Pacifism vs Violence

538 Words3 Pages
Some people believe that violence is needed to lead a nation and to win a war, while others follow the policy of pacifism. Pacifism is the opposition to violence or war of any kind. Pacifists believe death to a person due to the cause of another cannot be justified. We’ve read that throughout history, there are leaders who follow violence, and leaders who follow pacifism. Both sides have a good understanding, but they both have there cons as well. Mohandas Gandhi was a pacifist leader. He was a powerful political and spiritual leader of India. Gandhi believes that violence may not be justified no matter what the circumstances are. He quotes “What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of democracy and liberty?” This quote reflects through Gandhi’s eyes that the lives lost through violence could never be justified. To the poor and the needy, it doesn’t matter if they win the war because nor winning or losing will benefit them. As for those who have already lost their lives through the act of violence, well, it’s obvious that winning won’t affect them either. Other leaders may disagree with Gandhi. Leaders like Adolf Hitler believe that brutality and physical strength is indeed needed to gain respect from the people and to win the war. In Adolf Hitler’s eyes “brutality is respected.” Germany feared Hitler, and the world let him go as far as the Holocaust. The causes of this belief lead to well over 6 million deaths of innocent people. Yet neither Hitler nor Germany has gained anything from all the deaths. Instead, after World War II, Hitler committed suicide, and Germany plunged into years of living in destruction. Sun Tzu is between the ideas of the pacifist and the dictator. He believes that starting war out of anger, as did Hitler, will not
Open Document