All papers are checked via
|← Passage Analysis||The Analysis of Two pictures →|
People generally respond to common problems in three ways. The first way is acquiescence: upon discovery, they resign to their doom. They accept the situation and adjust themselves to find comfort within the problem. He/she prefers to stay with the problem than to confront it, (Patner, 2001).
The oppressed person feels offended by the unfaithfulness of the other partner but chooses to keep a low profile on the matter. By condoning unfaithfulness, the person is cooperating with the problem and the conscience of the unfaithful partner is allowed to slumber. This gives the person the courage to go on with the vice, (Welner, 2006).
The second way to deal with the problem is by resorting to physical violence and hatred. The violence may bring short term results. Many people may resort to violence because it bring temporary solution to the problem, but never solves the problem as required. It merely creates new and more complicated in the relationship. As Martin Luther King said, “the old law of an eye for and eye leaves everybody blind”. Violence seeks to humiliate the other partner rather than win his/her understanding. It destroys love and brings hatred. It also kills the spirit of dialogue and reconciliation which is the best means towards the solution of any problem, (Patner, 2001).
The third way seeks to reconcile the two extremes; acquiescence and violence, and establish a common ground between the two extremes. Without violence, the offended person can bring to the understanding of the other person the fact that the act is morally wrong, (Malkon, 2005).
The non-violence approach does not mean that the person subscribes to the immoral act. The person who chooses to employ this approach is more likely to find a permanent solution to the problem since this method is more effective than the other two, (Welner, 2006).