Tuesday, September 22, 2009

A Time to Fight


Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.
Mahatma Gandhi
In a world rife with conflicts, tribal wars, and nuclear weapons, is the non-violent approach the best way to resolve conflicts? Or, is there a time when violence is not only necessary, but justified?
Please share your comments and write your name at the end of each comment.

2 comments:

  1. I would never promote violence as a first option, but I believe that there is a time to fight. Gandhi and King's non-violent approach was effective because they were dealing with an enemy who was willing to negotiate (even though it took a while ). However, such tactics would be useless against a madman like Hitler. How do you reason with a man like Hitler whose only desire is to see the world subservient to him? You can't. A person like that would view negotiations and diplomacy as a sign of weakness. In fact, it was the Allies' policy of appeasement and their unwillingness to fight that encouraged Hitler to expand his power. Had no nation stood up to Hitler, he would surely continue to expand his power.
    Therefore I believe there is a time to fight only when you are dealing with an enemy who is not willing to negotiate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It would be wishing for the impossible to say that conflict should only be resolved in a non-violent way. There are times when violence is justified--in a situation such as fighting for independence. Slave masters, most often, would never want to relinquish their power on slaves, so there might be need for rebellion(which might involve violence) for a change to occur.

    ReplyDelete

What do you think?