Pacifism As An Ultimate Solution For Common Public To Encourage Peace In Society

Majorly I agree with the arguments posed in this document towards violence and non-violence, short-term victory over long-term solutions and, exercising pacifism for long-term peace and well-being of the rational society. However, I would argue these points on the basis of – power, authority, and stake, moral vs immoral grounds.

Power, authority and stake

History reveals that, when people have power, authority and stake, their reactions are majorly violent and when there is no power, authority but involves only stake, the response is non-violence. I would like to take the same Martin Luther King, Jr example quoted in this document. African Americans didn’t have power or authority and their freedom was at stake. The only viable and effective option to gain freedom was to influence the authorities. Pacifism was first exercised by Mahatma Gandhi in India under the name “Satyagraha”. After seeing its power, Martin Luther King Jr. exercised it in South Africa to gain freedom for black people.

Under justification for Violence and war, the author talks about authorities and their self-interest motives in general. But we cannot accuse authorities in general, especially in law and order situations where pacifism is not an option in any society. Let’s take the gun shooting in schools as an example which is becoming common in high schools across the country. It is the responsibility of the authorities to preserve peace by taking immediate action on the shooting spot and establishing peace. Otherwise, people, in general, will stop believing injustice and it is not good for the well-being of the society and future tomorrow. Another example to this is the COVID-19 pandemic situation prevailing across the world. Even though it originated in China and was hit most severely, it was the first country to gain success in controlling the situation. It was possible only because of the monocratic authority exercised effectively for the welfare of the citizens.

Also, the author is talking about the safeguarding of innocent lives and I second that opinion. At times self-defense is the only viable solution for the situation to safeguard oneself and loved ones. For the same reasons, we have the self-defense law in place that is defined on 5 basic principles namely innocence, imminence, proportionality, avoidance and reasonableness. But the laws around pacifism are limited due to the ambitious nature of the situation and rules around it. Rather than comparing pacifism in general against self-defense, “principled pacifism” would be more relevant as it is about interpersonal violence and violence becoming morally wrong (“Pacifism”). Let’s discuss violence in the moral ground in the next paragraph.

Moral vs immoral grounds

The author talks about “Just war theory” to establish the Christian-based philosophy and its underlying thought process. Even though I agree with the author in general, I would still vouch for violence on moral grounds. Let’s take the example of the Holocaust, where the mass killing continued for 4 years (1941-1945) and wiped out “two-thirds of Europe’s Jewish population” (“The Holocaust”). Just because the US army waged war against Nazis in support of Jews on moral grounds and defeated the allied powers, it came to an end.

Another example is, a few months back, there was a deadly shooting that happened at a worship place, killing a few hundred people. This action is hard to understand and outside the boundaries of morality. Such violence must be condemned and prosecuted immediately to bring peace in society. If we dismiss it as one evil action, such incidents can happen once again and there is no guarantee for the safety of human lives and public properties. The notable point here is the shooting at worship places are happening all across the world and it is happening every year. Even the holy places are not safe to bring peace to human lives. Pacifism will not work in these situations.

Humans are made of emotions and extreme emotions are most vulnerable. Provoking one’s emotions to an extreme brings violence to society at immoral grounds. We can quote many examples from the current affairs like mass shootings conducted by high schoolers and adults without age differences, human bombs destroying civilians and public properties. Violence possible at any place or level is really threatening peace all over the world. As a starter, students should be educated to control their emotions so that the chances of provoking it become less likely. Schools should be the place for inculcating this education and nurturing society with pacifism. Without pacifism, a dream to establish long-term peace is not possible.

I liked the way the author has structured his thoughts and derived justification. But if the justifications were baselined on “power, authority and stake” and “moral vs immoral grounds”, then I believe it would have given more realistic judgment to the document with the current affairs of the society rather than quoting examples from the history. Nevertheless, I appreciate the argument and we both agree that pacifism is the ultimate solution for the common public to encourage peace in society.