Pacifisim vs. Realism Essay -- Argumentative Persuasive War Essays

Pacifisim vs. Realism In this paper I will be analyzing and critiquing the theory of pacifism. This theory is the belief that war is never an option under any circumstance. Even if a nation is being attacked a pacifist will believe that retaliating is morally wrong for a number of reasons. Such reasons behind pacifism are supported by issues of morality and what the pacifist themselves feel to be morality. I will provide three arguments to the pacifist way of thinking. It is an inevitability that with war lives will be lost, but that also innocents not officially involved in a war will lose their lives. There is simply no way around the loss of innocent lives amidst war in this age of advanced weaponry, which is specifically designed to take the lives of many with just one use. The pacifist argues that the inevitable losses of innocent lives are unacceptable and therefore war is an unacceptable solution to a conflict. This is my first and most prominent argument for pacifism. Those in opposition of the theory of pacifism argue that the targets of all military operations are the enemy or those with evil intent, but history shows us through such events as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II that innocents can be lost in massive amounts, which far outweighs any possible good done by such military operations. The fact of the matter is, innocents are lost during times of war and that alone should be enough reason to make war unjus tifiable. Robert Holmes put it best when he wrote, "There must be a new conception of how to get along in the world, a recognition that only the individual person is of ultimate value - not governments, not abstractions, not collectivities - and that if we do not cherish the life... ... many to overlook. We do not live in a "John Lennon" world. We can imagine it, but to make it reality is an impossibility and our stance on war should reflect this impossibility. A country cannot survive alone on an optimistic look at things. Sometimes action is necessary. Sometimes the lives of many must be sacrificed to preserve a nation. Realism ensures safety through out the country. By keeping ourselves safe other countries may decide to follow our example and thus world peace is spawned. Though total world peace can never be reached due to the imperfect world we live in realism can lead us closest to it because of its ignoring of morality. Trusting facts will produce a far more positive result in the long run than trusting feelings. Feelings can cloud our judgments, but the realistic view helps us avoid that. It helps us ensure peace throughout the country. Pacifisim vs. Realism Essay -- Argumentative Persuasive War Essays Pacifisim vs. Realism In this paper I will be analyzing and critiquing the theory of pacifism. This theory is the belief that war is never an option under any circumstance. Even if a nation is being attacked a pacifist will believe that retaliating is morally wrong for a number of reasons. Such reasons behind pacifism are supported by issues of morality and what the pacifist themselves feel to be morality. I will provide three arguments to the pacifist way of thinking. It is an inevitability that with war lives will be lost, but that also innocents not officially involved in a war will lose their lives. There is simply no way around the loss of innocent lives amidst war in this age of advanced weaponry, which is specifically designed to take the lives of many with just one use. The pacifist argues that the inevitable losses of innocent lives are unacceptable and therefore war is an unacceptable solution to a conflict. This is my first and most prominent argument for pacifism. Those in opposition of the theory of pacifism argue that the targets of all military operations are the enemy or those with evil intent, but history shows us through such events as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II that innocents can be lost in massive amounts, which far outweighs any possible good done by such military operations. The fact of the matter is, innocents are lost during times of war and that alone should be enough reason to make war unjus tifiable. Robert Holmes put it best when he wrote, "There must be a new conception of how to get along in the world, a recognition that only the individual person is of ultimate value - not governments, not abstractions, not collectivities - and that if we do not cherish the life... ... many to overlook. We do not live in a "John Lennon" world. We can imagine it, but to make it reality is an impossibility and our stance on war should reflect this impossibility. A country cannot survive alone on an optimistic look at things. Sometimes action is necessary. Sometimes the lives of many must be sacrificed to preserve a nation. Realism ensures safety through out the country. By keeping ourselves safe other countries may decide to follow our example and thus world peace is spawned. Though total world peace can never be reached due to the imperfect world we live in realism can lead us closest to it because of its ignoring of morality. Trusting facts will produce a far more positive result in the long run than trusting feelings. Feelings can cloud our judgments, but the realistic view helps us avoid that. It helps us ensure peace throughout the country.