically. ... Also, when violence in movies is seen as justified, such as when the hero slays the evil villain, aggressive and even destructive behavior is encouraged. ... Lawrence Freedman, a University of Chicago forensic psychiatrist said, "No matter how powerful the visual depiction on the television screen, no 'normal' person would ever be moved to this kind of behavior" (Garbarino). ... The movies don't encourage violence directly, but ...
Some believe that violence in movies can promote violence in reality. ... Viewers are easily manipulated by violence in movies psychologically. ... Also, when violence in movies is seen as justified, such as when the hero slays the evil villain, aggressive and even destructive behavior is encouraged. ... Lawrence Freedman, a University of Chicago forensic psychiatrist said, "No matter how powerful the visual depiction on the television screen, no 'normal' person would ever be moved to this kind of behavior" (Garbarino). ... The movies don't encourage violence directly, but ...