Religious practitioners and political demonstrators the world over have used the concept of nonviolence to cultivate inner peace and protest injustice. The most popular advocates of nonviolence are men like Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, and Martin Luther King, Jr. These people staunchly argue for more serious consideration of the practical benefits of nonviolence. While most would agree with these luminaries that the use of violence is in general unacceptable, many people make exceptions for a variety of reasons. This paper will argue that no use of violence is ever justified. First, the extenuating circumstances under which most people justify the use of violence will be examined and refuted. Then the paper will discuss the philosophical sophistry of the doctrine of violence.
To begin a discussion of nonviolence, it is necessary to highlight the situations in which violence is often excused. One of the circumstances in which people most readily believe that the doctrine of nonviolence can be violated is war. "Just wars" are most often cited as events that call for the courage to fight against whatever evil is being put upon an innocent people. Indeed, in most circles it is considered immoral to ignore unjust actions. However, trying to end violence with violence is not a logical or moral proposition. In fact, wars often cited as "just wars," such as World War II and the Civil War, were begun under normal pretenses and later justified because of moral reasons. The Civil War was fought for many reasons, political and economic, but was transformed rhetorically into a moral war about slavery near the end of the war in order to justify the vast losses on both sides (McPherson What They Fought For, 58). Likewise, although the United States did nothing to prevent the Holocaust during World War II, this tragic event is often used to frame the war as a just war. In actuality, the war was waged to check the geopolitical ambitions of Germany, ...