of the globe think, plan and act. What are more valuable and lasting the victories of war or the victories of peace? Initiating force through war can never cause peace. We just have to chose. Advertisements: But, somehow, in spite of all pious intentions the war clouds still hover over the horizons in this part of the world or that and permanent peace seems just a dream worthy to be fulfilled but not fully fulfilled. The mind of men, during war, remains overshadowed with a sense of insecurity and danger and no constructive thinking could ever get a chance to flourish. The World War I of 1914-18 ended with the establishment of the League of Nations the purpose of which was to explore the possibilities how further wars could be avoided.
Wells has rightly pointed out Hundreds and Thousands of men uniformly dressed, carrying diverse deadly weapons go to the theatre of war, killing those whom they do not know and who have done them no wrong. This theory implicates that moral norms should not be thought about when policy-making. During war men are too busy in militaristic activities to think of social improvement. It still wasn't perfect for the African Americans, but the enslavement and killing of them ended for the most part. Who knows that the victory of World War- II may also prove to be of an equally short duration and a third global war may even now be in the offing. That is both true on an individual level and an international one.
The theory of means discusses the limits of allowable war. The just-war theory serves as a median between realism and pacifism. The victory itself sowed, in fact, the seeds of the Second World War. It is only during peace that a literacy campaign can be started, that the standard of living of the masses can be raised, that better houses can be built for the poor, that more schools and colleges can be opened, that prisons can be reformed. There are a number of viewpoints for deciding when war is appropriate, some based on morals, some based on costs and benefits. This has ever been the claim of all wars. However, by believing in individual self-defense suggests that the Pacifists must believe in war to some extent simply because war is often an act of self-defense. International politics is complicated, but history has shown us that you can not simultaneously strive for peace and prepare for war.
Contradictory in itself, this explains the conflicting views bringing war into existence. There are four theories that serve as justification for violence and wars. The realism theory is a basis for establishing essay non verbal communication skills a nation's policy. The wealth of the nation is saved to be put to good use in the welfare of the people; projects of general welfare get launched; art, architecture, literature all thrive only during peace. A source of conflict,religion is also a philosophy and practitioner of peace. India today is required to divert a very sizeable part of the nations budget in defending its frontiers. Religion has been blamed as the cause of many wars, yet they considered themselves to be an advocacy for non-violence. But with what results?