Category: Pacifism

There is no paradox in the fact that the American people are profoundly pacifist and yet highly impatient of the present activities of many professed or professional pacifists. The disposition to call the latter pro-German and to move for their suppression is an easy way of expressing a sense of the untimely character of their moves at the present juncture.

But the war will pass, and the future of the profound American desire for peace, for amity, for unhampered and prosperous intercourse, is a topic which is intimately connected with the war itself. For upon its constant consideration depends whether the impulse to a better ordered world which reconciled America to war shall find satisfaction or meet frustration. And I know no better way to introduce the subject than a consideration of the failure of the pacifist propaganda to determine finally the course of a nation which was converted to pacifism in advance.

The explanation, I take it, is that it takes two to make peace as well as to make war; or, as the present situation abundantly testifies, a much larger number than two. He was a poor judge of politics who did not know from the very day of the Lusitania message — or at all events from that of the Sussex message — that the entrance of the United States into the war depended upon the action of Germany.

Any other notion was totally inconsistent with any belief in President Wilson’s sincerity; it imputed to him an almost inconceivable levity in a time when seriousness was the chief need. Those who voted for him for President on the ground that he “kept us out of war” and who felt aggrieved when we got into war have only themselves to blame. He had unmistakably plotted a line which led inevitably to conflict with Germany in case the latter should take the course which she finally adopted.

This indictment of professional pacifism for futile gesturing may seem to rest upon acceptance of the belief in the political omnipotence of the executive; it may seem to imply the belief that his original step committed the nation irretrievably. Such an inference, however, is merely formal. It overlooks the material fact that President Wilson’s action had the sanction of the country.

I will not enter into the question of legal neutrality, but morally neutral the country never was, and probably the only stupid thing President Wilson did was to suppose, in his early proclamation, that it could be. And this brings us back to the basic fact that in a world organized for war there are as yet no political mechanisms which enable a nation with warm sympathies to make them effective, save through military participation. It is again, an instinctive perception of this fact which encourages the idea that pacifists who do not support the war must be pro-German at heart.

The best statement which I have seen made of the pacifist position since we entered the war is that of Miss Addams. She earnestly protests against the idea that the pacifist position was negative or laissez-faire. She holds that the popular impression that pacifism meant abstinence and just keeping out of trouble is wrong; that it stood for a positive international polity in which this country should be the leader of the nations of the world “into a wider life of coordinated activity”; she insists that the growth of nations under modern conditions involves of necessity international complications which admit “of adequate treatment only through an international agency not yet created.” In short, the pacifists “urge upon the United States not indifference to moral issues and to the fate of liberty and democracy, but a strenuous endeavor to lead all nations of the earth into an organized international life.”

That intelligent pacifism stands for this end, and that the more intelligent among the pacifists, like Miss Addams, saw the situation in this fashion need not be doubted. But as Miss Addams recognized in the same address there are many types of pacifists. I question whether any one who followed the pacifist literature which appeared in the year or two before we got into the war derived from it the conception that the dominant ideal was that ascribed to pacifism by Miss Addams, namely, that the United States should play a “vitally energetic role” in a political reorganization of the world. But even if this had been the universal idea of what was theoretically desirable, the force of circumstances forbade pacifists who drew back at war as a means of bringing about this role from pressing it.

The pacifist literature of the months preceding our entrance into war was opportunistic — breathlessly, frantically so. It did not deal in the higher strategy of international politics, but in immediate day-by-day tactics for staving off the war. Because the professional pacifists were committed to the idea that anything was better than our getting into the war, their interest in general international reorganization had no chance for expression. They were in the dilemma of trying to accomplish what only definite political agencies could effect, while admitting these agencies had not been created. Thus they were pushed out of the generic position of work for the development of such agencies into the very elementary attitude that if no nation ever allowed itself to be drawn into war, no matter how great the provocation, wars would cease to be. Hence the continuous recourse to concessions and schemes, devised ad hoc over night, to meet each changing aspect of the diplomatic situation so as to ward off war.

The logic seems sound. But the method is one of treating symptoms and ignoring the disease. At the best, such a method is likely to remain some distance behind newly appearing symptoms, and in a critical disease the time is bound to come when the disease gets so identified with the symptoms that nothing can be done. All this seems to concern the past of pacifism rather than its future. But it indicates, by elimination, what that future must be if it is to be a prosperous one. It lies in furthering whatever will bring into existence those new agencies of international control whose absence has made the efforts of pacifists idle gestures in the air. Its more immediate future lies in seeing to it that the war itself is turned to account as a means for bringing these agencies into being.

To go on protesting against war in general and this war in particular, to direct effort to stopping the war rather than to determining the terms upon which it shall be stopped, is to repeat the earlier tactics after their ineffectualness has been revealed. Failure to recognize the immense impetus to reorganization afforded by this war; failure to recognize the closeness and extent of true international combinations which it necessitates, is a stupidity equaled only by the militarist’s conception of war as a noble blessing in disguise.

I have little patience with those who are so anxious to save their influence for some important crisis that they never risk its use in any present emergency. But I can but feel that the pacifists wasted rather than invested their potentialities when they turned so vigorously to opposing entrance into a war which was already all but universal, instead of using their energies to form, at a plastic juncture, the conditions and objects of our entrance. How far this wasted power is recoverable it is hard to say. Certainly an added responsibility is put upon those who still think of themselves as fundamentally pacifists in spite of the fact that they believed our entrance into the war a needed thing.

For the only way in which they can justify their position is by using their force to help make the war, so far as this country can influence its final outcome, a factor in realizing the ideals which President Wilson expressed for the American people before and just upon entering the war. All such pacifists — and they comprise in my opinion the great mass of the American people — must see to it that these ideals are forced upon our allies, however unwilling they may be, rather than covered up by debris of war. If the genuine pacifism of our country, a pacifism interested in permanent results rather than in momentary methods, had had leadership, it is not likely that we should have entered without obtaining in advance some stipulations. As it is, we romantically abstained from any bargaining and thereby made our future task more difficult.

Not that the difficulty is all abroad. We have plenty of Bourbons and Bureaucrats in international diplomacy at home, and war undoubtedly strengthens their position by making them appear the genuine representatives of our war motives and policies. Their attitude is well expressed in the fact that since their imagination is confined to the flat map, their intellectual preparation for the post-bellum scene consists in redrawing the future map of Europe and the world — a form of indoor sport which even the literary men of England have now well nigh abandoned. Thus the present task of the constructive pacifist is to call attention away from the catchwords which so easily in wartime become the substitute for both facts and ideas back to realities.

In view, for example, of the unjustified invasion of Serbia and Belgium, the rights of small nationalities tend to become an end in itself, a means to which is the “crushing” of Germany. The principle of nationality on its cultural side must indeed receive ample satisfaction in the terms of war settlement unless fuel for future conflagrations is to be stored up. But to get no further than setting up more small isolated nationalities on the map is almost willfully to provoke future wars. If the day for isolated national sovereignty in the case of large nations has been rendered an anachronism by the new industry and commerce, much more is that the case for small political units.

The case of Ireland, the clutter of nationalities in southeastern Europe, the fact that all the smaller neutral nations are now leading a distressed existence as appanages of the warring Powers, show how much more important questions of food supply, of coal and iron, of lines of railway and ship-transportation are for the making and ordering of states than the principle of isolated nationality, big or small. Germany was realistically inclined in its belief that the day of the small nation—in its traditional sense—had passed. Its tragic error lay in that egotism which forbade its seeing that the day of the big isolated nation had also passed.

So one might, I think, go over, one by one, the phrases which are now urged to the front as defining the objects of war at the terms of peace and show that the interests of pacifism are bound up with securing the organs by which economic energies shall be articulated. We have an inherited political system which sits like a straitjacket on them since they came into being after the political system took on shape. These forces cannot be suppressed. They are the moving, the controlling, forces of the modern world.

The question of peace or war is whether they are to continue to work furtively, blindly, and by those tricks of manipulation which have constituted the game of international diplomacy, or whether they are to be frankly recognized and the political system accommodated to them. The war does not guarantee the latter result. It gives an immense opportunity for it, an opportunity which justifies the risk. Military men continue to think within the lines laid down in the seventeenth century, in the days when modern “sovereign” nations were formed. Statesmen, guided by historians and that political science which has elevated the historic facts of temporary formations into an abstract and absolute science, work on the same model.

As a result, too many influential personages are pure romanticists. They are expressing ideals which no longer have anything to do with the facts. This stereotyped political romanticism gives the pacifists their chance for revenge. Their idealism has but to undergo a course in the severe realism of those economic forces which are actually shaping the associations and organizations of men, and the future is with them.

The early church understood the meaning of peace in the New Testament as a positive and creative force — the fruit of love. Its peacemaking was not based on a specifically political opposition to an unjust state, on the abhorrence of idolatry, or on apocalyptic expectations, but on the gospel command to make peace that was the basis for all these attitudes. From the early second century, when the New Testament was being completed, to the end of the Constantinian period the tradition of specific opposition to war is continuous.

Ignatius of Antioch, for example, wrote that ‘nothing is better than peace, by which all war of those in heaven and those on earth is abolished.’ He instructed his listeners in behaviour toward their enemies: ‘toward their anger be gentle, toward their boasting be meek… against their savageness be mild, not being eager to imitate them… and let us be eager to be imitators of the Lord.’

Justin Martyr, who died during persecutions under the Stoic emperor Marcus Aurelius, makes the same point clearly in his Apology to Emperor Antonius Pius and in his Dialogue with Trypho: the Christians, convened from war and violence, have turned swords into plowshares and ‘cultivate piety, justice, and love of mankind.’ Rather than deny this faith under persecution they ‘prefer to die acknowledging it.’

Tatian, a Syrian convert of Justin, asserts the same principles in his Discourse to the Greeks. Political power, wealth, and military office are all rejected; war is equated with murder. In his Embassy Regarding the Christians, written to Marcus Aurelius at the time of the emperor’s persecutions and the massacre of Christians at Lyons, Athenagoras explains that Christians refuse to kill, even with just cause, and that watching the capital punishment of criminals condemned to be killed in the gladiatorial shows would be the same as taking part in murder.

The middle of the third century was a period of material and economic crisis: plagues, famines, economic collapse, political instability, and barbarian invasion nearly brought the empire to an end. A series of soldier-emperors from the Danubian border restored order. They renewed the intellectual and physical attacks on the Christian Church. Christian apologists, however, continued to stress the theme of peacemaking. In Octavius, the earliest known work of Latin Christian literature, Municius Felix starkly contrasts the ethic of the Romans with that of the Christians. ‘All the Romans hold, occupy, and possess is the spoil of outrage. Their temples are full of loot, drawn from the ruin of cities, the plunder of gods, and the slaughter of priests.’ As for the Christians, ‘It is not right for us even to see or hear of a man being killed.’

Clement of Alexandria, like Justin Martyr, attempted to win over the Hellenic world through a synthesis of philosophy and revelation and accepted the Roman world for the benefits it offered. Nevertheless his message in Exhortation to the Gentiles, Miscellanies, and Christ the Educator is plain and consistent: Christians are educated not for war, but for peace. They are soldiers of peace and handle the arms of peace, justice, faith, and salvation. Justice and peace need no arms except the word of God, and ‘nowhere will they inflict wounds.’

Perhaps the most controversial Christian of this era is the North African apologist, Tertullian. A lawyer converted by the example of martyrdom, Tertullian composed increasingly critical rhetorical polemics against Roman values

The consistency of Tertullian’s writings on peace has been demonstrated in both his later works and in the Apology and other works of the orthodox period, including On Patience, Agaimt Marcion, and Against the Nations. These texts demonstrate a clear unity of theme: the Lord has cursed the sword forever, the duty of the Christian is to suffer death rather than inflict it, and the sword can never produce truth, gentleness, or justice.

Nor was opposition to violence restricted to radical circles in this period. The Apostolic Tradition, a series of canons for the conduct of the Roman church attributed to Hippolytus and widely used in the East, offers a contemporary’s confirmation of Tertullian’s thought. Several general principles emerge from the Apostolic Tradition’s list of forbidden professions: Christians may not hold military governorships or magistracies because of the role these offices play in executing capital punishment; Christians who join the army are to he excommunicated, ‘for they have despised God’; gladiators and their trainers must resign their posts or be rejected from the church; and finally, ‘a soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath; if he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected.’ This text implies the presence of Christians or potential converts to Christianity in the Roman army, but its wider meaning is far more important: Christians are forbidden to enter or to remain in occupations that employ violence.

Origen of Alexandria is the most important figure of the next generation. Origen shared the apologists’ desire to promote Christianity to the Greco-Roman intellectual. Generally favourable to Rome and the benefits of the Pax Romana, he wrote in a world threatened by barbarians from without, a world increasingly hostile to what it saw as the Christian lack of patriotism. Origen’s best known apologetic is Against Celsus, a reply to a Greek intellectual’s treatise against the Christians. Written around A.D., the treatise has been lost except for the portions quoted by Origen and others. In his reply Origen spells out the Christian response of peacemaking in a violent world. He argues that even if Christians support Rome, they must still be prepared to die for their beliefs. In answer to Celsus’ compelling call to defend the empire and its benefits, Origen replies that Christians who have beaten swords into ploughshares cannot take up the sword, ‘having become children of peace for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader.’

About the same time, Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, wrote in the same spirit of activist peacemaking. In his treatises On the Value of Patience, To Donatus, On the Dress of Vergins, and in his Letters Cyprian consistently reminds his congregation that killing is a mortal sin. God made iron for cultivating fields and not for killing, taking a life ranked with adultery and deceit as mortal sins, and the bloodied hand is unfit to receive the sacrament, that is, the one who kills is excommunicated. Cyprian’s injunctions did not apply simply to private morality. He notes with scorn that although society views the murder of one person as a heinous crime, it considers the murder of thousands on a general’s order during war a great virtue. Rather than inflict injury, Cyprian urged Christians to suffer martyrdom as a witness to peace.

Another African, Arnobius, composed Against the Nations between 290 and 300. The book condemns Rome’s tyranny, greed and violence. Contrasting the way of God to that of the empire, Arnobius concludes that God cannot possibly accept militarism; it is against the very nature of his being.

The last part of the third century saw the Great Persecution under Diocletian, renewed civil war, the accession of Constantine, and finally the so-called Peace of the Church with the empire. The acceptance of Rome in a Christian context brought the rise of a new Christian patriotism exemplified by Eusebius and Lactantius. Some assert that from that point on the gospel message of peace was lost amid approbation of the just war by a church all too eager to celebrate the victory of Christianity. Although this is true to an extent, Christian acceptance of the Roman Empire dates back to New Testament times and is not really new in this period. Neither should we ignore the continuing tradition of Christian peacemaking and active resistance to political tyranny that survived the Constantinian settlement with the church.

Among the framers of the Peace of the Church was Lactantius, a member of the inner circle of the emperor Diocletian who was known for his brilliant attempt to renew ancient Roman forms of social, political, and religious life. The views of Lactantius on violence and peacemaking are fully consistent with the tradition of the early church:

‘God prohibits killing…and so it will not be lawful for a just man to serve as a soldier — for justice itself is his military service — not to accuse anyone of capital offence, because it makes no difference whether you kill with a sword or with a word, since killing itself is forbidden. And so… no exceptions ought to be made to the rule that it is always wrong to kill a man, whom God has wished to be a sacrosanct creature.’

Lactantius extends the prohibition to violence even to the act of attending capital punishment, a view already expressed by Athenagoras and Municius Felix. The Divine Institutes is a fundamental work of Christian social and political criticism. In its apocalyptic vision of the late Roman Empire, it was to influence Christian thought for centuries. Lactantius’ condemnation of Roman ‘riches, honours, powers, and kingdoms’ was fundamental. His portrait of Roman history as evil was a prelude to his vision of the empire’s division and collapse amid political chaos and natural disaster. As with all apocalyptics, Lactantius’ vision contained a social, political, and religious criticism of his age and a call for Christians to ‘seek after justice’ in order to ‘attain the reward of virtue promised by the Lord.’

Thus a continuous tradition of peacemaking stretches from the New Testament to the foundation of the Christian empire and the era of the barbarian invasions. This tradition combines a strong and active opposition to the values of Roman society with a commitment to their nonviolent overthrow.

The two events I attended were From Just War to Peacebuilding: Lessons for US Racial Justice lecture by ethicist Lisa Sowle Cahill and Someone’s Gotta Tell the Freakin Truth! Writing about ‘Fundamentalism’ in the Age of Trump. A discussion between Brandon Ambrosino, journalist, and David Harrington Watt, the author of Antifundamentalism in Modern America.

Mrs. Cahill discusses the importance of pacifism and peacemaking to combat the ongoing trend of war and violent activities in the world. Thus, with proper research and studying of how other cultures deal with conflict, Cahill looks to convey the same ideals of peacemaking in regards to combating violence towards African Americans, and peacebuilding efforts in the US. In her book, Cahill examines the Christian ethics of war and peace. In opposition of just-war theory, peacebuilding is committed to a movement for non-violent alternatives that in turn invoke social change and justice. Cahill begins by discussing the issues with Catholic social teaching, in that, they have avoided the inevitability of conflict as a component of social change. Cahill demands that Catholic social teaching and social ethics must come to accept and work with conflict. Cahill suggests that U.S. Christians must confront violence, specifically race-based violence. This problem demands more from theological ethics to not just condemn evil but rather push forth the path to social change. Furthermore, Cahill disagrees with the just-war theory, because she does not consider the justification of violence to be the basis of the Christian mission. But rather in the efforts of combating violence Cahill suggests that for social change to occur Christians must use formative and reformative efforts to increase participation in social efforts. In essence, the argument that Cahill presented in the lecture was that both just war theory and pacifism present us with a moral dilemma because there is something always morally problematic about taking a human life.

Cahill’s argument complements Raymond Williams’s discussion of culture. Williams discusses the various uses of the word culture, and in particular, I wanted to examine the second use of the word. Williams describes culture as “the independent noun, whether used generally or specifically, which indicates a particular way of life, whether of a people, a period or a group” (Williams 1976, 80). Although Williams writes about the definition of culture this relates to Cahill’s lecture because it showcases the primitive nature and lack of social progression of white supremacy. Thus, with relevance to Williams’ definition of culture one can come to assume that U.S. culture as a way of life that is shaped by white supremacy. Williams suggests that culture can communicate the significance of moral and ethical values and thus through analysis it is easily clarified. Moreover, Williams is essentially suggesting that the people’s response toward society and its conditions, will change as they will look to cultivate their values and personalities. However, through Cahill’s lecture, it is clearly apparent that racist sentiments have a continued presence throughout society. This can be shown through the rise of the Black Lives Matter Movement in response to the recent killings of unarmed African-American men such as Trayvon Martin, Rekia Boyd, Tanisha Anderson, and Botham Jean. Furthermore, Cahill would go as far as to say that prejudice and racism toward African-Americans have certainly become a fabric of U.S culture. Copeland contends that “living within a system built on violence, disenfranchisement, and white supremacy… with self-hatred, anger, and identification with the aggressor’ (Copeland 2010, 46). Furthermore, Copeland conveys the detrimental effects of slavery in that “slavocracy attempted not only to prevent enslaved people from thinking about freedom but also to check their freedom of thinking” (Copeland 2010, 41). However, Copeland affirms that slavery completely disregarded these notions in that ‘it aimed to deface the imago Dei in black human beings, constrain black human potential, and debase black being-in communion with creation. Slavery sought to displace God and, thus, is blasphemed. Its sacrilegious extension in white supremacy has had fatal consequences for all people-black people’ (Copeland 2010, 24). With this in mind, ‘these two ideologies raise substantive issues for Christian reflection’ (Copeland 2010, 24). Cahill presents a way to solve the systematic and social engrained problem of racial prejudices through six lessons of pacifism: (1) Nonviolence resistance works, (2) Violent conflict leaves deep wounds, (3) Peace-building is a multi-dimensional and gradual process involving internal tensions, (4) Women are essential peacebuilders, (5) Formative and Reformative social practices are key to lasting and just peace, (6) Interreligious and intercultural cooperation are necessary to revise personal and social identities and exclusionary practices. Furthermore, Cahill showcases the urgency of peacebuilding movements in the effects that it has on African-Americans. Evidence has shown that there is a racial disparity of income, education, and arrest rates within the U.S. The necessity of these movements is echoed by Volk’s article Racial Profiling on the Main Line. Volk uses anecdotal evidence to display the sentiments of how African-Americans feel they have been treated in their communities, and thus the effect it has had on them. ‘‘White kids openly taunted the Fridays, using the n-word around them and challenging them to object: “Aw, you aren’t going to get offended now, are you?” … One can attempt to camouflage this as the behavior of children. They can be so cruel. But the kids at Tredyffrin behaved according to their own feeling of superiority” (Volk 2015, n.p). Additionally, Cahill further claims in the six lessons of pacifism that women are essential because for the better part of history women can empathize with the struggle and plight of African-Americans as women have also been embroiled in their struggles for equality. In Michelle Voss Roberts’ lecture of comparative theology in Christianity and Hinduism, she quotes Aquinas in that ‘The image of God, in its principal signification, namely the intellectual nature, is found both in man and woman. … But in a secondary sense, the image of God is found in man, and not in a woman: for man is the beginning and end of woman; as God is the beginning and end of every creature.’ Furthermore, in the context of Cahill’s lecture ‘by attending to black women’s understanding and interpretation, judgment, and evaluation of their condition, we may understand more adequately their determination to reclaim their bodies…. especially those intellectual, moral, and aesthetic labels that objectify, exploit, and deface God’s image in black womanhood’ (Copeland 2010, 25). And lastly, Cahill examines the sixth element of pacifism in that Interreligious and intercultural cooperation is necessary to revise personal and social identities and exclusionary practices. Forge new patterns of trust and cooperation. This sentiment is complemented by John Hick’s discussion on complementary pluralism. Hick acknowledges that “the aspect of God’s nature of central importance to the question of other faiths is his universal saving will. If God wishes everyone to be saved, it is inconceivable that the divine self-revelation should be affected in such a way that only a small portion of humanity could be saved… thus drawing the conclusion that it is necessary to recognize that all religions lead to the same God. However, Hick wants to show “The shift from Christianity at the centre to God at the centre, and to see both our own and the other great world religions as revolving around the same divine reality” (Hick 2011, 517). With this in mind, I think it is important to take into account the functionalist approach towards defining religion. The approach “does not assume that religion is characterized by certain core elements, but by its ability to perform certain functions for individuals or wider society… a transcendent function: religion provides a medium through which people are able to experience “God,” the numinous or transcendent (Lynch 2005, 28) Thus, with the understanding of pluralism, interreligious and intercultural cooperation can further the cause of peacemaking efforts.

At the event, Someone’s Gotta Tell the Freakin Truth! Writing about ‘Fundamentalism’ in the Age of Trump, Brandon Ambrosino, and David Harrington Watt had an informal conversation on fundamentalism and its presence in today’s world religions. Brandon Ambrosino’s article Someone’s Gotta Tell the Freakin’ Truth: Jerry Falwell’s Aides Break Their Silence, gives insight into the inner workings of the university. Liberty University is an extremely conservative, predominantly white, Christian college. Jerry Falwell Jr., current president of the university. On the surface level, Liberty University appears to be a religious/ faith-based school. However, Jerry Falwell Jr. has used the non- for-profit money to purchase and sell properties for personal profit. Furthermore, because Falwell Jr’s father was a famous televangelist Falwell Jr. has garnered support from Evangelists even though he is not a religious figure. Similarly, Trump’s political views has allowed him to align himself with the Evangelist platform. And Ambrosino and Watt discussed how fundamentalism is intertwined with Christian nationalism.

Fundamentalism can be described as the strict interpretation of someone’s religious beliefs or the scriptures. Thus, there is no room for doubt in fundamentalism because fundamentalist has an unwavering commitment to their religious beliefs. The fundamentalist view contradicts what Elizabeth Dickson writes because ‘we tend to think of faith and doubt as opposites, but if we examine these concepts in more detail it becomes clear why this is not the case. If we lived in a world of certainty, without mystery or the challenge if infinity, then why would we need faith?’ (Dickson 2015, n.p.). Although the fundamentalist represents an unshakeable belief, Dickson’s explanation of doubt is in complete opposition to this notion. Furthermore, during this event, the speakers spoke about when Falwell Jr. addressed the San Bernardino attack. Stating that if people had concealed-carry permits the attack would’ve never happened and ‘then we could end those Muslims before they walked in and killed them.’ Not only are comments extremely disturbing but also, they are troubling because he is the assumed leader of the Evangelist movement. Hence, it’s important to discuss how the media represents religions and religious figures. “Western popular entertainment typically portrays Islam in negative terms, e.g., as repressive, backward, and intolerant. The notion of the ‘Islamic terrorist’ has become an increasingly common one in Western film… yet the connection between an entire faith and violent activity is never made outside the context of Islam’ (Lynch 2005, 24). Similarly, on numerous occasions, Trump has directly blamed Muslims or Islam for violent or terroristic acts. Lynch also suggests that “Films never refer, for example, to “Christian terrorists.” Indeed, when Islamic figures are represented positively in Western films it is usually only if they have been Westernized or “made civilized” by exposure to a Western character” (Lynch 2005, 24). Lynch’s arguments of Western popular culture portrayal of Islam, can be related to Trump and Falwell because they both use their platforms to not only inaccurately portray Islamic culture but also program Americans to justify these beliefs. This leads me to my next point about Christian nationalism. Karl Rahner proclaims that “Christianity is the absolute religion, founded on the unique event of the self-revelation of God in Christ. Rahner allows that non-Christian religious traditions are valid and capable of mediating the saving grace of God… after the gospel has been proclaimed to the adherents of such non-Christian religious traditions, they are no longer legitimate, viewed from the standpoint of Christian theology” (Rahner 2011, 511). Also, Rahner contends that the divine grace can be found in other religions, and thus Non-Christians should be regarded as “anonymous Christians.” Granted, Rahner is by no means a Christian nationalist, however, propositions such as these are troubling because “persistently negative representations of [other world religions] become particularly dangerous when they limit citizens’ ability to think critically about Western foreign policies that damage [other religions and cultural groups]” (Lynch 2005, 24).

In conclusion, these events relate to discussions held in class because it showcases the intersection and interconnection of politics, religion, and culture.

Dorothy Day was a journalist who eventually became an advocate for pacifism which resulted in the founding of the Catholic Worker Movement. Her claim to fame was the fact that she did everything in her possible power to help out the poor. She dedicated every single second of her life to helping out the less fortunate iregardds to the economic system meanwhile she also vouched for pacifism. Day wanted complete peace worldwide; she was dedicated wholeheartedly. She wanted everyone to follow the guidelines for absolute pacifism. Absolute pacifism is the belief that “all forms of violence and war are always wrong, no exceptions” (Allman 63). This form of pacifism amongst others is different in the sense of means of violence, it is in no means necessary to act in such a manner.

Dorothy Day coincides with Allman’s definition and understanding of absolute pacifism. Allman states that this particular type of pacifism “contends violence can never be justified or excused under any circumstances, regardless of consequences” (Allman 64). Day wanted absolutely nothing to do with the singular notion of violence. Considering she was one of the founders of the Catholic Worker Movement, they based their entirety off of the rejection of violence. The movement can perfectly represent what Allman is going on about; the Catholic Worker Movement clearly stood in “opposition to class war, imperialist war, and war preparations” (Day 1). Allman even goes on to further discuss, in detail, what absolute pacifists did: “[a]bsolute pacifists dismiss the self-defense objection as presenting a false dichotomy” (Allman 64). Dorothy Day and what she stood for would, without a doubt, match up with the definition of an absolute pacifist.

To go further into this argument, Dorothy Day’s position on pacifism would factor into a moral method; her position would place itself into the moral method of relativism, more specifically, normative relativism. According to the Allman text, normative relativism “claims that the rightness or wrongness of an action is based on personal or social standards” (Allman 38). She and her organization had standards that went along the lines of absolute pacifism, no use of violence whatsoever. They believed that their views were what was right.

Dorothy Day makes a claim that states, “The pacifist in the next war must be ready for martyrdom” (Day 2). The claim is simply saying that a person who proves to be a pacifist must prepare themselves in the next war for false suffering to gain admiration. Martyrdom is either the death or suffering of a martyr or the act of falsely claiming that they are suffering in order to receive attention. This claim she presents to us connects to the idea of persecution in the New Testament passages. Persecution is the maltreatment of a person with different beliefs than oneself.

Before Day makes her claim she goes on to say, “We rather help them by maintaining our own peace. It takes a man of heroic stature to be a pacifist and we urge our readers to consider and study pacifism and disarmament in this light” (Day 2). In her eyes, a pacifist is the strongest person anyone could ever know; their efforts should not go unnoticed. The same is said in the New Testament, “For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God” (1 Peter 2:19). Praise for the people who suffer while trying to uphold peace just as God did; they are giving them props.

Another part of the New Testament includes a passage by John, “Anyone who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him” (1 John 3:14-15). It is essentially saying that anyone who harnesses any hate whatsoever in their being is a murderer and belonged to the evil. Day’s claim can connect to this in many ways as she is against hatred and violence.

Taking the perspective of a major thinker, Dorothy Day, the Melians did the right thing in deciding to resist the Athenians. Dorothy Day had the ultimate belief in absolute pacifism and in many ways, the Melians demonstrated just that. Absolute pacifists reject any notion leaning towards a violent approach and outcome. Day stated, “… then we can only insist ceaselessly that even when the people are taking sides mentally they must keep out, they must not participate in a War to end War” (Day 2). Day advises everyone to completely deny the option of a war to end a current ongoing war. In her eyes and other fellow pacifists, a war to end a war is unnecessary and entirely counterproductive; even more so, the act of war preparations is against the absolute pacifist belief. The Melians did just that, they unknowingly followed the guidelines of an absolute pacifist.

The Melians were caught in a conundrum with the Athenians; the Athenians wanted to conquer the Melians and take over all of their lands regardless of how much force it took. The Melians decided to reject any plans of violence and war, they simply refused to join the Athenian empire and protect themselves. In the Melian dialogue, they stand their ground, “Nevertheless we trust that the gods will give us a fortune as good as yours because we are standing for what is right against what is wrong” (The Melian Dialogue 405).

The Athenians were trying to persuade the Melians to join their empire with threats, but the Melians stood their ground and opted out of it. They did exactly what was right; they did not want to subject themselves to the terrible reign of the Athenians.

Although the war was initiated by the Athenians shortly after, and the Melians were defeated, it all worked out in the end. The Melians did not initiate the war and remained neutral but was eventually dragged into the mix. Absolute pacifists would applaud Melian’s efforts.

Abstract

This paper explores mysticism in Sufism, and the works of one of the greatest Sufi poets, Jalaluddin Rumi. Three poems by Rumi: ‘Masnavi Manavi’, ‘How Very Close’ and ‘The Song of Reed’ are discussed and analyzed, while answering two main questions:

1. How has Jalaluddin Rumi’s past affected his mystical journey and his poems?
2. How is mystical experience represented in ‘Masnavi Manavi’, ‘How Very Close’ and ‘The Song of Reed”?

The first question has been answered by looking into Rumi’s religious background, Sufism, and his biographical background. The second question has been answered by analyzing the poems not only from an intrinsic level but also from an extrinsic level. The poems were analyzed based on the elements of literary poetry mainly language, prosodic features, the interpretation of the words, symbolism, and metaphors used in his poems. Rumi’s background was also taken into account while analyzing the poems, in order to dig deeper and gain a better understanding of mysticism.

Through this research paper, we also looked into the mystic fervor and similarities in the poetry of Rumi and Kabir.

Introduction

Mysticism

Mysticism has been described as “the great spiritual current which goes through all religions.” (Raseek, C. 1987) It is the consciousness of the One Reality, “the passion for the Absolute.” (Raseek, C. 1987). The mystics have developed, throughout their lives, the power to experience the union with the Absolute. In order to achieve this final goal, they have to pass through different stages of being and consciousness until they reach the consummation of their quest and acquire the vision of the truth.

Mysticism has included phenomena ranging from experiences of “pure consciousness,” to specific visual, auditory, and tactile hallucinations, and unusual religious or spiritual experiences more broadly. These experiences can be elicited under certain conditions and settings, such as experiences in nature, religious settings (e.g., prayer, ritual), drugs, sexual intercourse, sensory deprivation, and even under “sham” treatment conditions. Often, mysticism is expressed through poetry. The mystical poet is a mystic first, then a poet. For him, the act of writing is not an end in itself but it is the outcome of an experience that has involved his entire being in the most passionate way. Such is the mystic, Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi whose works we will be analyzing in this research paper.

Sufism

Sufism is a philosophical approach, where a person tries to become one with nature and feel the power of God. It is perceived as a peaceful and nonpolitical form of Islam, notably suited to interreligious dialogue and intercultural harmonization in pluralist societies; a logo of tolerance and humanism —flexible and non-violent.

While Sufis strictly observe Islamic law, they’re ascetics, firm in their following of Dhikr, the remembrance of God. Classical Sufi students have outlined Sufism, as known as Tasawwfu, as “a science whose objective is the reparation of the heart and turning it away from all else but God” (India TV lifestyle desk, 2018). Sufis believe that by pledging allegiance to Muhammad spiritually they will connect with God. Intensive devotion, pious abstemiousness, and pondering the divine mysteries is that the Sufi means, the science of purifying the heart. The most widely accepted origin of the word ‘Sufi’ is from the Arabic word ‘suf‘ which means ‘wool’, referring to a group of sincere worshippers who lived during, and shortly after, the time of the Prophet Muhammad and who became known for their tendency to wear coarse woolen clothes.

There are different Sufi orders and their teachings vary from each other but Sufism as a whole primarily believes in direct personal experience and hence sometimes it is compared with other ethnic forms of mysticism resulting in bringing harmony with other forms. A Sufi tries to unite his will with God’s will. They try to isolate themselves, so they can fear and become closer to God. A Sufi tries to change the state in a person, to bring him closer to God. A Sufi teacher, Ahmad Ibn Ajiba defines Sufism in the following words: “a science through which one can know how to travel into the presence of the Divine, purify one’s inner self from filth, and beautify it with a variety of praiseworthy traits.” (Hi-Jacked Islam, pg. 24)

One of the most fundamental principles of Sufism is that whatever exists is a manifestation of the one absolute knowledge that pervades everything and is not limited to time or place. Therefore, the closest place to realize access to the present data is among one’s own self. They go through four stages the first one being the lowest form, to be dominated by your wants and desires. The second stage is to struggle with you, to criticize yourself whenever you fail. The third stage is satisfied with whatever God gives you, be it good or bad. The final stage is to accept death.

Rumi was the son of a renowned Sufi scholar, and it is more than likely that he was introduced to Sufism from a young age. Baha’ ud-Din (Rumi’s father) became the head of a madrassa (religious school) and when he died, Rumi, aged twenty-five, inherited his position as the Islamic maulvi. One of Baha’ ud-Din’s students, Sayyed Burhan ud-Din Muhaqqiq Termazi, continued to train Rumi in the Shariah as well as the Tariqa, especially that of Rumi’s father. For 9 years, Rumi practiced Sufism as a disciple of Burhan ud-Din until the latter died in 1240 or 1241.

Devotion to Muhammad is an exceptionally robust apply among mysticism. Rumi attributes his self-control and abstinence from worldly needs as qualities earned by him through the steering of Muhammad.

Rumi made utilization of ordinary life’s circumstances to explain the mystic world. The tool that he used to describe the phenomenon of Mysticism was poetry and through his poetry, he proved to be one of the greatest Mystical Masters of all time. The Philosophy of Mysticism has been interpreted by Maulana Rumi to the level of simplicity. Rumi asserts that for jointure with its origin, the human soul needs to develop a strong relationship with God and human beings. To love the Creator one needs first to learn how to love His creation, i.e human beings. Without loving mankind, one cannot achieve divine inspiration. In short, according to Rumi, love for God and His creation are crucial for human salvation.

Rumi firmly believed in Sufism and so like other mystic and Sufi poets of Persian literature, his general theme is the concept of union with his beloved (the primal root) from which/whom he has been cut off and become aloof and his longing and desire to restore it, which is the concept of tawhid. He had a great admiration for poetry, music, and dance and believed passionately that they are a path to reach God. His teachings paved the way for the Mevlevi order, which was further carried by his son, Sultan Walad. Rumi favored Sama, listening to sacred music or performing the sacred dance. Sama is a part of the Mevlevi tradition, representing a mystical journey of non-secular ascent through the mind and like to the proper One. This is the journey, in which the seeker symbolically turns towards the truth, develops through love forsakes ego, searches for truth, and arrives at the Perfect. Hence the seeker returns from a mystical or spiritual voyage, with profound maturity, to love and to be of service to the whole of creation without discrimination with regard to belief, races, classes, and nations.

Rumi

Everyone who is familiar with Eastern mysticism, particularly with Sufism, has heard of Jalaluddin Rumi, for he is one of the most celebrated and most widely translated Sufi mystics of all times. Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi was born on 30 September 1207 in Balkh, Afghanistan which was then part of a Persian empire. He was a strange child, who, at five saw visions, and went into ecstasies, often, becoming restless and uneasy. His mother belonged to a princely house whose roots could be traced to the immediate family of the prophet Mohammad, and his father, Baha-ud-Din Velad was a descendent of the Caliph Abu Bekr. He was born a ‘Self-realised’ soul.

Rumi was a Persian poet, jurist, theologian, and Sufi mystic. Rumi’s poems have been widely translated into many of the world’s languages. The scholars Reynold A. Nicholson and A. J. Arberry described Rumi as the “greatest mystical poet of any age.” (Mohammad J. and Mojdeh B. 2000) Rumi composed over 70,000 verses of poetry collected in 2 distinct volumes. His poetry focuses on varied and diverse topics. His work covers deeply philosophical and mystical, with poems of fiery soulful expression to passionate love verses filled with yearning.

Rumi gained widespread respect and fame as an ordinary pro­fessor, and people from all parts of the East came to him for advice and lectures. Probably he would have remained so if it weren’t for his encounter with a remarkable spiritual personality, Shams­uddin Tabrizi. The mysterious Shams first met Rumi in 1244, when Rumi was thirty-eight and that event changed Rumi’s life forever. Had Rumi not met Shams, he might not have written poems at all, and, in fact, Rumi, as we know him today, might not have existed. Shams disappeared after three years, leaving no trace. Without a doubt, the relationship between Rumi and Shams is one of the most extraordinary of spiritual bonds known to history. As a perfect master, Shams brought out the latent perfection within Rumi. It is important, therefore, to learn something of the life of Shams in order to better under­stand his role in the transformation of Rumi. Later Rumi met a goldsmith – Salaud-Din-e Zarkub – who became his companion. After the death of Salaud-Din-e Zarkub, Rumi befriended his favorite disciples named Hussam-e Chalabi.

Rumi’s Works

The Masnavi is Rumi’s greatest poetic work, composed during the last years of his life. He started it when he was between the ages of 54-57 and continued composing its verses until he died in 1273. It is a mixture of Sufi stories, ethical teachings, and mystical teachings.

The Divan is the inspiration of Rumi’s middle-aged years. It began with his meeting Shams-i Tabriz, becoming his disciple and spiritual friend, the stress of Shams’ first disappearance, and the crisis of Shams’ final disappearance. The Divan is filled with ecstatic verses in which Rumi expresses his mystical love for Shams as a symbol of his love for God.

There are three works of Rumi’s words and teachings that are not in the form of poetry. The first are his seventy-one talks and lectures, Fî-hi Mâ Fî-hi (literally, ‘in it what is in it’), commonly known as his Discourses.

Then there are his seven sermons, Majâlis-é Sab`a- (literally, ‘seven sessions’), commonly known as his Sermons. The collected book of these has not been translated into English (except for one short sermon).

Finally, there are his one hundred and fifty letters, Makatib (Maktubat), known as his ‘Letters.’ Makatib is the book containing Rumi’s letters in Persian to his disciples, family members, and men of state and of influence. The letters testify that Rumi kept very busy helping family members and administering a community of disciples that had grown up around them.

Indeed Rumi’s influence has perpetually transcended national borders and ethnic divisions and, in several of those societies. So much so, it’s not stunning to listen to people from the region quoting Rumi within the original Persian. Indeed, he’s revered as a Master, a Mevlana title by which he’s typically familiar within the Middle Eastern countries. He is, indirectly, the ‘founder’ of Sufi Mazhab — the Order of the whirling dervish — that enjoys popularity in Turkey. In fact, in Konya, where he’s buried, his tomb is a revered shrine wherever his followers and admires assemble in pilgrimage on December 17, the day of remembrance of his death and the entire Konya goes into a vibrant spiritual mood.

Rumi’s Thoughts on Pacifism

Pacifism is a major subject of Islamic mysticism and Rumi’s thoughts. Based on Pacifism, the mystic believes God as existential and absolute truth and there is no one but God. Pacifism in Islamic mysticism means the public and general peace. The world has never been without representations of love and peace. Rumi was and is one of the perfect representatives of such a complete human being, and one of the greatest teachers of universal love and peace

The Pacifism in Islamic mysticism and Rumi’s thoughts has two major bases: love and pantheism, which both of them are the principle bases of Islamic mysticism.

Love

Love is one of the most important principles in Islamic mysticism and there are very many definitions and theories about it, for each theory teaches how to come close to God or to be united with him. Rumi has a completely positive viewpoint to existence. He believes that there is no absolute evil in the world: evil is relative because he thinks that every negative problem may be turned into positive opportunities in the future. So he has not hostility against others because of there is not the absolute reason for hostility.

Love according to Rumi is divided in two parts: love in the human and love in the world and creations. So Pacifism is divided in two parts: Peace to the People and Peace to all the world and its creations. Humanistic Peace is peace in which Rumi loves all the people even his enemy.

Pantheism

Literally means “God is All” and “All is God”. Pacifism tends to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence, and the Universe (the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) is represented or personified in the theological principle of an abstract ‘God’

Rumi based on pantheism sees humans and the cosmos as the illumination of God. the spirit of God has been inspired by all of things; so he believes that every pain of human is a pain for others: And he emphasizes that only the existence of God is absolute and actually other beings are non-existence and because of the pantheism all of the things love god. Rumi wants people to be kind and have mercy together.

Analyzing Rumi’s Works

How Rumi’s Background Played a Role in His Works

Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī more popularly simply as Rumi was a 13th-century Persian poet, theologian, faqih, Islamic scholar, and Sufi mystic originally from Greater Khorasan.

Rumi’s father Bahhaudin Walad was a mystic and a theologian as well. Rumi was an acquaintance of Sayyed Burhan ud-Din Muhaqqiq Termazi, one in all his father’s students. Beneath the steering of Sayyed Termazi, he practiced religious mysticism and purchased loads of data regarding religious matters and secrets of the spiritual place. After the death of Bahhauddin, in 1231 AD, Rumi transmitted his father’s position and became a distinguished non-secular teacher. By the time Rumi reached the age of twenty-four, he had established himself as an intelligent scholar within the field of non-secular science.

The central event in Rumi’s life which he believed gave birth to his poetry and ghazals. As he was already a teacher and theologian when in 1244 AD he came across a wandering dervish named Shamsuddin of Tabriz. Apparently, Shamsuddin and Rumi became very close friends. Shams went to Damascus, were he was allegedly killed by the students of Rumi who were resentful of their close relationship. Consequently, Rumi expressed his love for Shamsuddin and grief at his death, through music, dance, and poems.

For nearly ten years after meeting Shamsuddin, Rumi devoted himself in writing ghazals. He then made a compilation of ghazals and named them as Diwan-e-Kabir or Diwan-e Shams-e Tabrizi.

Like many other Persian mystic and Sufi poets, Rumi’s poetry speaks of love. Rumi’s teachings are also expressed in the tenets which are summarized in the Quranic verse. In the interpretation attributed to Shams, the first part of the verse commands humanity to seek knowledge of tawhid (oneness of God), while the second instructs them to negate their own existence. Rumi became devoted to the unorthodox spiritual path under the guidance of Shams. In Rumi’s terms, tawhid is lived most fully through love, with the connection being made explicit in his verse that describes love as “that flame which, when it blazes up, burns away everything except the Everlasting Beloved.” Henceforth for him to acquire such an idealistic stage in desire is presented through this quote mentioned earlier in his book the Masnavi.

Rumi was one who believed passionately in the use of poetry, music, and dance as a pathway to reach towards God. For Rumi, music could help devotees to focus their whole being on the divine and to do this so intensely that the soul was both destroyed and resurrected. It was through this concept and these ideas that the practice of whirling Dervishes developed into a ritual form. Therefore, he is credited to originate the dance of whirling In fact Rumi’s poetry forms the basis of classical Afghan and Iranian music.

By analyzing Rumi’s work further one can easily see the influences of the people he met, the ones who inspired him endlessly. Moreover, the tint of the music and religious milieu during his times can be observed in the poem we will analyze further.

Interviews are one of the best methods that one can have a better understanding of the opinions and viewpoints of an individual on a variety of issues. Many people find it enjoyable to take part in an interview especially if they have an opinion and perceived knowledge regarding a particular topic. I decided to interview my father, John Adams since he has significant viewpoints regarding the topic of war. He is a son of a war veteran and has grown up in South California. He went to Utah high school and later to the University of California. His level of education and family background has played a critical role in making him have a wide range of opinions regarding different social and moral issues. The paper will show how John Adams uses the moral theories of consequentialism, virtue theory, and deontology as well as the fallacy of hasty generalization in answering the interview questions on the war.

The first question I asked in the interview was ‘is there ever a good reason to go to war, why or why not?’ He posed for a moment and then began stating his answer. ‘There are different good reasons that countries can go to war at any time. It is important to note that war is the precipitation of a variety of issues that go unresolved through diplomatic means. As a result, the only method that can be applied to end any differences that have not been resolved through other methods is war. In most cases, the fight against an evil regime and bad governance as well as the fight against terrorism and terrorist sympathizers has been the good reason that countries have had to go to war. Such are good reasons to go to war since the results help in making the world a better place. For instance, if war is to ensure evil leaders are removed from their positions, the citizens enjoy better leadership and as a result an improvement of their lifestyles. Moreover, since terrorism has been a global issue, going to war to deal with terrorists is for the good of the universe.’ Adams provided a compelling answer on the good reasons of going to war. He uses the consequentialism theory to elaborate his answer. The theory focuses on the cost-benefit analysis of the actions of individuals or the society at large. When the good consequences are greater than the bad ones, the actions are morally proper (Driver 12). In his explanation, Adams points out that the reason for going to war is to make the world a better place for as many people as possible. Removing an evil leader from their position through war would have significant benefits to many citizens in the respective countries going to war. As a result, it is evident that war would have a good impact on a majority of individuals. The consequentialism theory is critical in justifying the reasons for going to war and the extent it would be beneficial. The example Adams provides on terrorism also is vital in explaining the good reasons for engaging in war at times.

After the intense first answer, I asked Adams whether there should be rules to war and the reasons he thinks that way. In response, he argued ‘Any war must have rules in an attempt to reduce the negative impact it may have on individuals that are not actively taking part. The major reason that rules in war are important is to reduce suffering, save lives, and maintain some level of humanity during an armed conflict. The rules of war are universal; hence, they have a significant impact on the lives of civilians that are not equipped to be active participants of the war. Civilians need protection in the case of war since they are always helpless and in need. Moreover, the rules of war are vital since they outline that the medical vehicles and workers as well as individuals providing humanitarian aid are not supposed to be attacked under any circumstance. It is an aspect that ensures people that are wounded as a result of the war are catered for and get the necessary medical and aid services needed. The rules in war also play a major role in ensuring that people remain humane and focus on the rights of human beings as well as avoiding unnecessary suffering.’ From Adam’s point of view, it is vital to have rules that regulate the manner in which war is conducted. The deontology approach best defines the answer he gives and the illustrations he outlines of the need to have rules during war. The theory is based on the duty one has on ensuring the good of others. The theory states that an individual has the duty of avoiding wronging others and ensuring the good of a majority of the citizens. Moreover, one has a duty of reducing harm to others (Gaus 180). Adam believes that having rules in war is critical since it ensures that individuals accomplish their duties of reducing harm to others. The rules play a role in protecting innocent people, which is a moral duty of all people.

The interview was intense as Adams supported his answers with the required evidence to develop a convincing argument. In the midst of his flow of thoughts, I asked ‘should one still act humanely during the war, and how?’ He took a sip of water before embarking on answering the question. ‘It is paramount for individuals engaging in war to be humane in some cases. Despite the differences that may have caused the way, soldiers must have a humane heart at some point in the war period. For instance, soldiers that have surrendered and agreed to defeat should not be killed. Their lives should be respected as well as their physical integrity. Regardless of the intensity of the war, individuals that have surrendered to the opponents should be allowed to live. Moreover, the wounded and sick individuals should not be subjected to any other form of cruelty rather they should be given the medical attention they require. If they do not pose a threat to the opponents, they should not be subjected to suffering. Moreover, it is critical to be humane during the war by not using powerful weapons that do not match those of the opponents. Parties involved in a conflict should not use methods of warfare that is likely to cause unnecessary and excessive suffering. Being humane during the war is important since it ensures there are limited casualties and enhances respect for human rights and life.’ It is clear from the answer that some form of humanity during the war would have had a critical impact in reducing the suffering of the subjects. In his answer, Adam uses the virtual theory. The theory points out on the need to develop good habits of character that would play a role in enhancing the well-being of self and others (Der Derian 773). Good habits and character is the main reason that individuals would be humane during warfare. Since the virtues are learned attributes from a young age, some people may be keen on ensuring they have the respect of life as well as ensuring justice prevail. Instead of killing, one could focus on capturing the opponent and subjecting them to the rule of law.

The last question in the interview was ‘Do you think pacifism can accomplish the same things war can, why or why not?’ Adam took a deep breath as he thought through the answer before giving his views. In his response, he stated that ‘pacifism could have similar results as that of war in ending the conflict. The United Nations has been in the frontline to advocate for peaceful methods in conflict resolutions between countries. The focus on such a strategy is expected to provide the best results as opposed to war. In many cases, the United Nations has been a mediator between different warring nations and some cases have had fruitful results. Moreover, there are cases when neighboring countries have acted as mediators between other states in an attempt to find a lasting solution based on peaceful negotiations. The United Nations through its various agencies have constantly advocated for a peaceful world that is characterized by peaceful negotiations in cases conflict arises. Moreover, powerful states have also had a key interest on the cases of conflict across the world. They have also had a stand on pacifism, which is an indication it would have as good results in resolving conflicts as war. It is; however, important to note that sometimes war is aggressive and may cause one party to give in to the demands of the other without any bargain of a deal. The winner of the war determines the stake they will have as opposed to the peaceful means that may see both parties have a share of the stake.’ Adam’s answer to the question was mostly based on what the United Nations and the powerful nations believed regarding the use of pacifism in ending the war. He constantly quotes the United Nations and how it advocates for the use of peaceful methods to address the conflicts between different states. His answer is based on a fallacy of the appeal to authority. He states that pacifism would have similar results as war because the United Nations and superpowers have a similar view (Hundleby 279). It is an aspect that shows Adam is not quite sure about his stand on the issue; hence, he must rely on the information provided by an expert authority on matters of international peace.

Adams provides comprehensive answers on the questions asked about the war. It is evident that he has well-informed opinions that are based on evidence and the reality about conflict. His family background has played a role in making him informed in matters related to war and as a result, have found it easy to tackle the questions asked during the interview. It is also evident that Adam has been guided by different moral theories based on the responses he has provided. It is clear that morality forms a critical part of human life.

Works Cited

1. Der Derian, James. ‘Virtuous war/virtual theory.’ International Affairs vol.76, no.4, 2000, pp.771-788.
2. Driver, Julia. Consequentialism. Abingdon:, Routledge, 2011.
3. Gaus, Gerald F. ‘What is deontology? Part two: Reasons to act.’ The Journal of Value Inquiry vol.35, no.2, 2001, pp.179-193.
4. Hundleby, Catherine. ‘The authority of the fallacies approaches to argument evaluation.’ Informal Logic vol.20, no.3, 2010, pp.279.

In Moral Man and Immoral Society, Niebuhr discusses the conflict between individual morality and social justice and acknowledges the difficulty in resolving the conflict. Despite the difficulty, he argues that in order to change the world for good, a person needs to simultaneously pursue individual morality and justice for society, and have the illusion that perfect justice is attainable. I argue that Niebuhr’s argument is very convincing since it takes into account human nature and the reality of our world. This paper will first explain the conflict between individual morality and social justice, and then discuss Niebuhr’s argument.

First, it is important to understand what individual morality and social justice are. According to Niebuhr, individual morality, epitomized by altruism, refers to the ethical standards that individuals adhere to (257). In contrast, social justice can be understood as the morality of the public sphere, and its central goal is equality. It is not rare that society can only achieve justice through immoral methods such as coercion and resistance, and they can undermine one’s individual moral standards. A conflict thus arises, and there is no obvious way to resolve it (258). Niebuhr illustrates this point using the example of Italian fascists and Italian socialists. The fascists in Italy threatened equality and justice in the country, but to repress their power required aggression, which was contrary to individual morality. However, the socialists maintained group moral standards through pacifism, which was ineffective and eventually led to fascists’ prominence (268-269). This example shows that conflicts can indeed arise in the pursuit of individual morality and social justice.

Given this conflict, some may wonder why we cannot pursue just one form of morality. Niebuhr points out that it is futile to only strive for individual morality. When social justice is at risk due to some people, the others’ refusal to resist based on a belief of non-aggression does not change the behavior of those bringing injustice (268). In other words, people undermining justice simply do not care about others’ behavior or attitude. Any effort to bring back justice without active resistance or counter-coercion is thus futile. This can be seen in the Italian fascism example, as well as in the American Civil War. African Americans did not resist the discrimination and oppression by others and instead remained loyal to the oppressors. African Americans at that time might have expected that their choice of not rising against the oppressors could move them, but in reality, the latter was not influenced at all (268). Therefore, based on Niebuhr’s analysis of the relationship between African Americans and their oppressors, it is clear that individual ethics adhering to pacifism without resistance is unlikely to change the status quo.

Niebuhr also shows why one should not pursue justice without maintaining high individual ethical standards. If justice is attained through means that are antithetical to individual morality, such as violence, our life will actually not be enjoyable (265). Even though a certain level of equality is achieved (258), we feel that we have betrayed our basic moral guidelines, and thus we do not take pleasure in the justice stemming from violence. Justice in this case is void of meaning; it does not contribute to the overall well-being of people.

Therefore, Niebuhr thinks that in order to improve the world, one should pursue both individual and social morality (265, 268). On the one hand, one should maintain the highest moral standards for herself and the group that she is in; even though doing so may be seen as an escape from responsibility, it can nonetheless have a positive impact on society. For example, if there is a large number of people adhering to strict individual moral standards during a conflict, these people can influence people in the opponent nation, prompting them to maintain high moral standards as well. This can potentially alleviate the tension between nations (273). On the other hand, one should also aim to achieve social justice through tangible actions, and sometimes they entail coercion and aggression. As explained above, pacifism without active resistance is unlikely to improve the world (268). Therefore, one should both maintain the highest moral standards and strive for social justice.

Moreover, Niebuhr emphasizes the importance of an illusion of absolute justice. He thinks that this illusion is indispensable since it motivates us to strive for justice (277). It is very unlikely that perfect justice can ever be achieved due to the inherent greed of human societies (272). Communities compete against each other to pursue their respective agendas, resulting in conflicts. However, being too realistic would inevitably lead one to despair, and thus, inaction. Subsequently, we would be further away from the ultimate goal of perfect justice, becoming essentially worse off. Ultimately, it is the process of striving for perfect justice that leads to the betterment of the world (277). Therefore, it is important to possess the illusion that perfect justice is achievable so that we are motivated enough to take action to improve the world.

I think Niebuhr’s argument is very convincing since it takes into account the reality of the world. He acknowledges that pacifism without resistance is futile in many cases since one’s adversaries are unlikely to change their actions in the face of pacifism. Instead, coercion and resistance should be adopted to achieve justice. However, he also emphasizes the importance of high moral standards, so he is in fact arguing that resistance should be moderated by strict individual and group morality. Since it is very difficult to harmonize the two moral goals, his aim is more to offer us an ideal that should be pursued. For people who want to make the world better, they should strive for this ideal, and through the process, they can bring the world closer to perfect justice and complete individual benevolence.