John Bevilacqua

12/4/14
I-Search Paper
Tuesday-Thursday 4:00

Section 1

PLOT TWIST
I sat down to begin writing this paper on the issue of lobbying and the US government.
Then I got a phone call from my friend, Zach. He started talking to me about something he saw
on T.V. about what was going on in the Middle East. We always get into heated conversations
because hes so very pro-military and I dont believe that violence needs to be used in any
conflict resolution. I believe in pacifism or as my friend Zach calls me, a pussyfist. When I was
younger for a large portion of my life I had a big militaristic view on issues, Im not entirely sure
when exactly my opinion so thoroughly changed but I remember trying to discover my
spirituality doing reading on Jesus and to this day Im not really sure if I consider myself
religious or not but regardless the one thing I am sure of is that is if we lived as peacefully as he
preached(and many others!) the world would be a much better place. For this paper I will be
getting the vast majority of my information from online. I may though take a looking at the
writings of people such as Martin Luther King Jr., Jesus, Gandhi, or Buddha.

Section 2
I figured with a topic such as pacifism, something so broad, that I might have trouble
sifting through all the information I would get. I was right. For my research I went into google, I
typed in pacifism, and then I found the first three website I had heard of before or that seemed
reputable. Once I had the three websites I wanted to take a brief look at all three so I could
know generally what information I could find on which site and so that it might give me idea for
sections of my research paper. However, this was hard for me to do because as most of my
sources were of a decent length my one source, from the Stanford Encyclopedia on Philosophy
was so long that I couldnt possibly hope to read and categorize all the information in a timely
manner. I think the thing that worked best about what I did was right off the bat in less than
two minutes I basically had access to all in the information I would need for this paper and it
was all from a source that I could trust. The thing that didnt work for me was the fact that
although I had these amazing sources with a lot of golden information in the essence of time I
didnt really go through and categorize information in a written manner. The thing is in the end
it cost be time because I was constantly searching through the three articles for the information
I needed because I had no written sort of guide. I think that it hurt me a lot switching topics so
close to the deadline, but at the same time I stand by my choice to write about something Im
more passionate about.

Section 3
Pacifism: Idealistic Folly or the Savior of the World?
You see a lot of terrible news these days. Beheadings by ISIS, gang members killing
students, US drone strikes, Russia sending tanks into the Ukraine, domestic violence in sports,
riots and killings in Ferguson. The more things change the more they stay the same, right? We
like to look at our big buildings and our fancy machines and pretend like were so much better
than we were 5, 10, 50, 100, 1000 years ago but the truth is people are still doing all the same
things exploiting and killing one another! How sophisticated can we pretend we are when
millions lose their lives to violence every year? Then again, how practical is the alternative? Im
here to tell you that pacifism is a practical alternative to militarism.
Pacifism, the word was first coined by Emile Arnaud at the 10th Universal Peace
Congress in Glasgow in 1902 (BBC). Im hesitant to give an exact definition for the word since it
is such a diverse word that encompasses so much, although most of us in the most general
sense can agree that pacifism is opposition to violence of any kind. While the word may be
fairly new the idea of pacifism has been around for some time. According to Standford.edu
ideas of pacifism in the west began with Jesus. Then most famous example of which comes
from Jesuss Sermon on the Mount where he says the line, Blesses are the peacemakers, for
they will be called children of God. Although to find the first real example of genuine pacifism
we have to go back over half a millennium earlier. Im talking about the belief known as
Buddhism. As Brittanica.com states it the Buddha (founder of Buddhism) told his followers to
abstain from any kind of violence. Brittanica goes on to tell us that the most well known

follower of his teachings in the ancient world was the King Ashoka of the Mauryan Dynasty of
India who renounced war through his kingdom. The site continues even further to talk about
ideas that were similar to pacifism but that didnt preach total non-violence. One such example
was the ancient Greek philosophical thought called Stoicism which preached a peaceful way of
living but only on a personal level. The other example was the period in Roman history known
as Pax Romana but the peace of the era only extended to what the Romans considered the
civilized world and still fought wars with barbarians at the ends of their empire. Though these
examples may be dated there are several famous pacifists from the modern era including:
Mahatma Gandhi, the 14th Dalai Lama, Martin Luther King Jr., and Albert Einstein (names
courtesy of biographyonline.net).
An inherent part of the argument for or against pacifism is the question of whether or
not humans are inherently evil. The reason is if it were in our DNA, at the most basic level
imbued within us that we were predisposed to be violent could we ever actually live in a truly
pacific society? The answer isnt clear but the possibility of such opens a new dimension to the
argument because now we are debating whether man can escape his nature. So its best to
avoid this aspect if we can. Which is exactly why Im arguing that humans are not naturally
aggressive in their nature. As Alfie Kohn puts it, Sigmund Freud tried to cure Viennese women
of their neuroses, and Konrad Lorenz made his reputation studying birds, but the two men
shared a belief that has become lodged in the popular consciousness. The belief is that we have
within us, naturally and spontaneously, a reservoir of aggressive energy. This force, which
builds up all by itself, must be periodically drained off -- say, by participating in competitive
sports -- lest we explode into violence. This is an appealing model because it is easy to visualize.

It is also false. (Source). Kohn goes on to cite a John Paul Scott (animal behaviorist) study
where he found that among all higher mammals acts of aggression began with external
stimulation and in no case was there any spontaneous internal stimulation. The article offers
a counter argument where it says that although a certain behavior may seem widespread that
doesnt mean that it is in our DNA. Because all cultures have created some form of pottery that
doesnt mean humans have a gene for pottery, but nonetheless aggression isnt a universal trait
and there have been many societies that havent shown any warlike aggression. In fact, the
article states, Montagu has edited a book entitled Learning Non-Aggression, which features
accounts of peaceful cultures. It is true that these are hunter-gatherer societies, but the fact
that any humans live without violence would seem to refute the charge that we are born
aggressive. In fact, cultures that are closer to nature would be expected to be the most
warlike if the proclivity for war were really part of that nature. Just the reverse seems to be
true. The late Erich Fromm put it this way: The most primitive men are the least warlike and . .
. warlikeness grows in proportion to civilization. If destructiveness were innate in man, the
trend would have to be the opposite.
The next subject Id like to cover is what the different types of pacifism are and what
they mean. After this, hopefully you will see why I was hesitant in the beginning to give an
absolute definition to the word. The first type of Pacifism is called absolute pacifism.
Stanford.edu defines absolute pacifism as, Absolute pacifism is understood as a maximal and
universal rejection of violence and war. Absolutism in ethics (or moral absolutism) holds that
moral principles are eternal and unchanging and that they admit no exceptions. In short what
this means is that war and violence are wrong due to an unchanging moral code. They go on to

define non-absolute pacifism or whats called contingent pacifism. This means either one
abstains from a particular sort of war, perhaps one based off of religious grounds, or it means
that the practice of pacifism is only limited to a particular group of people. Bbc.com explains a
variety of pacifism called conditional pacifism which means that they believe that the standards
of war and violence are wrong but also are willing to accept that war and violence are
necessary evils in some instances.
There are, however, arguments against pacific views. One such argument provided by
Stanford is that pacifism is for cowards, free-riders, traitors and other vicious persons. To sum
up the argument they say that pacifists advocate nonviolence because they are too afraid to
suffer from it or to take up arms against their enemies. It continues to say that pacifism is a
pathology of the privileged meaning that its easy for someone to not have suffered from
violence to say it is wrong. In response I say that pacifism was created from a ethical standpoint
out of respect for the lives of our fellow man. That although pacifists advocate nonviolence its
not because they are afraid as the vast majority of them are willing to suffer physical harm and
respond peacefully which I say is a stronger show of character than responding back violently.
Another anti-pacifist argument provided is that Pacifism is self-contradictory, unjust and not
effective. This basically states that a pacifist unwilling to defend himself would just end up
dying himself and that the practice is unjust because pacifists claim to have the utmost respect
for human live and yet are unwilling to protect innocents using force when their lives are
threatened. The article offers the rebuttal that pacifism is no more contradictory than the
notion that we might kill to defend life. Also that pacifists do believe in a just social order
theyre just willing to die for it but refuse to kill for it.

Is pacifism the best way to live our lives? Then which sort of pacifism is the best?
Obviously this is an opinionated question and the answer may differ from person to person! To
me personally Ive felt and continue to feel the only way we can truly reach a transcendent
society is to rid ourselves of all forms of violence. Although absolute pacifism is considered an
unreachable ideal to many. I think that with the right education to our youth not only here in
the United States but on a global scale; it is an obtainable goal. I also think that having a general
population believing in a conditional pacifism would be a great way to start towards this goal. If
we can get people to just really start putting more emphasis on peace over jumping to violence
I believe the impact we would see in the world would be unprecedented.
An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.
-Gandhi
Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate:
only love can do that.
-Martin Luther King Jr.
Peace begins with a smile.
-Mother Theresa

Bibliography
1. Are Humans Innately Aggressive?
http://www.alfiekohn.org/miscellaneous/aggression.htm
2. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pacifism/#6
3. Pacifism
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/against/pacifism_1.shtml
4. Pacifism
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/437798/pacifism/284190/Arguments-forand-against-pacifism
5. Famous Pacifists
http://www.biographyonline.net/people/famous/pacifists.html

Overall, Im disappointed with myself for slacking so hard on the deadline, but I really
wanted the topic change and I really tried to do good research on my topic. I think if I could do
the whole thing over again and know what my topic was the finished result could be a lot
better. Regardless I consider this my shitty first draft and plan on a revised copy before the end
of the semester. I enjoyed this research paper because it is the first one Ive done where I was
truly passionate and interested in the topic I was writing about which gave me motivation to
work on the paper. As I said early my biggest issue while writing the paper came when I had to
get specific quotes and paraphrase articles because I was left searching through a lot of
information with no clear end in sight. As far as takeaways from this paper go I have a few, both
in regards to my topic itself and in the writing process. The first is to categorize collected data
better. Also in the future sometimes I struggle with this but now I know its a must that I find a
topic for my papers that I really care about because it helps me write for extended periods of
time and I believe it improves the quality of my writing. For my material this paper has solidified
my views that pacifism is the direction the world needs to head in order to obtain a brighter
future. A big thing I learned that I never really explored in my head was the middle ground
between heavily militant views and absolute pacifist views. I always thought of it as a such a
black and white matter, when, in fact, there is a million shades of gray in between.