Gandhi Believes example essay topic

Gandhian Pacifism Pacifism is opposition to the practice of war. Many pacifists have a commitment to non-violence in general in society, making a commitment to achieving one's goals only through actively non-violent resistance or non-aggressive means. Among these pacifists, there may also be differing views as to what constitutes violence. There are several different varieties of pacifism including those who believe killing is always wrong, those who believe that any kind of violence is wrong, those who argue that personal violence is always wrong but political violence is sometimes right, and those who justify some person violence but reject war as always wrong. Mohandas K. Gandhi believed in the doctrine of Ahimsa, which stands for non-killing.

He believes no form of violence is acceptable. A more peaceful way of life is dreamed about by everyone but it seems almost impossible to achieve. In his essay, Gandhi says that to reach this level which he considered bringing offense to no other person, keeping pure thoughts especially with your enemies, and not resenting your friends or enemies actions, you must continue this practice throughout your life, you cannot simply achieve it in one day. Gandhi believed in not only spreading this as a practice but lives his life based on this doctrine. Non-violence looks good on paper, and seems like it would function well, there would be less blood in our world, and instead more conversations, more peace between people and nations but would this really hold up completely today? In the most recent war Afghanistan what would have happened if the president had decided to practice pacifism and do nothing in return based on our beliefs that war is always wrong?

Was this even an option for our country? Our president as our leader decided to act accordingly in response to the events going on to protect our nation. Many people think he made a good decision. What if he was a pacifist?

He would not have handled this situation the way that he did. His beliefs would have, according to Gandhi, been to not act violently and let our attackers have this burden on their souls. Would this have really worked? Do you think that the Afghani nation wold have just backed off had we done nothing? There is really no way to tell the true answer to this but, this would show weakness of out nation to do nothing about the damage they caused to our country.

They may have even decided to continue attacking our country because we would seem to be weak and an easy target, had we not protected ourselves and taken a stand. One writer, Douglas P. Lackey, tries to understand what Gandhi is trying to say about peace and nonviolence. He states that Gandhi believes "By acting nonviolently, pacifists not only purify their own souls but also transform the souls of their opponents" (160). This was known as the "sacredness of life" defense, which basically believed that by sacrificing one life many could be saved, but Gandhi feels that this still does not save souls.

If people are being saved but through violence then nobody is really saving their souls (160). He believed that the killer would be perverted by this act, and it would remain on his soul. Lackey examines this in another sense. "The system of values professed be Gandhi must be kept in mind when considering the frequent accusations that nonviolence alone does not work" (161). The practice of nonviolence did not prevent previous wars from occurring. On the other hand, "the soul of the satyagraha will be strengthened and purified by nonviolent struggles, and in this purification the Gandhian pacifist can obtain spiritual victory even in the face of political defeat" (161).

So basically speaking we should let our enemies suffer the ultimate consequence of carrying this burden they brought on themselves. Would we even consider, today or even before today, giving up all of our freedoms, rights and privileges to obtain peace with our souls, and let our nations fall to other nations whod on't regard their souls? Based on the facts that none of our leaders have fallen to other nations Would say that we are not willing to cleanse our souls and let our nation be taken over. Another issue that Gandhi has to deal with is the "relationship between violence and coercion" (161). Coercion is" the practice of compelling a person to act by employing threat of force.

Often, it involves the use of actual force in order to make the threat credible, but it is the threat of further force which brings about the cooperation of the person being coerced". (Coercion) Due to the fact that coercion is forcing someone to do something they feel threatened to do, it also constitutes as an act of violence. Gandhi once used "a fast unto death" (162) to threaten authorities to back off, which eventually they did for fear his death would bring about more riots and unruly behavior. If Gandhi speaks of a peaceful way of life concerning no violence, then why is it acceptable for pacifists to perform psychological pressure? For someone who speaks of committing no violence against others, their selves, or the government, he is making it hard to follow when he is using coercion to force other governments to give in this way. Gandhi claims that he is not using his fasts as coercion but as "acts of education" (162).

For loyal followers of Gandhi that believe that nonviolence is the key to life, they may feel deceived by Gandhi because he is using a force against peoples nature and this is not considered nonviolence. If someone like Gandhi is using violence while in the same sense preaching how wrong it is, how should people feel about following what he believes to be right? If you believed in Gandhi's teachings about pacifism and nonviolence, how likely would it be that you would continue to follow his teachings if he himself does not follow them. When he models this behavior he contradicts himself which causes other people to not feel safe in this practice. One other person who also wasn't quite sure where Gandhi was going with his argument was Michael Walzer. Walzer's most convincing argument against Gandhi's psychological argument is "simply that there is no way we can ever be sure of every man's inherent goodness; that to ensure our eventual safety by trusting in the good human nature of any and all human beings would be a very big risk.

In other words, Walzer is not ready to gamble the entire existence of a people on the good will of oppressors" (Big nell). For many pacifists it would be considered a challenge to practice their beliefs in a society, like our current one, where violence seems to be an everyday occurrence. Defending one's country, citizens, and civil rights is an important issued today. The United States has on many occasions entered into a war based on the defense of ourselves or allying countries. Had the United States practiced pacifism during any set time period our nation may not be what it is today. Our previous presidents protected out country's rights by using a military defense and seldom used nonviolence to address issues at hand.

Pacifism is a tricky subject to deal with mainly because you would be let defenseless without using violence. Gandhi was a man of great character and his decision continue to affect many people's lives but it is almost impossible to practice committing not one act of violence thorough your lifetime of practicing Ahisma which Feel is the main reason we cannot agree with what Gandhi was trying to practice and accomplish throughout his lifetime.

Bibliography

Bignell, Kate. "Shopping for Non-violence". 26 May 2004.
Coercion". Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia 12 April 2005.
Gandhi, Mohandas K. "The Doctrine of Ahisma". Just War: A Wadsworth Casebook in Argument. Eds. Sharon K. Walsh, Evelyn D. Asch. Australia: Thomas Wadsworth, 2004.
177 Lackey, Douglas P. "Varieties of Pacifism". Eds. Australia: Thomas Wadsworth, 2004.