Introduction
The concept of pacifism has, in fact, a rather multifaceted nature. Particular scholars are currently convinced that this notion cannot be characterized in a complete and exhaustive manner without a descriptive attribute preceding the term. According to May, Lim, and Ansaldo (2015), there are such types of pacifism as selective, active, relative, and absolute. If one studies the origins of this occurrence in detail, a researcher will discover that the mindset of a relative pacifist differs from that of an absolute one. The former accepts the violence in a situation when it is inevitable, while the latter does not. Therefore, making claims regarding the concept being practical or non-practical is always a matter of one’s judgments and conviction.
Is Pacifism Practical?
When attempting to give a strict and direct answer to the question of whether pacifism is a practical or impractical notion, the vast majority of responders would admit it to be non-practical. The reason lies in the very nature of the humankind: a man is an aggressive and violent being (Garcia, 2015). Many researchers conclude that war appears to be the necessary means to stop the uncontrolled development of particular civilizations. May et al. (2015) express the following opinion regarding this matter: “pacifists are people who have let their principles blind them so they cannot recognize the simple fact that war has always been with us” (p. 3). Representatives of this group believe that defending the ideas of absolute pacifism is an utterly utopian ideology. Whenever there is an external threat, the use of force is the only way to guarantee the territorial integrity.
Defending the Ideas of Pacifism: Is It the Right Option to Choose?
Defending the principles of pacifism is the only right decision to make when the choice is still available. Such known historical figures as Andrew Carnegie and Martin Luther King Jr. rejected any form of organized violence on principle (Garcia, 2015). Although they agreed with the statement that humanity is imperfect, they never let it be a decisive argument in a dispute related to the use of force. Even though many critics consider them naïve, there are people who follow the path paved by the known around the globe pacifists: no blood should be spilled without a solid reason.
What Lessons Can One Learn About the Issue from the Experience of the 1930’s?
At the beginning of the 1930’s, millions of people voted against the return to the armed conflict. However, with the arrival of fascism in 1939, the situation changed radically. Opinion allies around the globe believed that the emerging socio-political phenomenon could be countered only through military action (Garcia, 2015). The further events’ development is known: the world was drawn into a war. Through the lessons learnt from the experience of 1930’s, one may conclude that aggression can only provoke more aggression, while peace can foster prosperity and general welfare.
Conclusion
In accordance with the research findings, although some individuals consider pacifism to be impractical, it is still an obligatory concept to defend and promote in the modern society. By sticking to the principles of the given concept, humanity draws nearer the days when military buildup is no longer a suited option to guarantee the peaceful existence to all nations. The faster the governments around the world accept this claim as a vital directive, the sooner the ideas of pacifism will demonstrate their beneficial side.
References
Garcia, J. (2015). Book review: Pacifism, just war, and tyrannicide: Bonhoeffer’s church-world theology and his changing forms of political thinking and involvement, written by David M. Gides. Ecclesiology, 11(1), 127-129.
May, L., Lim, L., & Ansaldo, U. (2015). Contingent pacifism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.