Means and Ends

I loved Ferdinand Lassalle’s quote, “For ends and means on earth are so entangled that changing one you change the other too.” People tend to think of means as justifiable as long as a desirable goal is reached. Cady argues that ends are defined by their means and in that, the products of war would reflect violence.

In the reading “Means and Ends”, Cady explains that one way people have tried to settle the problems of war is with religion. However, spiritual principles differ from religion to religion, and often from sect to sect. I know, within my own church I have seen disagreements between members in their interpretations of the doctrine. So clearly, a common ground cannot always be found and there will be disagreements if this method is used to try and bring peace. It is for that reason that I believe religion is an inappropriate medium for conflict resolution. Furthermore, church and state are to remain separate. It would be unconstitutional for us as Americans to use religion in order to bring about a desired result. If the means used to attain peace are the views of a particular religion, then the ends will surely reflect that.

She wrote about the “just-warist”. What a strange term. She said that a just-warist is a person who argues that the ultimate good of war outweighs the negativity. I would argue that there is no such thing as a just-warist because war is never justifiable. There are pacifists and there are those in support of war. Anything in between is just violence with varying shades gray. She further describes that some just-warists would go as far as to believe that war should be fought even if defeat is certain, because it is better to go down fighting than to surrender. Why should one fight at all if loss is inevitable? Why subject more to violence than necessary? Those thoughts echoed in my mind as I read the chapter. In my opinion such logic has no place in society. By victimizing more people with the brutality of war, we are only creating an undesirable end with an unnecessary mean.

Refusing to be a Victim

Women throughout history have been perceived as weak. They have been socialized into roles of submission and victimization. I don’t say that to sound sexist, nor do I agree that weakness is characteristic of women; but society as a whole has typically believed that women are in some way inferior to men in that they are in some need of protection. This view has enabled women to play the role of victim, because it has been in accordance with society’s views, thus giving them certain sway in the decisions of men. This façade of weakness has at times brought women great influence. However, it has also made it difficult to gain roles of leadership and power.

In “Refusing to be a Victim” the author was taken aback by the thought of women as victims. She grew up in the south and the black women she was raised around were emotionally strong, knowledgeable individuals who refused to act as victims. These women were powerful; however they did not gain their power through the perception of victimization. Instead they gained power through mental and emotional strength.

Some women, “privileged-class white women” in particular were able to use a victim identity in order to get positive, nonviolent results during the civil rights movement. They could see that, as victims, they were less likely to be attacked by the police and assassinated, thus giving them a clear upper hand. In this case, using victimization worked in women’s favor.

The author further explained, “The image of blacks as victims had an accepted place in the consciousness of every white person.” I don’t know that I completely agree with that statement. Like in the case of women, people often held the belief that a role of submission was a black individual’s place in society. I think that many people did not view blacks as victims. They were not perceived as weak, they were seen as lesser. Whites saw them as a group of people not needing help, nor playing the card of the distressed; but as strong group of people, that regardless of their knowledge, were inherently inferior. It is in that belief that they moved out of the role of victim, and into the role of inborn subordination. That was also the reason whites had such a struggle with cultural solidarity, where blacks and whites could be accepted as equals.

Personally, I view people across the board as equal. A Caucasian male is not inherently superior to an African American female. As far as sexism, as a society we are thankfully moving closer to equality. Racism is a little more complicated. I think that we are for the most part perceived as equals. However, I think we as society have moved in the direction of reverse discrimination to level the playing field. I understand that they were victimized, but I am in no way at fault for what occurred and I am not responsible for fixing it by experiencing discrimination of my own people. Hopefully, racism and sexism will someday be obsolete and no longer integral to our society. We are at a point in history where people are getting closer to equality; but we still have a long way to go before we reach unity.

Pilgrimage to Nonviolence

I never realized how little I knew about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and there are several topics in this reading that I would like to discuss. First of all, I thought that it was interesting that he had studied Gandhi. He said, “My study of Gandhi convinced me that true pacifism is not nonresistance to evil, but nonviolent resistance to evil.” Addams, Stone, Gandhi, King, and many other pacifists and nonviolent activists seem to agree on that idea. In order to fight violence, there must be nonviolent action.

King’s view of Gandhi fascinated me. He at one point described him as being Jesus like in his social effect. I feel that Gandhi was a great man, but never before had I considered him to be savior-like as King implied. He did seem to possess qualities of kindness, compassion, and altruism that were ever present in his quest for human civility.

“A religion that ends with the individual, ends.” I was intrigued by that quote because it is rather contrary to what is often taught in the Christian church, and yet fundamental to King’s teachings. You can see that traditional denominations within the Christian church are crumbling because there is a lack of outreach. I grew up going to a traditional Methodist church, which at the time was a flourishing church in the Huntingdon area. Now, it is dwindling down to its last few members. There is little missionary work, very little youth involvement, and therefore, a very bleak future. I now attend a church that is flourishing and will probably do so in the future because of the involvement with the youth and outreach programs. King used this quote when describing that religion was clearly meant to be understood in physical terms, as well as metaphysical. For King, the gospel was more than just an instruction manual to get into heaven, it was concerned with the whole individual; mind, body, and soul. I agree that if you do not in some way profess your beliefs, then those beliefs will die with you. Because of his willingness and persistence in professing his beliefs, even though King has long passed, his beliefs and are ever present, shaping our society.

Nonviolence in the Talmud

Reading “Nonviolence in the Talmud” makes me think of one of my dad’s favorite quotes, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” He used to say that when my sister and I would bicker. That saying used to annoy me, but now I can see now how insightful it was. The Midrash explains that one should not return evil for good, nor should one return evil for evil. This idea of not returning a negative act with another negative act is at the heart of nonviolent theory and practice.

The Midrash further explains that an act of kindness may offset previous acts of cruelty. In Prov. 3:17, a man’s enemy comes to him in a time of need, and the man assists him. His enemy then reconsiders his previous dislike of the man, and decides that if his enemy is willing to aid him, then he might not be an enemy at all.

“It is not good for the righteous to punish (Prov.17:26).” I enjoy that message mainly because it implies that no moral man or woman has the right to punish. One principle of violent behavior is that those with power have a monopoly on violence. They determine whether or not it is “acceptable” to issue the use of violent acts. I was interested by this proverb because, if no man can use violence as a means of punishment because of moral confines, then violence becomes nearly obsolete. If a government then finds that violence as a means of punishment is unacceptable based on the individual assumption previously stated, offensive violence should hold no place in political practice.

So often in our society, violence is seen as an appropriate measure of controlling those we don’t agree with, or whom we have judged unfit for society. The perfect example of this is capital punishment. We, as a society, take it upon ourselves to decide who lives and dies. If violence was used for defense rather than punishment, the death penalty would not exist, because it would serve no purpose in a society driven by a people who consider violence as a means of punishment unacceptable. Even though evidence against a criminal may seem irrefutable, we are still human and therefore inherently capable of making mistakes. Furthermore, even if the convicted felon was certain to have committed the crime; would not using violence against him merely extend the pain? Gandhi himself said, “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.”

Address of Mrs. Lucy Stone

Lucy Stone’s address at the hearing of the Woman suffrage association was awe inspiring. One question that she posed that is fundamental to any nonviolence movement warranting government action was, “How much do we spend for war, and how much should we save if this peace element were only represented in the Government?” That principle applies not only to the woman suffragist movement, but in any area of oppression and/or war.

The way she gave this speech was, in my opinion, nonviolent action at its best. She presented her argument to the committee without verbally attacking the men in the audience and in a way that made her point very clear. She pointed out various injustices towards women, such as inequality in marriage, difference in legal power, and of course, the right to vote.

I appreciated how she spoke of the injustices towards women. She used the example of Jefferson Davis. This man received a punishment, which at the time was considered the worst sentence they could impose on him. They took away his right to vote. Stone went on to say that in Massachusetts, only idiots, felons, and lunatics don’t have the right to vote. By using these examples, she made it clear that women should indeed have the right to vote, for there was no logical basis for withholding it. Certainly, every woman was not crazy, or a felon, or an idiot, and did not deserve to receive the punishment of a criminal. Clearly, at this point men were just trying to hold a monopoly on the power to vote. As Mrs. Stone pointed out, there was no real reason that men should deny women that simple, but deeply important right.

I learned a great deal from Lucy Stone’s address and the movie shown in class about the women suffragists. Never before had I considered how deeply the right to vote impacts an individual. I remember when I was younger, I thought when I reached the age to vote; I would refuse to do so. After reading this article, and seeing what these women were willing to suffer in order to acquire that same right, I can think of no reason why an individual would refuse to vote.

Jane Addams

In “Personal Reactions During War”, Jane Addams explained that the principles of militarism are contrary to civility. She clearly states that she believes that, even though human beings are capable of great atrocities and violent actions, we are not inherently violent. Instead, in order to do a violent task, violence must be taught and pushed on an individual. She spoke of those who fought in war, explaining that they killed, but were not necessarily advocates of war. There had to be some influential, external stimulus to get a soldier to plunge his bayonet into the body of an enemy fighter.

“Was not war in the interest of democracy for the salvation of civilization a contradiction of terms (p.3)?” That is my favorite quote from this reading because it revisits the idea of previous pacifists and philosophers, in that violence can never beget peace. Addams was certainly a pacifist, one who felt that non-action was inappropriate. She explained that “quietism” accomplished nothing and that in order to get desirable results, one must use nonviolent action. I think by nonviolent action she meant the use of things like picketing, fasting, and protesting.

This reading was very interesting and complemented my feelings towards aggression by nature. I have always felt that humans mean well in most of what they do. We are not malicious by nature. Her use of evolution as an example of why war is not inherent in a species was very interesting. I have always enjoyed humanistic psychology’s belief that people are generally good. This theory is complemented by the thought that evolutionary forces have not made war an inborn process. I have come to believe that societal influence and power struggle have made war a social norm, and aggression an acceptable means to an end. We fight because in the minds of most people, violence is an appropriate way to get what you want, and punish those who have done you wrong.

Gandhi - Theology

Gandhi had some very interesting theological beliefs. His thoughts on God and religion affected everything he did. Religion, he explained, is not what an individual believes; it is how they live (p.42). That is a fascinating concept, and very different, backwards even, to many religious views. I was brought up with a Christian background, and to hear religion referred to as more of a belief than a way of life is intriguing.

Something I found interesting was that, instead of rejecting many religious beliefs and accepting one, Gandhi embraced many. Most religious people have a very concrete, narrow view on religion and spirituality. Their thoughts are set in stone, and are not subject to change; especially change from other religious doctrines. My understanding is that his beliefs were fluid. He thought that each religious doctrine had its own beneficial ideas and that something could be learned from each. He felt that no one was truly a Christian, or a Hindu, or a Muslim; but instead we are all humans capable of taking meaning and insight out of multiple religious teachings.

This reading section taught me about my own feelings toward religion and spirituality. My favorite quote was Gandhi’s famous, “Truth is God (p.35).” That may be one of the most powerful, thought provoking statements I have ever heard. Gandhi’s description of God makes me think of an omniscient, benevolent energy; rather than the typical anthropomorphized deity presented in most western religions. He said that God is “indescribable in words.” So, even though God is truth, we only have a finite potential for understanding that truth. According to that principle, finding truth is only incrementally possible, therefore the entirety of God is impossible to attain. Gandhi believed that our lives should bring us as close to knowing the whole truth as possible. It is fascinating to consider the perspective that the pursuit of the knowledge is truly the pursuit of God.

A Pacifist Continuum

According to Cady’s “A Pacifist Continuum” my beliefs make me a collective pacifist. I believe that violence is only ever acceptable as a means of self defense or in defense of others. Certainly, any offensive violent act should not be condoned. Even though I don’t agree with war, I feel that there are times when no other options are available. I disagree with war as an offensive, outwardly violent attack, used as a means to an end; but rather a defensive retaliation against a malicious assault.

Violence as a method of self defense is appropriate because it is a natural response to a negative stimulus. Naturally, an individual reacts to negative stimulus by getting away from it. For instance, if you lay your hand on a hot stove, the natural response is to move your hand and distance yourself from the harmful object. In the same sense, if one is being attacked, the natural response is to rid oneself of the harmful stimulus. If the only means by which one can escape an attack, is to attack in retaliation, that is completely acceptable.

I feel like I contradict myself with my beliefs on war. Personally, I could not fight in a war. I do not like it; it saddens me to think of the men and women who are forced to fight for their country and it is horrible that their families should suffer for the sake of power struggle. I know that I personally could not point a gun at the head of an enemy soldier (who may have been forced into service), and pull the trigger. However, lack of reaction in cases of attack shows weakness and lack of governmental power. Lack of some form of retaliation would render a country more likely to fall victim of subsequent attacks.