Pacifism: A Critical Perspective

Paper Summary:

This paper examines the political philosophy of
pacifism which holds that the use of violence by the state, under any circumstances is unethical and counterproductive. The paper assesses whether pacifism can be effective against Nazi-like dictatorships and includes a brief examination of nonviolence, the philosophy of Gandhi and King.

From the Paper:

"If we had neither weapons nor soldiers, what would we do if an enemy tried to conquer us," asks Liane Ellison Norman in her essay, Nonviolent Civilian Defense. "What would we do if our government suspended civil liberties, imprisoned, tortured and executed people like us?" (McCarthy, ed. 189). Advocating the pacifist principle, Norman goes on to contend that the modern state does not need a conventional army to protect itself. Nonviolent defense strategy, Norman goes on to argue, provides an effective defense mechanism that surpasses that of conventional armies, the cause of so much chaos and destruction throughout history. Relying on the principle that the "conquer is meaningless unless the conqueror is able to govern," and evoking the beliefs and practices of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Norman and other pacifists argue that the methods of nonviolent civil disobedience "strikes, marches, sit-ins, etc." can replace modern warfare. It is therefore argued that the use of violence by the state, under any circumstances, is unethical and counterproductive."

More papers on Pacifism: A Critical Perspective:

• Argumentative Essay # 4813 : "The War on Drugs: A Critical Perspective"
• Book Review # 109481 : "The Theory of Psychoanalysis": A Critical Review"
• Analytical Essay # 134140 : "A Critical Analysis of My Essay on Obesity"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: