‘Pacifism is no longer a realistic stance’ Discuss
Example essay
Pacifism is the rejection of war in all circumstances.
Pacifists hold the belief that the use of violence would only
create more violence; which in turn would lead to more pain,
suffering, death and destruction. They recognise the fact
that the cost of war is great, as wars consume huge amounts
of money and resources which they believe could be better
used to improve peoples’ lives.
Pacifism offers an alternative to violent solutions to
major conflicts; and argues that the use of peaceful
agreements between warring countries often last longer
than agreements which are reached through force.
Some people disagree with the statement that ‘pacifism
is no longer a realistic stance’. As it could be argued that
violence only breeds more violence; this is illustrated
throughout history which shows that a war often leads to
other wars. Those who have a pacifistic attitude also believe
that non-violence is the way to resolve conflict; through
channels such as negotiation, compromise and the United
Nations war can be avoided or a peace treaty reached.
Pivotal figures such as Jesus, Martin Luther King and
Mahatma Ghandi have all illustrated great achievements
through pacifistic actions. For example, Martin Luther King
advocated non-violence during the civil rights struggle –
choosing non-violent protests, sit-ins and the freedom riders
to achieve his goal of equality for blacks in the United States
of America.
Those who take a pacifist stance would also claim it is a
realistic stance in modern times as modern wars carry the
risk of escalation and the use of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD’s). These modern weapons could cause
terrible destruction to human life and also the planet; and we
should therefore walk the path of non-violence and the
rejection of war, to save human life, resources, money and
also the planet.
On the other hand, many people feel that pacifism is not
a realistic stance to take. It could be argued that nations
have to defend themselves from terrible people and evil
dictators such as Adolf Hitler. The question can be put to
pacifists ‘can you really stand by and watch innocent people
suffer and die?’ War with its great casualties and damage is
sometimes necessary for the greater good, as for example
the Second World War.
In response to WMD’s creating more death and
suffering, those who believe pacifism is not a realistic stance
could put forward the argument that it is sometimes
necessary to threaten evil people with WMD’s in order to
prevent them from being used on other innocent people.
I believe that pacifism is/is not a realistic stance to take
because…