“An eye for an eye would make the whole world blind.” - Mahatma Gandhi
Nonviolence has two closely related meanings. It can refer, first, to a general philosophy of abstention from violence because of moral or religious principle and second, it can refer to the behavior of people using nonviolent action. Ethics plays a large role in the nonviolence movement, many people believe in using nonviolence as their only form of resolution because using violence would simply be the wrong solution. The goal of this type of nonviolence is not to defeat the enemy, but to win them over and create love and understanding between all. Love of the enemy, or the realization of the humanity of all people, is a fundamental concept of philosophical nonviolence. This paper will do its best to evaluate nonviolence in terms of which kinds of intercultural conflicts it is helpful in resolving, how it makes resolving such conflicts possible, and its advantages and disadvantages in comparison with other methods of conflict resolution.
Much of the general philosophy of nonviolence has 'active' or 'activist' elements, in that they accept the need for a means of struggle to achieve political and social change. People who use nonviolent action tend to have a strong moral drive and a deep sense of humanity. We have currently seen that, nonviolent methods of action have been a powerful tool for social protest and revolutionary social and political change. There are many examples of the social and political change – some of which we’ve seen in our own country. Caesar Chavez’s campaigns of nonviolence in the 1960s to protest the treatment of farm workers in California, Martin Luther King's adoption of Coté 2
Mahatma Gandhi's nonviolent methods in the struggle to win civil rights for African Americans and even the master of nonviolence, Gandhi, who led a decades-long nonviolent struggle against British rule in India. Each of these leaders took the nonviolence approach and gained a lot of...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document