Peace is the most enduring and simple pursuit of mankind. Peace means a chance to survive. Only in a peaceful state can people normally engage in all constructive activities conducive to survival and development, and only in a peaceful state can the dignity of life be universally displayed. However, the persistent pursuit of peace itself illustrates an unfortunate fact: human beings have been accompanied by war for a long time.

War is one of the greatest disasters invented by human beings themselves. No matter what causes the war, it is not only the killing of people by weapons, but also the innocent suffering of civilians. The tragic consequences of the war-the loss of life, the burning of villages and the ruins of cities-have always been borne by the people. For the people, war means the shadow of turmoil, terror and death. But wars are always happening and the people can't stop them.

In human history, peace and war are like a pair of conjoined children. On the one hand, the extensive and frequent use of war means makes it almost a routine activity of human beings. Aristophanes once expressed his feelings through the drama "Peace": "I have been looking forward to you and have been looking for you; Extraordinary expectations, extraordinary search. " This is proof that frequent wars lead to the scarcity of peace. On the other hand, people have never stopped trying to create a peaceful situation and a life between wars. In the alternation of peace and war, it is a tragic alternation of creation and destruction. If in the past, in this tragic alternation, human beings could rebuild their lives between wars, then now, biochemical weapons and nuclear weapons that can destroy the whole world have been invented, and the factors that induce war are increasing day by day, and nuclear war is on the verge. The seemingly metaphysical question of "to be or not to be" has approached our sight and become a realistic problem that all mankind must face.

Under the cloud of devastating nuclear war, the opportunity for survival and development lies in efforts to stop the war and strive for lasting and stable peace.

Second, the ideological exploration of peace and anti-war

War has made mankind suffer greatly and looks forward to peace. However, a lasting and stable peace depends on many conditions. It is helpful to create conditions for peace, reflect on war, an activity that runs through all human history and can be called human routine, and explore the causes of war.

In the history of human thought, peace and war are a pair of eternal themes, and the exploration has never stopped, involving a wide range of contents. Especially those well-known outstanding thinkers, who are deeply humanitarian, love peace and oppose war. But as thinkers, they did not simply praise peace and condemn war, but devoted themselves to the excavation of the root causes of war and the analysis of the essence of war, and devoted themselves to exploring the possibility of getting rid of war and the conditions for achieving lasting peace. Explaining the thought has important enlightenment for us to rationally understand the war and strive for peace.

1. Explore the roots of war

Thinkers have explored the roots of war from the aspects of economy, politics, culture and human nature, and revealed the relationship between poverty and war. Conflicts between races, cultures and religious beliefs often become the factors leading to wars, and wars are related to people's aggressiveness and adventurous spirit, especially their strong desire to conquer and ambition. But I think the most important exploration of the root cause of war is to reveal the internal relationship between authoritarian regime and war. This idea has a long history in the west. As early as 2400 years ago, Socrates pointed out that autocratic tyrants made people need a leader by provoking war. Later, Aristotle judged that the autocratic regime relied on war to maintain stability. /kloc-in the 8th century, enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire and Rousseau exposed the truth that autocratic rulers and clergy pushed people into war for lust for power, conquest and so-called teachings, and pointed out the fact that foreign wars and conquest supported domestic dictatorships. Contemporary thinkers, politicians and social activists invariably point out a fact in modern times: authoritarian countries not only provoke wars everywhere, but also often break out internally. Even if their ideologies are similar or even the same, they will inevitably meet each other, which forms an intriguing contrast with the fact that there has never been a war in democratic countries. This contrast provides a unique and powerful evidence that war is the inherent nature of authoritarian regimes.

The autocratic regime has become the root of war because the arbitrary power, which is the characteristic of this regime, is basically in a state of unrestricted and sanctions-free, which is essentially the injustice, expansion and conquest tendency of this regime. In fact, the unjust rule of the power holders itself is brewing a civil war. Externally, because the authoritarian regime's power source, the way to choose whether to wage war and the way to obtain war funds are different from those of the * * * regime, the weight of public opinion and the weight of people's lives are very different under the two regimes, which makes the war decision, as Kant pointed out, the most difficult decision under the * * * regime, but it can be "the most thoughtless thing in the world" for the autocratic monarch. Therefore, once we have or think we have the strength, war is almost an inevitable choice. For those who started the conquest war, this war may bring them something different from what it brought to the people. Victory brings them the expansion of wealth, land, glory and sovereignty, but the price that must be paid for victory must be paid by the people; If defeated, the initiator of the war will not be responsible for the consequences, and all the tragic consequences will be passed on to the people, although the people have never had the opportunity to express their opinions on whether to go to war; If faced with extinction, it is not uncommon in history and reality to "kidnap" the whole country as a "hostage" or even take all the people away. The absurd asymmetry between power and responsibility under the autocratic system determines that it is the nature of every autocratic ruler to make war permanent.

But it is not only because of the above reasons that the autocratic system has become the fundamental cause of war, and this system has a tendency to stimulate and tease some factors into the possibility of war and lead to war. In fact, whether it is the aggression and adventure inherent in human nature, the ambition and conquest of some people, or the differences in race, culture and religious beliefs, they do not necessarily lead people to war, they are just some potential possibilities. But the autocratic system is destined to turn these potential war factors into reality. Because this system not only gives the rulers the conditions to force people to work on the battlefield by virtue of their power, so that their ambitions and conquest can be realized, but also enables them to use deception, incitement and the indoctrination of violent thoughts, so that aggressive adventures that might have been released in a creative and constructive way in human nature can be violently and destructively vented. As for creating barriers between different races, cultures and beliefs, provoking hatred, deepening misunderstandings and conflicts, and turning differences into reasons for war, this is the usual practice of authoritarian countries.

Regarding the relationship between autocracy and war, it is one aspect of the problem that autocracy leads to war, and the other aspect of this problem is that war poses the greatest threat to the freedom of democratic countries. The threat not only comes from the war tendency of external autocratic countries, but also because war will inevitably destroy the balance of power of democratic countries as the institutional guarantee of people's freedom. This is the kind of danger pointed out by Tocqueville: war will inevitably make the participating democratic countries forcibly concentrate the command of all people and the management of all things on the administrative authorities. A protracted war will inevitably concentrate dangerous power on the administrative authorities.

The multifaceted relationship between war and political system shows the most important way to avoid war and achieve lasting peace.

2. Distinguish between just wars and unjust wars.

In order to avoid war and strive for peace, we need to adopt a rational attitude towards the war itself. Not all thinkers who plan peace are opposed to war, and many of them agree with and defend war in some cases. The most important defense is to distinguish between justice and injustice in war. The division of war into justice and injustice is as long-standing as the condemnation of war. Not only many thinkers make this distinction, but also the general public spontaneously tend to this distinction. Although there are many differences on the question of "what is justice and what is injustice", mankind has gradually gained some basic knowledge, such as: the war of aggression and conquest, the war of oppression and plunder is unjust; Based on self-defense, the war to defend peace and land, freedom and dignity is just. Outstanding thinkers distinguish right from wrong on some principles of war, which promotes the formation of basic knowledge. For the Greeks, the Sino-Persian War, which lasted for a hundred years from the middle of the 6th century BC, was not only to resist aggression, but also to defend their city-state and fight to the death with the powerful autocratic empire. The victory of the struggle enabled the Greek independent city-state to survive and created a cultural and political system that had a far-reaching impact on all mankind. Based on this double justice, Greek philosophers and poets, including three tragic poets who deeply exposed the cruelty of war, are proud of war and defend it. Even the most explicit anti-war stance, the poet aristophanes used a series of comedies to satirize politicians who fooled people and advocated civil war between city-states, and praised the warriors who fought against Persian invaders in the Persian War. The founders of the world's major religions are all against war, but they also recognize the right to self-defense, especially some famous Christian theologians, such as St. Augustine Thomas Aquinas, who have made strong arguments on this right. Aquinas not only sorted out the conditions of war from the causes and purposes of war, but also pointed out that the tyrant committed a serious rebellion by creating struggles and disputes among his subjects, thus defending the action of overthrowing tyranny. In the eyes of Locke, a thinker in the17th century, the state of war is a state of hostility and destruction, which shows his aversion to war, but at the same time, he resolutely opposes letting innocent people suffer violence for peace. In his view, this kind of peace composed of rape and plunder is tantamount to asking people to be tame lambs and let wolves bite their throats without resistance. Hugo, a humanist, advocates promoting peace through fraternity, and yearns for the prospect of peace in which there will be no more soldiers with swords and shadows, no more national borders, and a whole family in the universe. However, he firmly stated that we should never bow our heads and knees to peace, peace under autocracy and peace under dynasty. 1869 At the Lausanne Peace Conference, Hugo proposed that the first condition for peace is liberation, and that "the last war may be needed". At the beginning of the 20th century, French Socialist Party leader Raoleith put forward a dual task for socialists in view of the approaching war: when war is only a distant threat, we should fight to stop it, but in times of crisis, we should wage war to defend national independence. For the necessity of a just war, Einstein made a thorough statement by taking the anti-Nazi war as an example. Bear? What is the best way to dream? Me? Does the bridge reveal rhyme? Hey? Kang Mumu Star? Eight? Hey? South? would you like to take a seat? Cut the title of compassion? Do you want to bet on badger deer? Why don't you thank the squid for writing books, dreams and songs? Twilight Bald Man Miao Copy! Hail? /P & gt；

Although the content and angle of defending a just war are different, there is a * * * that is based on a realistic rational attitude. We have noticed the paradox between war and peace in some cases, and we have seen that peace based on injustice is unreliable and false. The paradox between war and peace mainly exists in such a situation: when the appeal for peace is completely ineffective and the warning of justice is useless, in this case, taking up arms may become the only chance for peace. In this regard, even Cicero, whose anti-war stance is almost extreme and regards unjust peace as superior to just war, has no objection. He said that enjoying a peaceful life without harassment is "the only reason to participate in the war." In the late World War I, American President Wilson proposed that the nature of war should be changed into "a war for peace" and "a war to end the war". As an idealism based on realism, this thought undoubtedly sees that in extreme cases, peace also needs to be won through fighting. Otherwise, in order to avoid participating in the war, merchant ships sailing on the high seas are sunk by enemies who are bent on their own way and ignore international norms, and civilians are killed for no reason. This is not only irresponsible for the safety of people's lives and property, but also unfavorable. What kind of foundation peace is built on is directly related to the fate of peace and the values related to peace. When peace is at the expense of submission to injustice, especially when injustice is systematic, then, whether between countries or within a country, this so-called peace belongs to the "peace under tyranny" that Locke and Hugo resolutely refuse, which means a hidden state of war. In this state, people's lives and dignity are not guaranteed, which is no less than an open and explicit state of war. However, peace is precious because it is the premise of people's life and dignity. Faced with this situation, the chance of peace or survival lies in the struggle to rebuild justice.

3. The liquidation of war thoughts

No matter when and where, the root of war is not the people. But war has become a convention in history, and those morals and values corresponding to this unfortunate agreement have long dominated people's evaluation of right and wrong. Especially in the long-term prevalence of absolutism, the worship of power moralizes and sanctifies violence, and it is natural to sacrifice people's lives for religious, cultural and ideological disputes, which is often disguised as a desire to rule and conquer. These places create false reality through systematic lies, weaken people's intelligence through systematic indoctrination, make people believe big lies easily, and generally implant belligerence into people's hearts. When the rulers pretend to be national destiny with personal ambition and exaggerate the struggle for socialism as the necessity of war, war fanaticism will also break out and spread among the people whose spirit is poisoned like infectious diseases. However, it is always the people who die for the war. They should be the main force to stop the war and maintain peace. Many outstanding thinkers in ancient and modern times have noticed this. In exploring the possibility of establishing lasting peace, the idea of liquidation war is the proper meaning in the title.

Ideologies and values that despise human life, incite hatred and create division are the first to be questioned and criticized by thinkers. This kind of ideology and values often have the intolerance of "only one family has no branches", which can turn differences and differences into hatred and war; The most naked and barbaric expression of contempt for human life is to ask everyone to dedicate themselves to a special person. The liquidation in this respect is mainly carried out by criticizing absolutism. It can be said that thinkers who criticized absolutism in past dynasties all involved this content. Criticism is also the most effective from this perspective. This can be seen from the fact that humanitarianism has gradually achieved the axiomatic status of super-ideology, super-culture and super-national boundaries, and respect for life has increasingly become an unconditional moral law and the bottom line of justice that can be crossed by any doctrine, as well as the gradual decline of absolutism synchronized with this process. Although the barbaric principle of asking everyone to devote themselves to one person is still advocated and encouraged in some places, it has changed from being taken for granted to being very inappropriate.

In the thought of liquidation war, the reflection on the concept of hero is particularly noticeable. In the past, the concept of heroism regarded the crazy worship of conquering war, which ravaged the world, as a heroic act. This traditional view of heroism is bound to be the object of reflection by humanist thinkers of past dynasties, especially since the Renaissance, a large number of humanists represented by Erasmus have done a lot of work in this regard. But I think Voltaire is the most representative and influential person who reflects on the traditional concept of heroes. He systematically and profoundly exposed the causes and consequences of this unjust war. In particular, it is pointed out that the conquest war not only caused countless visible disasters, but also caused incalculable disasters in eroding and destroying human nature. A large number of his works put war, a human folly and evil, in front of people in a particularly dazzling way, urging people to reflect on war and their mental state. Based on his understanding of the causes and tragic consequences of the unjust war, he has a unique view on heroism. People who have always been regarded as heroes in history are mostly criminals in his mind. In the history of Europe, especially in the dynastic wars since the Middle Ages, professional soldiers became the embodiment of brave virtues and were worshipped. Voltaire ruthlessly lifted the sacred aura on their heads, saying that "these serial killers line up in Europe to prevent them from doing more legitimate work." As for politicians and conquerors, there is no shortage of people in any century. In his view, "they are just some famous bad guys." Especially those dynasty rulers who boasted because the strong were right, "these heroes" were just "foxes and weasels who made a splash in the flock". Contrary to the historian's practice of fixing his eyes on outstanding figures such as kings and conquerors, he paid infinite attention to those who enlightened human wisdom and those who established extensive contacts to promote communication and understanding in wars between countries regardless of international and religious differences. Regardless of their status and circumstances, in Voltaire's view, they are the real heroes. For these people who are beyond the vision of historians, he made the following comments: "Progress should be attributed to a few wise men and geniuses scattered in some parts of Europe. Almost all of them have been unknown for a long time, and sometimes they are persecuted. When the world was ravaged by war, they lit up the world and comforted the world. " (3) Voltaire's view of heroes not only tore off the mask of "heroes" worshipped by people, but also broke the curse imposed by the barbaric principle, and at the same time provided a brand-new standard of praising heroes for people who transcended narrow positions, enhanced their knowledge and benefited mankind. It helps people to turn their misplaced enthusiasm for hero worship to truly lofty people and things and to peace and construction. After Voltaire, more thinkers devoted themselves to resisting the destructive and fanatical heroic view that still dominated many people, which made people tend to despise life and tend to be brave and heartless. Dewey's proposal that "the only way to abolish war is to make peace a heroic feat" is an example. It is worth noting that quite a few thinkers have extended their rational tentacles to patriotism in their reflection on war thoughts, and have re-recognized and analyzed this concept in detail. For example, Lessing, the leader of the German Enlightenment, put "Ming? Integral? Do you mean the day when you pull back? Lai long pen tour? Lai Dew, do you think this is not good? What's the matter with you? What is green garden, green garden, green garden, green garden? So what? In the 9th century, Heine, a great German poet, divided patriotism into two kinds when criticizing German autocracy: narrow and hateful German patriotism and open and enthusiastic French patriotism. As for nationalism, which emerged with the formation of modern nation-state and constantly triggered wars between countries since the19th century, it was placed under the scrutiny of rational spirit and became the extension and development of reflection on war thoughts.

It must also be mentioned that people have long noticed that some widespread unhealthy psychology makes people take a rash attitude towards whether to launch a war. Thucydides found that the Peloponnesian War was warmly welcomed by the young people in Athens, who were eager to win glory on the battlefield. This sense of honor associated with killing is as old as the history of war, and it continues with the war itself, although it has not escaped the rational examination of thinkers. In the tragedy "Women's Petition", euripides reveals that luck makes people who don't know how to cherish life agree with war: "People vote for war, and no one will think that they will encounter death; Death is still far away, and he only thinks that others will face that unfortunate fate; But if he also faces death when he votes himself, the Greeks will not be swallowed up by the madness of war. " In fact, those who clamor or join the bellicose noise in the contemporary era should take euripides's enlightenment as a mirror and look into their hearts. How to choose between war and peace is not only related to everyone at present, but also to the safety and well-being of future generations. People are quite contradictory on this issue. On the one hand, human beings plan the most and farthest for their offspring among all animals, and many people even take risks for it; On the other hand, the greatest danger to future generations is either blindness or recklessness. Just as many people cut off their children's roads for immediate interests in the face of extremely serious ecological crisis, many people yearn for war no matter what kind of disaster it will bring to present and future generations, and some places collectively join the warlike noise and have war spasms.

The liquidation of various war thoughts shows that in order to create a peaceful living environment without killing, while building a just society, people need to restrain their desire and impulse to destroy on the basis of self-reflection of their mental state-this is the spiritual legacy left by all thinkers who are committed to peace.

4. Cosmopolitanism and the ideal of world government

For peace and justice, it is an ancient dream of the West to establish a world government that transcends regional, cultural and religious boundaries. It is based on the reality of frequent wars between regions or countries, relying on cosmopolitanism. In the exploration of the road to peace, cosmopolitanism and world government are of special importance in spiritual dimension and operability.

An interesting fact is that people who explore the road to peace are cosmopolitans, and Gandhi may be a few exceptions. I think this is because he and his nation are faced with the urgent task of striving for national independence. Cosmopolitanism is based on justice and human position, which puts humanity above nationality and the common interests of mankind above the interests of any particular nation or country. Therefore, cosmopolitans put their loyalty to human beings above all responsibilities, thinking that they are first a member of human beings, and then a member of a specific nation and a specific country; This position and mind must be accompanied by spiritual tolerance, respect for differences and diversity, and commitment to seeking unity from differences. As early as ancient Greece, cosmopolitanism had sprouted and grown. Although there is a strong exclusiveness among the city-states, several holy places and festivals in the whole Greek world have challenged the narrow local concept and conveyed a "cosmopolitan" spirit. This spirit is especially favored by philosophers and poets whose vision is broad and their thoughts break through the boundaries of the city-state. Cosmopolitanism is an influential spiritual tendency in the ideological circle after the catalysis of universal Christian churches and universities founded in Rome, the world empire and the Middle Ages. However, after the gradual formation of the European nation-state since the Renaissance, it should really become an important spiritual resource to contain the war. In this process, wars have become more frequent, bigger and bloodier. Cosmopolitans believe that cosmopolitan countries are the home of mankind and the guarantee of world peace. For peace, they exert influence on the world in their own way. For example, in16th century, Erasmus, a representative figure of the Northern Renaissance, wrote an article to expose the narrowness of party spirit and called for rational, tolerant and fair settlement of disputes and harmonious coexistence of human beings. His dream of European unification, as a valuable spiritual heritage, has deeply influenced the later European intellectuals. In the18th century, Lessing had clearly proposed to transcend national prejudice and not succumb to religious prejudice, and expressed the idea that the world is a whole and the human family is homologous with Judaism, Christianity and Islam through the play Dana the Wise, advocating religious tolerance and human harmony. During the First World War, Europe, which was caught in a frenzy of nationalism, not only became the battlefield of melee among countries, but also the hatred between warring countries became an atmosphere and a habit. In this case, showing a just stand that transcends national boundaries is tantamount to bringing hatred from all sides to yourself. Roman Roland, on the other hand, went beyond the melee and declared war on hatred openly with a series of articles such as going beyond the melee, and said, "Is the motherland still just?" "Conscience, eternal truth or motherland?" Sharp questions are pushed to people. In Europe, cosmopolitans have a long spiritual lineage. From what is mentioned here, we can see that their voice of justice comforted the world suffering from war. Their efforts to talk to the irrational world have prompted people who are confused to return to rationality.

With the formation of a nation-state, the sovereignty of each country often becomes the biggest obstacle to achieving peace between countries. It is logical for those who seek the road to peace to seek a supranational institution that can contain war and achieve just peace. Dante's On the World Empire was the first to clearly express the ideal of world government, which was still at the turn of the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Erasmus's Appeal for Peace, France's Saint Pierre's Permanent Peace Plan and Rousseau's summary of Saint Pierre's Permanent Peace Plan all enthusiastically responded to this ideal, and they are all important documents about the concept of world government. But the most systematic exposition and demonstration is Kant. In a series of related works, such as On Permanent Peace, he proposed that by establishing a global government to settle disputes peacefully, history will overcome the forms of international relations such as war and move towards permanent peace. He believes that it is a natural and inevitable process for human beings to move from barbarism to civilization by establishing a civil society with universal rule of law and then establishing a Commonwealth of nations. He concentrated on this point with three formal provisions on permanent peace: first, the civil system of every country should be a * * * and system; Second, international rights are based on the alliance system of free countries; Third, the rights of citizens in the world will be limited to universal friendship. Kant's thoughts and ideas were ridiculed by Hegel, even by many "realists" as utopia, but its vitality and operability were proved step by step by later historical development.

When it comes to cosmopolitanism and world government, the issue of national sovereignty is inevitable. The spirit of cosmopolitanism means higher and wider loyalty than patriotism; In order to be effective or meaningful, world government institutions mean that every country must give up part of its sovereignty. A world in which all countries have absolute sovereignty can only be a world in which the sword of war hangs high and the scourge is endless. Probably because of this, thinkers who explore the road to peace often have reservations about national sovereignty. When sovereignty becomes a bunker against justice in some places and hinders the efforts to establish justice and peace, it is inevitable to re-examine the concept of sovereignty.

In any case, tolerance, respect for justice and cosmopolitanism provide a basic spiritual framework for people to eliminate social disasters and solve human problems in a rational and peaceful way.

Three. Practice of creating a peaceful situation (1)

A human history is a history of war, or a history in which people strive for peace in the shadow of war. In the struggle for peace, in addition to continuous exploration in thought, there are also continuous efforts in practice. These efforts have played or are playing a role in containing the war, and some of them are of great significance for striving for lasting peace.

1. pacifist movement

Pacifism is an effort and proposition to oppose the use of violence to resolve conflicts, aiming at eliminating wars and striving for lasting peace among ethnic groups. It is a trend of thought and a social movement. As a trend of thought, pacifism can be traced back to ancient times, and as a movement, it has a history of thousands of years in Europe. The earliest large-scale peace movements appeared in the violent 10 and 1 1 century. This is 10, which started in France at the end of the 20th century, and 1 10/0, which spread throughout most parts of Europe at the beginning of the 20th century. The essence of this movement is to take measures to reduce wars in the case of frequent wars, and to contain and alleviate barbarism in the state of war; Its way is to issue God's Peace Order and God's Truce Order through many religious meetings. God's peaceful order requires Christians to collectively swear to support peace. The main spirit is to prohibit private fighting in wartime, protect non-combatants, and prohibit violations of monks, pilgrims, businessmen, women and children, farmers and their property under any circumstances. Through God's truce, all wars are gradually banned on certain days (such as certain days of the week, certain religious festivals and Lent). Looking back at the two major contents of the first peace movement, that is, limiting the war to a certain period of time and protecting non-combatants, is actually a return to some practices produced by religious festivals in the Greek city-state period. For example, during the Olympic Games, there was a need for a truce throughout Greece, and passengers going to the games were not allowed to be disturbed and violated no matter where they came from or which city-state they passed. This is a tradition that can be traced back to the west very early, and it has been passed down and extended backwards. In this traditional chain, Quakers, who are famous for refusing to participate in the war, are an important link worth mentioning. /kloc-Quakers rose in England and North American colonies in the middle of the 0/7th century. The spiritual feature of his theory is pacifism, which holds that violence leads to division, and all actions with lofty moral values are profound and potential manifestations of human unity, so he opposes any war. Quakers refused to take part in the war because of their beliefs, but it was inevitable. Because of this, Christians have a special sense of responsibility to heal the wounds of war. From the rise to the present, Christians have tried their best to provide assistance to the warring parties in every war in the West, and have devoted themselves to eliminating hatred and misunderstanding that are both the cause and the consequence of war through educational channels. ⑤

Whether in history or reality, pacifism can be divided into absolute and conditional. Absolute pacifism unconditionally opposes force and war. However, this theory is tolerant, but it is unwise. The value concept that pacifism relies on is respect for life, which makes absolute pacifism, which unconditionally opposes all wars, face insurmountable difficulties in practice and logic. When faced with the kind of enemy that Einstein said, opposing the war is equivalent to letting innocent lives be destroyed. During World War II, when the Japanese invaders burned and looted our land, when the Nazi army trampled on the French land, and when the Nazi air force bombed London day and night, refusing to take up arms was tantamount to handing over the motherland to the aggressors and destroying life and civilization together. What's more, in this case, when the war has already happened, refusing to go to the battlefield, as some commentators have pointed out, is actually pushing the danger that should be shared with others to others, which has created a moral problem. Rawls once criticized that refusing to participate in all wars under any conditions is a naive and inevitable intolerant view. 6. In my opinion, naivety lies in not understanding the paradox of war and peace under certain circumstances; This also leads to intolerance and denial of the possibility of any just war. Because of this, few outstanding figures with pacifist ideas are absolutely opposed to force. Even Gandhi and Martin Luther King, the undisputed representatives and spiritual symbols of the peace movement, supported the use of force in some cases. During the First World War, Gandhi opposed the demand for autonomy when Britain was in danger, but supported the Indian army to go to the European battlefield to "defend the empire", called on Indians in Britain to do some work in the war, and called on those who were willing to participate to register as volunteers. Second World Congress