Violence is the only way to end disputes

by 08levinsona (student)

GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

There are miscellaneous beliefs on the uses of violence. The main Cristian view of war ethics is the doctrine of a Just War. Modern Christians often believe that wars should be avoided unless the conditions of a Just war are met. An individual may believe that the standard of evidence and argument required to support a war may be hight that that of national leaders. Christianity is no longer, if it ever was, wholly against war. Some say that modern Christianity has a ‘presumption against war,’ but others say that it has a ‘presumption against injustice,’ thus the bias against war comes from the injustice that war can do. This view says that the aim of Christianity is to promote a world in which peace and justice flourish everywhere: war may sometimes be the tool needed to do this, and waging war may sometimes be a lesser injustice than allowing injustice to persist or tolerating the victimisation of innocent people.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The Christian view of war has changes throughout the history of the faith. the early Church was strongly pacifist, however this changed rapidly within the time of Constantine, who fought with the ‘Chi Rho’ in the name of Christ. shortly after the doctrine of Just War was formulated. For many centuries Christians did not regard violence as inherently bad and this thinking uncovered the idea of holy wars, for example the 2 and Joshua and the battle of Jericho. These wars are seen as tools to rectify injustice and restore peace and justice. The military guidelines may also be just right for a just war to take place, in other words they are ‘justifying’ the violence. Contingent pacifists may agree with this idea, as they are against war in principal, but accept that there may be circumstances where war is the less bad alternative. Selective pacifists believe that it is a matter of degree, and only oppose wars involving weapons of mass destruction, as either way there can be no winning. Active pacifists are heavily involved in political activity to promote peace, and to argue against particular wars. During a war many pacifists will refuse to fight but take part in activities that seek to reduce harm, for example driving ambulances. Nowadays, most democratic countries accept those who have conscientious objections to the military service, but usually expect them to undertake some form of public service instead. There are problems with pacifism, in that if a nation is completely pacifist, it could be easily conquered. However, the idea of seeking non-violent solutions between nations, plays a significant part in international politics. Those who oppose pacifism may use the logical case against against pacifism. They may say that because the world is not perfect, war is not always wrong. A second argument says that pacifism has no place in the face of extreme evil, for example in Nazi Germany.

However absolute pacifists may disagree and say that under no circumstances is violence justifiable. The Quakers are strong believers in this as they believe that Jesus wanted them to convey the idea of pacifism to all Christians. Mennonites would also agree with the idea of absolute pacifism. This is reinforced by the quote from the Bible, ‘Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn.’ Micah 4:3. Thomas Aquinas drew up the theory of a Just war to help Christians know whether it was right to let a war take place. Aquinas’ theory included that the war must be the last resort, promote good, a legitimate ruling must wage the war, the minimum amount of force should be used, the aim should also be to re-establish peace and the death of the innocent should be avoided.

In conclusion, I believe that violence is not the ‘only’ way to end disputes and that reason and justice can overrule violence. In such cases of a biological or nuclear war where destruction and death is inevitable, violence is never the answer. However, if violence is used to help the innocent and oppressed then is is ‘justifiable’ as long as it does not hurt the innocent as collateral damage.