Political Violence : The Philosophy Of Nonviolence And Violence

A/N Sorry for the wait, I had to go to a party plus I just got Overwatch.

Nonviolence has exactly the opposite effect. If, for every violent act committed against us, we respond with nonviolence, we attract people’s support. We can gather the support of millions who have a conscience and would rather see a nonviolent resolution to problems.” (Chavez 1). Chavez compares non-violence to violence to show why non-violence is a safer and more humane way of solving problems within society.

According to our text there are in fact two types of pacifists. Those who feel that violence is never the answer and those who feel that violence can be justified. On pacifism, Lackey (2014) explained that some pacifists are willing to resort to violence in certain acceptable situations. Those situations are vague but a few examples are

Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.

Throughout history, many conflicts have happened, some with resolution, and other without. We often tend to think of solving conflicts with war, since most of our history classes are based around World War I, World War II, and so forth, but many conflicts were fought, and successfully won using nonviolent resistance. Many people would use Gandhi as a well known example. Gandhi’s plan of civil disobedience revolved around this big idea called “satyagraha,” which he explains as, “a satyagrahi should always possess civility and humility, qualities that indicated self-control and an humble approach to truth” (Gandhi 50). He later explains that satyagraha is “truth-force” and that truth is soul and spirit, or “spirit-force.” “It excludes the use of violence because man is not capable of knowing the absolute truth and, therefore, not competent to punish” (51). He used this strategy to fight for indian independence. Many other incidents in the world have been fought using civil disobedience, including Women’s Suffrage.

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.”

When I was six years old I accepted Christ. I grew up in a Christian home and was given a Christian education. My faith has been a big part of my life. It has gotten me through the good, the bad and the ugly. There have been dry seasons in my faith, but even in those times God has remained faithful. Each day God is teaching me something new about who He is. He is continually growing me to be more like Him.

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

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

Non-violent direct action can also be used for political purposes. Protestors can often be found outside of government buildings demanding change. It also works well in this aspect because it can be more powerful than the use of violence. The destruction and anguish are generally what is heard about not what the purpose it when violence is used. Non-violent action is superior at getting the issues

While when discussing the history of the world’s power forces, violence makes for stimulating discussion, other tactics were put to good use, one of these alternatives being non-violence. With the guidance of three worldwide heroes - Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela - with contagious optimism and high spirits, it became apparent just how much of a difference could be made carried out through non-violent terms. Mankind was introduced to another way to resolve major problems just as effectively, if not more, than violence could.

Paris in the 1920s radiated a feeling of enthusiastic optimism and thus attracted a rich and diverse group of people. A Moveable Feast by Ernest Hemingway documents the young author’s experience in Paris, focusing both on his own journey to becoming a true writer and his relationships with other artists in the city. During the 1920s, Paris exemplified the spirit of the world in the aftermath of World War I and allowed creativity and philosophy to thrive. Despite its sometimes slow pace and unconventional narrative style, A Moveable Feast truthfully portrays the Parisian way of life and the impact the great city had on a young Hemingway.

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.

Political violence is the leading cause of wars today. Personal agendas have led to many of the political objectives that cause violence today this has caused many problems throughout the world and will continue to do so until a solution to this issue is found. Political objectives have been advanced involuntarily dependent upon the kind of government a nation exercises. For instance, in a democratic nation political groups must worry about convincing the majority in order to advance ethically. Those who try to influence the majority through acts of violence are considered today as “terror” organizations. Though perhaps if it were not because of the recent 9/11 terror attacks that maybe such warrants would not be seen as terror attacks,

Blessed is the man who can perceive the law of ahimsa (nonviolence)" (Gandhi's Philosophy of Nonviolence). He believes that violence is never the answer and that people should stay away from it. Violence will create another violence and there would be no end. Also, the government takes the violence resistant harshly. They ignore people who cause disturbance to the society and to the citizens. Having a peaceful resistance, the government sees the people and consider their resistance and try to come with a solution to satisfy their citizens.