The price of peace is righteousness.

The price of peace is righteousness.

22/09/2025
27/10/2025

The price of peace is righteousness.

The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.
The price of peace is righteousness.

"The price of peace is righteousness." These powerful words by Ezra Taft Benson carry a profound message that resonates through the ages. They tell us that peace, a state so longed for by individuals, communities, and nations alike, does not come freely or without cost. The price of peace, Benson reminds us, is not merely the absence of conflict, but the active pursuit of righteousness—a commitment to justice, virtue, and moral integrity. It is only when we uphold these values that true and lasting peace can be achieved, both within ourselves and in the world around us.

In the ancient world, the concept of peace was often intertwined with the idea of order, and order could only be maintained through righteous action. The Greeks, for example, believed that true peace in the city-state could only exist when the citizens acted in accordance with justice and virtue. Plato’s ideal state, outlined in The Republic, rests on the belief that harmony in society comes from each individual fulfilling their proper role with righteousness, adhering to the principles of wisdom, courage, and moderation. For the ancient Greeks, peace was a product of inner moral order—a result of the righteous actions of individuals who aligned themselves with the greater good of the community. In this way, Benson’s words echo the wisdom of the ancients: peace cannot exist where righteousness is lacking.

The Romans too understood the profound connection between righteousness and peace. The Roman Republic was founded on ideals of justice and law, and it was only when these values were upheld that the Roman people could enjoy the Pax Romana—a period of peace and prosperity across the empire. The Romans saw righteousness as the guiding principle of their laws and governance. Cicero, one of Rome’s greatest philosophers, argued that the state could only be stable and at peace when its leaders and citizens acted in accordance with natural law—the law of justice and fairness that existed beyond human constructs. This echoes Benson’s assertion that peace is not a gift granted by chance, but a hard-earned state that comes through righteous actions, both in governance and in the individual’s daily life.

In modern history, the connection between righteousness and peace can be seen in the actions of figures like Mahatma Gandhi, who fought for Indian independence not through violence, but through a commitment to nonviolence and truth. Gandhi believed that true peace could only be achieved when both individuals and societies acted in alignment with moral principles. His leadership in India was a testament to the power of righteousness in achieving social change. Though India was under the heavy hand of British rule, Gandhi saw that peace could only be won through justice and integrity. By embodying these values, he won the hearts of millions and led his people to independence, demonstrating that the price of peace is not in mere negotiation or compromise, but in steadfast commitment to what is right.

The lesson of Ezra Taft Benson’s quote is a timeless one: peace is not a passive state, but a result of active, righteous behavior. Righteousness is the foundation upon which peace is built, whether in our personal lives, in our families, or in the broader world. When we choose to act justly, to live with integrity, and to make decisions based on what is morally right, we lay the groundwork for peace. This is true on the grand stage of politics and international relations, as well as in the small moments of our daily interactions with others.

In our own lives, we must ask ourselves: How can we contribute to peace? Are we striving to live lives of righteousness, guided by honor, compassion, and fairness? The price of peace is not something that can be measured in gold or promises—it is paid in the sacrifice of our egos, the dedication to justice, and the commitment to doing what is right, even when it is difficult. If we want to build a peaceful world, we must first build it within ourselves. We must hold ourselves accountable to the standards of virtue, choosing righteousness over convenience, and justice over comfort.

Benson’s words call us to examine the ways in which we participate in the world around us. True peace comes when we work together in the pursuit of a common moral purpose, when we hold ourselves to a higher standard of conduct, and when we act in ways that honor the inherent dignity of others. Peace is a process—a journey of continual striving toward righteousness, knowing that only through this commitment can we create a world that is truly just, harmonious, and whole. Let us all take this message to heart and endeavor, in every moment, to contribute to the greater peace that comes from living a life of righteousness.

Ezra Taft Benson
Ezra Taft Benson

American - Leader August 4, 1899 - May 30, 1994

With the author

Tocpics Related
Notable authors
Have 5 Comment The price of peace is righteousness.

Kkatazama

I respect the message but feel conflicted about its practicality. Righteousness sounds noble, but it’s often inconvenient, costly, or even dangerous in corrupt systems. If the price of peace is righteousness, then are we willing to pay it? Maybe the quote challenges us to examine whether our version of peace is genuine or merely comfort built on injustice. How do individuals maintain righteousness when society rewards compromise instead?

Reply.
Information sender

TTtuan tu

From a spiritual standpoint, this statement resonates deeply — true peace might come only when one’s life aligns with moral truth. Yet, I can’t help but think about cultural relativity. What if one person’s righteousness is another’s oppression? Does the quote assume a universal moral code, or is it more about personal integrity and conscience? I’d like to know how this principle applies in a pluralistic world with diverse belief systems.

Reply.
Information sender

D618 Tran Thanh Dat 6B

This quote stirs a sense of accountability in me. It makes me think peace isn’t something we can simply wish for — it’s something we must earn through just actions and moral courage. But I’m curious, does righteousness always lead to peace? History shows that even righteous causes can lead to conflict. Is the idea here that internal peace comes from righteousness, rather than political peace between nations?

Reply.
Information sender

PLPhong Luu

I find this quote powerful but also troubling. If righteousness is the 'price' of peace, does that imply peace cannot exist where corruption or moral compromise exists? That seems to set an impossibly high bar for human societies. People often seek peace through negotiation, not necessarily righteousness. Does this perspective undervalue pragmatic peace deals that, while imperfect, prevent suffering? Or does it warn us against shallow, temporary forms of peace?

Reply.
Information sender

DTDuc Ten

This quote makes me wonder — can peace really exist without a foundation of moral integrity and justice? It feels like the statement suggests peace isn’t just the absence of war but the presence of something greater, something ethical. But in real-world politics, righteousness can be subjective or manipulated. How do we determine what 'righteousness' truly means when different groups have conflicting moral frameworks? Who decides which version leads to peace?

Reply.
Information sender
Leave the question
Click here to rate
Information sender