Is non-violence the answer to every type of violence?

Question

If Mahatma Gandhi was right, then why do non-violent people get killed and abused by violent people? Why does violence always get the better of politeness and non-violence?

Answer 1

People will preserve their lives when push comes to shove. Only those with a death wish allow others to brutalize them and do nothing to defend themselves.

Personally, I think all violent individuals should be carted off to an island somewhere where they can vent their anger on each other instead of innocent victims. Let's add to them the individuals who molest children, drive drunk or high, and the animals who exploit our Youth with drugs. They can take care of each other and save us law-abiding tax-paying citizens a lot of money and time.

Answer 2

Well i think non-violence is good, but to every type of violence...it can't be the answer.....i thank God that the British understood that thing of Gandhi.......because i never understood it, of-course everyone should be non-violent but resolving or say facing a violent mob with modesty is Hopelessness....when you hit an iron you have to be a hammer. Besides it's said in some Religious books that before a war use every possible means to Stop it but if it's thwarted on you then Fight it.......but try not be violent....on context to this.....rather talk about it....preach, but don't take it as an alternative.......i mean non-violence cos someone may term something as NON-VIOLENCE while VIOLENCE in some situations may be termed as SELF-DEF FENCE.

Answer 3

Because being violent is easier than being kind and polite. History has shown that people prefer the easy answer rather than the more involved and more difficult, yet more generous and beneficial answer. Basically, it's easier to be mean to someone than to give them the clothes off your back.

I read a story a while ago about this monk who comes home to find a theif in his house. The theif is mad because the monk has no major possessions, so the monk kindly offers up the clothes on his back. As the theif leaves the monk is somewhat sad that he couldn't give the theif more than that.

We all wish we could show the same kindness as the monk does, but secretly we all want to be greedy and not be kind at all. It's easier to tell a homeless man to get a job than it is to set him up with an interview and buy him new clothes, and we use that as an excuse for our actions. Evil will always win over good, but good will always exist in small numbers.

There are always going to be theifs out there, and there will always be homeless people, but it's how we deal with them that matters. If everyone treated each other like the monk treats the theif, we would all be broke and homeless, and then the theifs wouldn't help us at all. So, while being nice is the ideal solution, it only works when everyone is nice.

Answer 4

There will always be people filled with hate and violence. It has been so since the beginning of time.
Non Violence is definatly the way humanty should grow. But, it doesn't seem likely. In some countries little children are taught to hate other culturles and countries. That hate stems from generations of hate.
Sometimes voilence needs to be fought for violence.
As americans we think all we have to do is smile and hold hands and sing "kumbiya My lord. kumbiya" and the world will be a happy place. As of 911 our country was attacked on our land. Things are changing. All the non violence Peace hippies and yuppies in the world can't change things. When a foriegn person holds a gun to your childs head and they steal your house and you are on the run....once that happens we can't understand that we may HAVE to take up arms. I pray that will never happen.

It is the power struggles between powerful countries and men, on going vindictivness that perpetuates such violence.

Answer 5

Mahatma did not by any stretch of the imagination either say or imply that non violence was the answer to any and every question. Gandhi while using the technique of non violence always kept as a alternate a plan of violence should non violence fail to achieve results. Though Gandhi was far from a saint allowing his wife to die by refusing to allow doctors to administer treatments meant to save her life due to to religious beliefs, only to later allow those same treatments to salvage his own life, but I diverge. To believe in non violence one must be prepared to die for that belief and so while violence may take one's life, it gives meaning to that belief
I hope this makes sense

Answer 6

non-violence may be better for the world but it can kill the individual who uses it. ( remember Martin Luther King)
Some kinds of violence require that you flee, some that you fight and some that you do nothing or beg for mercy. USA is free because we fought.
The main reason Ghandi was successful in getting Englnad off the back of India was because the British had just in winning the war against Hitler. They felt guilty and owed india for this. they did not want to seem to be like Hitler so were soft compared to their previous ways.England is a nation of laws and respected legal ways.
Ghandi was an attorney (yes he was) and knew the law he trained in british schools. He used English law against the English to defeat them with passive resistence.
He may not have been so successful if he had a meaner opponent than England. Hitler would have crushed him. Stalin would have crushed him.
BUT The time was ripe for freedom and he got it. But the british craftily split Inda in two when giving it up so that pakistan and india would fight and not be too much trouble.
(divide and conquer) They put the muslims in pakistan and the Hindus in india. Ghandi was killed by a hindu that did not like him being friendly to the moslems. The war between pakistan and india has continued ever since the independence they got from England. So maybe passive resistance is not all it is cracked up to be. maybe sometimes you must fight fire with fire.

Answer 7

Violence is also not the answer to every type of violence because violence begets more violence.So out of the two, non violence is better and the cause of violence has to be resolved by other means.Howevever this takes time and if immediate results are to be obtained, violence has to be used to counter violence

Answer 8

He said that an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth onl;y leaves the whole world blind and hungry. When someone hits you, turn the other cheek. Not in defiance but because in ALL of us, even the most violent the bare vulnerable but dignified soul which has the bravery even to die for its non violence and deep respect for its attackers life will call forth a new respect from the attcker in most cases.
In this i have some experience.
If you were truly non violent you would not hit back at your attacker. you would rather die than hit and become that which you lived NOT to be. In such acts of severe bravery and sacrifice the weapon of action and defiance undoes the rage of the other in total respect and sometimes bewilderment. I will take hit after hit after hit after hit until his anger melts into compassion for what this is doing to another being and sorrow for what it is doing to his own soul.
This CAN be achieved even against a group of guys in Dublin 2 years ago, even if the cost is a trip to the hospital for a cat scan, dislocated jaw and broken cartiledge in your nose. Even then something stopped them men from finishing the job and killing me by the serenity and bravery and willing sacrifice to not become a violent person. One of them even cried and gave me a hug, propped me against a tree, rang the ambulance before running off. I could have saved myself hospital bill money by violently defending myself but at the cost of losing something of myself in the act. That was a real turning point in my life.
I dont suggest you test it by any means but even though The Mahatmas words are hard for all to understand i truly understood the pure meaning of them that night and ever since.
In this way non violence can shape worlds, move mountains and shake hearts into becoming brighter and truer, even the hearts of your attackers.
In deepest kindness,
D

Answer 9

Martin Luther King Jr. answered this question in his essay,"Nonviolent Resistance" from his book, "Stride Toward Freedom" (1958) King stated that Violence, as a way of acheiving racial justice is," impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all." He also states," Violence is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding." According to King violence brings only temporary solutions to problems. "Violence only creates new and more complicated ones."

Answer 10

This is a matter of opposites, the strong always have the advantage over the weak. just like cheating has its advantage over playing fairly. Being polite and non-violent can only take you so far. I think for those who are anti-violent, the reward is keeping true to your beliefs, and not the beating he/she takes for them.