Anti-War Pacifism

In the case of military ethics, Killing is justifiable. “From a faithful perspective, while islam accepts war as a fact of life in this world, an armed conflict is also likely to result in human casualties” (Sekar). Therefore, war will have an outcome of death, but not exactly wanting death. “During war our moral duties do not disappear: Actions deliberately contrary

St. Augustine provided comments on morality of war from the Christian point of view (railing against the love of violence that war can engender) as did several critics in the intellectual flourishing from the 9th to 12th centuries. Just war theorists remind warriors and politicians alike that the principles of justice following war should be universalizable and morally ordered and that winning should not provide a license for imposing unduly harsh or punitive measures or that state or commercial interests should not dictate the form of new peace. “The attraction for jus post bellum thinkers is to return to the initial justice of the war”. This means that war is considered as self-defense.

Throughout history, many people have debated over the ethics of war and peace which lead to the creation of the just war theory. There have been a number of wars in the past and even in today’s world that have been proven to be unjustified by the means of this theory. Any war in my opinion, is hard to justify due to the violence, destructiveness, the nature of humans doing during war, and the impact it has on humans and the world. However, I have chosen to discuss why America’s decision to jump in to World War II was justified and by proving it by using the just war theory, mainly focusing on jus ad bellum.

Overall, there will always be droughts whether during war it is best to be pacifist or anti-pacifist. We can forecast that it is best to be anti-pacifist during any war that we may be faced with. This is what’s best because talk about pacifist will always aid the enemy in various ways from encouraging them, making us easy targets, and the preparation of it. We have to be aware that sometimes war is the only answer to defeat evil and establish peace. Before people start judging how bad war is and inhumane they should consider how many evil people we have gotten rid of before they were able to do more harm. It will always be up to the people weather or not they should be pacifist or anti pacifist during a war but we can conclude that pacifism will always aid the

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.

An absolute pacifist claims that it is never right to take part in war, even in self-defence. They believe that peace is intrinsically good and should be upheld whether as a duty or on that it is better for humans to live at peace than war. They think that the value of human life is so high that nothing can justify killing a person deliberately. These pacifists claim that they would prefer to die rather than raise their fists to protect themselves. This is because; killing in self-defence is ‘an evil that makes the moral value of the victim’s life less important than our own’. They rely on the fact that there can be no justification for killing which stems from the scriptures of the bible ‘thou shalt not kill’ (Exodus 20:13). Absolute pacifists usually hold this view as a basic moral or spiritual principle, without regard to the results of war or violence, however they could logically argue that violence always leads to worse results than non-violence in other words, there can never be any good that comes out of war or violence.

Pacifism in the Twentieth Century, an expanded version of Peter Brocks 1970 book, is a cogent survey that has a remarkable knack for clarifying complex issues. It is sensitive to the issues of pacifism but does not fall into the trap that so many other similar studies do, of uncritically accepting the arguments of anti-war groups. On the contrary, Brock and Nigel Young directly address the contradictions within the movement, and the degree to which inconsistency and disunity have often been near-fatal weaknesses. Its one significant shortcoming is its bias towards pacifism in the Anglo-American countries. The movement

But I do not believe that he is a pacifist. A pacifist

One of the components of war that make it justful is that the cause of the war must be just. In other words, the attacking country must inflict lasting, grave, and certain damage for it to qualify as just to fight back. Also if basic human rights are being violated by a group of people then it is just for another entity to decide to go to war to free the victims of the inhumane aggressors and their torments upon the innocent human beings.

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.

The idea of non violence has stemmed off Gandhi in many forms. Gandhi once quoted “Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man” and he fulfilled what he said.

Many of the core beliefs of conscientious objection derive from the teachings or beliefs of pacifism. Pacifism has been a system of thinking and living for hundreds of years, and, in the 20th century many objection and pacifistic movements have sprung up all around the nation, more so than in any other time. Pacifism and conscientious objection in the United States have been moral issues that have fallen under question due to the belief of the participants that killing, war, and the act of violence is wrong and immoral.

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.

war is a Holy War. When people fight a Holy War they believe that they

Russell began to develop a pacifist attitude. Pacifism is a movement against war, violence, or militarism. During the war Russell stated “When the war came I felt as if I heard the voice of God. I knew that it was my business to protest, however futile protest might be. My whole nature was involved.” (F-8) He used this as a sort of calling to bring forth his beliefs and gain followers to resist the war. He suggested that the Great Powers of Europe were blind by their government and Russell said “he was quite unable to accept the superficial melodramatic explanations of the catastrophe which were promulgated by all the belligerent governments.”(F-6) Russell was a major peace activist who added on to the era of modernism. After the war he was disliked by the church because he stated that “if God exists, it was surely impossible that an all powerful, all knowing, being would be so vain as to be offended by those who doubt his existence.” (M-3) In this statement Russell questioned the will of God and this made it very hard for him to attract followers outside of his own group. Russell had a meaningful cause but he did not have enough followers to make an impact as the church had done for so many years. Although Russell was completely against warfare and violence he knew that war among humans was inevitable as he concluded that “fighting and killing are among the natural