Present a logical defense of the statement "Violence solves nothing"

[tantric]

i think that's an utterly meaningless platitude, and manifestly untrue besides. i'm a very literal person, you know, shit like that bugs me. in every given situation where there is a problem, an incompleteness, a disagreement, violence cannot solve this situation. that's just silly. the sad truth is that violence solves most things. and don't go on about consequences and repercussion - that's true for everything and completely impossible to predict. here's another truth - inaction is a choice that has its own consequences, often as bad or worse than action.

 

[drug_mentor]

For someone who expects others to defend an absolutist position in opposition to your own views, you have presented a very woolly argument in favour of your position.

I am going to assume that when you say "violence solves most things" you mean to say that it solves most personal disputes. I simply don't see how one could argue in favour of the view that violence solves most problems in the world, regardless of their nature.

It is myopic and nonsensical to omit consequences from this discussion. A problem solving tool is not very effective if to resolve the initial problem it must create one or more new problems. Violence may present a quick solution for ending a confrontation, but the chances of having further problems with the person who you commit the violent act against are relatively high. Talking out a problem often takes time and effort, but if the conflicting parties can come to an understanding they are less likely to squabble over similar issues in the future.

Whilst it is certainly true that we cannot predict the consequences of any actions with absolute certainty, we can certainly consider how likely it is that our actions will cause undesirable consequences. In my opinion, violence has the greatest chance of creating undesirable consequences over other forms of dispute resolution. Obviously this may not be the case in some rare or exceptional circumstances, but for the most part I think it holds true.

I don't hold the absolutist position against violence that you have asked people to defend, so I am not going to defend it. Some problems do require violence to be resolved, in most cases these are the problems which are created through violence and where the instigator is belligerent and unwilling to see reason.

I don't disagree that some situations call for violence, but I think they are relatively rare. You seem to be attempting to champion violence as a great problem solving tool and I am not sure why, it is an extremely odd viewpoint for a Buddhist to hold, in my opinion anyway.

 

[tantric]

okay, if you could please take a break for a moment from judging me and it's reciprocal feeling to superiority to actually pay attention to what i said, PLEASE

For someone who expects others to defend an absolutist position in opposition to your own views, you have presented a very woolly argument in favour of your position.

what position? what are you going on about? my position is that the above is a meaningless platitude that actually carries no information, but is instead a ritual phrase that people utter in certain circumstances.

I am going to assume that when you say "violence solves most things" you mean to say that it solves most personal disputes. I simply don't see how one could argue in favour of the view that violence solves most problems in the world, regardless of their nature.

you know what they say about assumptions, just leave me out of it. i meant that in almost any given situation wherein it is possible, violence is the go to solution for the human race. leave it to you to assuming i'm *advocating* that. did i tell you my ferret was named Ahimsa Dharma? wait. do you eat meat? if you do, you are ASS DEEP in hypocrisy. you pay other people to brutally torture animals, in condition that if you were made to look at them, you would spontaneously vomit. i did during the class outing to a factory farm. NAKED LUNCH. just because we hide the horrible costs of consumer capitalism doesn't mean we aren't responsible for them. what are you doing about it? slapping some fool is a drop in the ocean of PAIN created by a cheeseburger. even if you are a vegan, do something about a REAL problem.

you know what? go feel superior somewhere else - your high ass is blocking my view and its time to commune with my peeps in cislunar station.

 

[drug_mentor]

you know what they say about assumptions, just leave me out of it. i meant that in almost any given situation wherein it is possible, violence is the go to solution for the human race. leave it to you to assuming i'm *advocating* that.

I was genuinely attempting to be charitable when interpreting your argument. You said this:

the sad truth is that violence solves most things.

I presume that you don't mean violence will make your broken watch start working again, make your late train arrive on time, or get you out of legal trouble. Your statement, taken at face value, is more or less nonsensical. I revised it so it was actually a (somewhat) tenable position to hold by clarifying that you meant the things violence solved were personal disputes between people. Why you would take issue with this is unclear to me.

I would like to quickly point out that I was not judging you, I was attempting to engage your thread topic. It seems quite strange that, as someone who made a thread asking others to challenge your views, you have taken issue with my doing exactly that.

As for the rest of your post, it is pretty much an off-topic rant with nothing substantive to address, so I will just leave it at that.

 

[-=SS=-]

People in positions of authority and power love to use that phrase. Prevents usurping and challenges to their power.

 

[ForEverAfter]

...

 

[Xorkoth]

tantric, I have to say I entirely disagree with this statement: "violence solves most things". I'd basically echo drug_mentor's post. Violence may present a short-term solution to an immediate problem, but violence begets violence, and violence causes resentment and hatred from those the violence is being perpetrated against. Those are the repercussions and they are real, and can't be ignored. In this discussion, repercussions are necessary to include, as they are in any discussion of how one should act. In a true discussion of this topic, you have to consider them. Even in a one-on-one conflict, if the way you resolve it is to beat or intimidate someone with violence, they are likely going to want to seek revenge. In the case of children, if a parent uses violence to control them, those children are likely to continue the cycle of violence. In what way is a cycle of violence a beneficial thing to humanity?

Regarding inaction, I agree that inaction is a choice that can have negative consequences. I wouldn't espouse a route of inaction, but there are many actions one can take to resolve a problem. For example, you could talk to a person and try to work out your issues with each other. You could simply cut a person out of your life instead of beating them. You could work on yourself so that you don't feel the need to be violent against someone when you feel they've wronged you, and let the feelings of pain at their wronging wash over and pass through you because you realize it's their problem and not yours. Sure, you didn't get revenge on them, maybe you don't feel justice was done, but who cares? It's your life, if you're able to move on and let it go, what does it matter what happens to them? Why do you not feel that any of these routes (or any other route) is not the better choice? Are you wanting to live a life filled with violence? Because it's up to you whether you do or not.

Of course there are cases where violence is the appropriate course of action, highest among them probably being in defense against violence. I certainly don't hold some sort of pacifist view that violence should never occur. But I also think it is rarely the best option and in many cases is an option that leads to more problems than it solves.

Also I'm not sure why you interpreted D_M's post as condescending (other than maybe the statement about him being surprised as this attitude from a buddhist, but I mean, it IS surprising, aren't Buddhists generally supposed to be nonviolent? Your online persona until recently seemed to indicate to me that you would not agree with this view. Of course I don't know you but still.) Is it possible you're judging your own attitudes on this matter and it caused you to lash out at someone else when you interpreted them as being judgmental? Because I didn't see the judgment there.

 

[Foreigner]

I would say violent consciousness solves nothing. Violent action is a different story.

I've seen a high level Daoist priest take down an assailant with martial arts, with zero hateful intent. It was a violent action but wasn't motivated by violent thoughts. What's the difference between a hunter who's hunting for food? Or on a sacred hunt? vs. a psychopath who loves torturing animals?

Violence and offensive techniques have practical applications. We are all capable of violent consciousness, it's part of our animal nature; but if you hate someone or want them to suffer then you're choosing to exercise your will and intent for violence.

In other words, there are ethics of violence.

Most humans in this day and age are non-violent. It's governments and patriarchal systems which are violent, and keep humans in the cycle of violence.

But look... we've been able to live with some of our most dangerous knowledge - engineered viruses, nuclear weapons - without obliterating the entire planet. So there is hope.

 

[-=SS=-]

^
I think it's good to make a distinction.. 'violence' is action with an implied connotation. Sometimes action is necessary. Being a Buddhist etc doesn't render you placid and defenseless.. sometimes action is called for, necessary even!

If an intruder breaks into your house and could potentially harm your family, you're going to disable that intruder however you deem fit.. if that means being violent in your approach, so be it. To me that is just necessary action. If you end up gauging his eyes out of whatever that doesn't need to crack you up mentally (or anyone else).. you did what was necessary. In that situation, violence solved everything.. you and your family is safe.

Or you could try bamboozling him with a Zen koan, see how that works out for you and your family..

 

[Foreigner]

^ lol

 

[tantric]

when i said 'violence solves most things' i was making an observation about human behavior. english lacks the right kind of habitual tense to express this - i'm not at all condoning, but i'm saying that, historically, it's what happens. i find this highly regrettable - we are a bit too much troglodytes and too little bonono. to not acknowledge that is to live in denial. despite all of the buddha's teachings on ahimsa, it was the shaolin monks who invented kung-fu (legendarily). i'm going to try and explain my position in a new thread that is more abstract...