Naverson begins his criticism of pacifism by arguing that the term is not well defined and there can be many variations; believes that people use the term differently because different doctrines have labeled themselves pacifism. His rebuttal focuses on the idea that it is morally wrong to use force to resist, punish, or prevent violence, and he calls this position “incoherent because it is self-contradictory in its fundamental intent” (Naverson 479). Claiming that pacifism is self-contradictory, Naverson's rebuttal focuses on how the principle of pacifism is misguided and a pacifist's actions may not reflect the values ​​they claim to have. He discusses why people might claim to be pacifists, and provides an example that pacifism can be used as a tactic to achieve desirable effects, such as forcing someone to concede or disarm if you go first. However, he responds by saying that if one supports pacifism for desired ends, then “one's position depends on what the effects are. Determining what they are is a purely empirical question and, consequently, it is not possible to be a pacifist as a matter of pure principle if your reasons for supporting pacifism are merely tactical” (Naverson 483). This is part of Naverson's thesis that pacifism is incoherent; the desire for peaceful ends as a tactical matter is not exclusive to pacifists. Additionally, Naverson raises the issue of self-defense. A pacifist must assert that “every person has no right to defend himself, although he has the right to defend other people” (Naverson 484). This view simply makes no sense to any rational person, supporting the author's point: pacifism can be inconsistent. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay On the other hand, Ryan defends pacifism not in the sense that all violence is bad, but simply that killing people is wrong. He begins the topic by talking about the issue of self-defense, because it is the most weighty objection that most people have to pacifism. Ryan explains, “This rules out the case of bludgeoning, but allows one to kill so as not to be killed” (Ryan 489). This explains the proportionality of a violent response. The violent example referred to is whether or not you can kill someone for taking your property, such as a washcloth. Ryan argues that a pacifist would never kill someone when there is no danger to them, but would act in self-defense if necessary. After responding to the self-defense objection, Ryan moves on to the main point of his argument, which is that a pacifist “cannot create, nor will he create, the necessary distance between himself and another to make the act of killing possible” ( Ryan 490). He explains that being able to kill someone means being able to get far enough away that they can ignore their basic human right to life. Ryan believes this is insensitive, and the pacifist position is a moral position, “motivated by an image of personal relationship and perspective one should hold towards others, regardless of actions they might take towards us” (Ryan 490 ). Pacifism is about respect, justice and fairness. While both authors make valid points, I agree more with the points made by Naverson. While accusing the opposition of not having a coherent position is a weak argument, it is true to some extent. However, I agree with your points about some inconsistencies in the pacifist vision. In my opinion, there will always be a time in this world when violence will be necessary to achieve something and,..