24/7 writing help on your phone
Save to my list
Remove from my list
The Vice of Violence Zaina Hilweh “The greatest of all virtues is love.” Love is the sovereign of mutiny. The opposite of love is hate, and hate breeds brutality. Hate is the driving force of injustice. Those who are unjust are blind and suffer from a deep psychological love for hate, for they lack the ability to understand the power of love and the immorality of violence. If hate and violence are taught, then love and peace can be retaught. If love and peace can be retaught, then hate and violence can be untaught.
Thereby enabling the eradication of hate and violence from civilization before it proceeds to wipe out the population, one ethnic group at a time. War is not the antithesis of peace, but of creation. War disrupts and destroys. It is when nothing comes from something. People are murdered, buildings are demolished, infrastructure declines, and hate prevails.
Cornel West said that “the condition of truth is to allow suffering to speak.
” The broken window fallacy, expressed by French economist Frederic Bastiat, used the parable of a broken window to point out why destruction does not benefit the economy – when a pane of glass breaks, it will have to be replaced. Otherwise, creation is when something comes from nothing. Humans are born, buildings are built, and love binds the split of mankind in unity. Hate destroys. Love rehabilitates. Biblical accounts of arguments suggests that the morality of war is never reasonable. For instance, the war on Iraq was justified by security to liberate its people from tyranny, while the war on Afghanistan was unjustified.
Furthermore, Machiavelli once stated that “the ends justify the means.”
This purports to support that if a nation must achieve peace through malicious acts of violence, war is admissible. Moreover, the common misconception of World War II is represented through the fact that Hitler was killed, but in reality, many of the war’s consequences were unforeseen. Such that 6 million Jews were murdered in concentration camps, as well as 40 million people globally. “Unless the war power of those who set off to bring justice is greater than that of those they oppose, their war will bring only further repression or years of attrition.” The violence inflicted not only causes death and demolition but a weakened infrastructure and economy – and sometimes on a much larger scale well beyond a country’s own borders. Violence is the product of mental obstruction caused by a specific level and form of hate. It’s an epidemic. The subjective attraction of violence plays a vital role in the motive of war.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons why mental illness is a taboo. If mental illness was more widely recognized and resolved through long-lasting holistic and homeopathic solutions, violence would seize to exist. But that’s the problem. Those who are advocates for violence care more about the fiscal structure then the welfare of humanity. The high world military expenditure supports this notion since it undermines possible solutions for peace. No violence means no arms deal, and no arms deal ends in a dramatic decrease in profit. This is where the countries with strong military forces come into play. For the United States, the biggest conglomerate business of the world, would lose billions and billions of dollars if the sentiment of war was annihilated. The countries with powerful armed forces were built off the nature of money.
Soldiers are tools for politicians, who claim that violence against exploitation is justifiable. Mahatma Gandhi said, “The religion of nonviolence is not meant merely for the rishis and saints. It is for the common people as well. Nonviolence is the law of our species as violence is the law of the brute.” Many perceive war as necessary rather than good because it solves conflicts that result in periods of peace, but only temporarily since the underlying source of the conflict was never resolved. As a result, there is the chance that the conflict will ignite again, alongside even more damage with today’s funding in dynamic military innovation. For this reason, there is an elevated urgency to resolve conflicts nonviolently.
Unnecessary conflict is on the rise. There are violent forces waging war within countries everywhere. From China’s mass incarceration of Uyghur Muslims, the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Israel Defense Forces in Palestine, the government in the United States, and the civil wars in Somalia, South Sudan, Libya and Yemen, to religious violence in Nigeria and the Mexican and Philippine drug war… the list goes on. The ethnic cleansing and genocides of various groups all over the world is proliferating.
Among the inhumanity of war is interpersonal violence, child abuse, mass incarceration, psychological maltreatment, gun violence, in addition to many others. How is violence, in any way and for any means, righteous? Diana Francis provides a fluid argument: “Wars are most often that not fought for reasons of self-interest, not altruism, and are ‘won’ by those who have the power to prevail rather than by those who are right. I am not arguing that there are no situations where there have seemed to be no alternatives to war. I am arguing that alternatives are often not tried and never exhausted.
I am not arguing that war can achieve nothing positive. I am arguing that it is an unpredictable, high-risk strategy, whose certain bad effects are incalculable and whose capacity for delivering ‘positive peace’ is, in the local view, poor, and in the global sense nil. Even ‘negative peace’ is unlikely to be reached through the violation of the security of others.” Martin Luther King Jr. believes “that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant.” World-renowned leaders of civil rights movements and nonconformist challengers and changers of the world have nonviolently revolted and effectively caused for peaceful outcomes and victorious victories.
While dictators and violence seekers cause destruction. When the fate of humanities wellbeing becomes political, the cause must be abolished since it is not reasonably and logically moral. Violence is a vice of the weak and peace is a virtue of the strong. One must respond to hate with love, evil with good, transgression with forgiveness, revenge with empathy, and war with peace. To achieve freedom, one must choose love, and if one is oblivious to love, one must ensure a tough mind and a tender heart, nonconformity, altruism, forgiveness, hope and faith, appreciation, courage, and the belief in righteousness.
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.get help with your assignment