The Ethics of Violence and Order

[Bardeaux]

I've been thinking lately about how different societies/cultures legitimize and tolerate certain types of violence over others based on the values the societies hold. While an extremely suppressive state body is able to induce order among the populace through intimidation, it can also be capable of carrying out vast amounts of violence itself. On the flip side, a relatively free society like the United States allows it's citizens to perpetuate violence on themselves through unequal social mobility and class structure as an incentive, free access to weapons and cultural acceptance of the situation. Is excessive state violence inherently more legitimate than excessive non-state violence?

I want to ask about the ethics of violence in general. Is it ethical to place a monopoly on violence in the hands of the state, allowing it to keep order by using force when necessary (or even excessively)? Or is it ethical to lax the control of the state and allow the chips to fall where they may without interference?

In other words, is it better for societies to perpetuate violence themselves, or is it a more ethical scenario when a state body uses violence as a means to keep order?

 

[What 23]

No. One is more intentional than the other. At least when it is "free" there is a chance.

But, I have felt a desire for much more order. Not oppressive, though.

I think we need to be "free", to learn better.

 

[Bardeaux]

Sorry I should clarify, I'm not asking which you prefer personally.

I'm wondering which is a more ethical scenario.

 

[What 23]

Non-state. Not that either is more ethical. But one has more ethical beginnings, I think.

 

[L2R]

the social, historic, cultural and economical contexts are what varies the answer to this. what works most ethically in one place with be abused excessively in another.

some days i value my ability to choose my own adventure, albeit at risks. at others i am happy to live without that ability but with security. it comes down to a choice between two different "oppressors", the state or other people.

since we all must survive as a whole, i think the former is the ethical preference. we can't steer this ship called humanity if we are constantly competing viciously. that is the definition of "cutting off your nose to spite your face". unless we can remove the capitalist insatiable consumption we are so poisoned with now, we will need a nanny state. otherwise, we'd eat each other alive.

the ONLY appeal to picking each other as our preferred oppressor is the chance that one day we can be the powerful in that equation. the liberty to shit on your neighbour, and let them starve, if you will. now if we could get rid of that base urge to fuck each other over, we could live quite well in an anarchic society, but we are far from there.

push comes to shove, if i had to choose between saying my mind (individual freedom) and eating (security), well, there is only one of these two my physical body can literally survive without. go back to basics. survival. hope, that with time, we can figure this shit out.

 

[Foreigner]

My understanding of violence is that it is a complete failure and breakdown of imagination and communication. It's an instinctual leftover of our animal nature, one that is triggered by perceiving that one's needs are being ignored, threatened, or trampled on.

Humans wage war because there is a lack of imagination to bridge social, cultural or epistemological differences. There are advanced minds who can open themselves up to different ways of viewing reality; unfortunately, these people seldom make it into politics.

As for violence as a means of government control, it's not much different. Violence and pure force are used when there are major discrepancies between the needs of the People and the desires of those in power. Democracy has come the closest to mitigating violence, but it's not perfect as we are now seeing.

On a personal level, government is slowly coming around to the idea that crime is the result of traumatized individuals behaving dysfunctionally. In the presence of love, support, and restorative justice, most criminals can be re-integrated. That includes addicts.

In either case, violence is always the result of imbalance.

 

[Thorns Have Roses]

Is it ethical to place a monopoly on violence in the hands of the state, allowing it to keep order by using force when necessary (or even excessively)?

Yes, see social contract theory. To me the main point is in which situation will violence likely be used more justly.

Humans wage war because there is a lack of imagination to bridge social, cultural or epistemological differences.

I can mostly vibe with that, but the existence of zero-sum games justifies preemptive violence in some scenarios, I would think. Also, "understanding" ("bridging differences", as you put it) is a euphemism for cultural imperialism or suzerainty more often than not.

 

[L2R]

social contract theory is faulty. a contract connotes choice of participation, but no one chooses where they are born, and most don't have an option to leave. calling it a social contract is a nice way of saying "force with some compensation".

 

[TheAppleCore]

I think that violence was very important for human evolution for a long time - hopefully that is waning now. But, think about it. If you split a large number of humans into a handful of smaller tribes, and pit them against each other with war-like instincts, only the most intelligent will survive, because they can develop the best weapons, and the best war strategies. They are the progenitors of the next generation - their DNA lives on, and voila, evolution.

Isn't it conceivable that maybe this holds true today?

 

[Foreigner]

That's a rather post-colonial view of looking at pre-history.

There are many human epochs where different societies cooperated for the greater good of all, forming complex cultures.

 

[L2R]

^it could also be a cynical perspective on aesop's twigs.

something like: sure, as a union we are stronger, but stronger as self interested individuals who use the strenght of others as a personal gain only and would just as well kill them if it meant the same benefit.

i don't agree with this, but it could be what applecore meant.

 

[TheAppleCore]

something like: sure, as a union we are stronger, but stronger as self interested individuals who use the strenght of others as a personal gain only and would just as well kill them if it meant the same benefit.

i don't agree with this, but it could be what applecore meant.

No, definitely not. I'm approaching it from a Darwinian angle, looking at the evolution of the human genome over many many generations. Humans are given the genetically hard-wired impulse to war with opposing groups / tribes, because it leaves only the strongest and most intelligent humans standing. It's a form of "artificial selection", as opposed to natural selection.

Foreigner, I'm not sure what "post-colonial" means in this context?

 

[Foreigner]

No, definitely not. I'm approaching it from a Darwinian angle, looking at the evolution of the human genome over many many generations. Humans are given the genetically hard-wired impulse to war with opposing groups / tribes, because it leaves only the strongest and most intelligent humans standing. It's a form of "artificial selection", as opposed to natural selection.

Foreigner, I'm not sure what "post-colonial" means in this context?

Everything you just said, about how humans are hard-wired for war, is a result of people living in a post-colonial world. While we would outright reject colonialism and imperialism, it doesn't mean that some of its beliefs have been washed out of our cultural thinking.

The fact that war in the world is on the decline and there are less wars now than 100 years ago is a testament to humanity's ability to restrain itself. I really think that war and violence are a product of nurture, not hard-wiring. Most animals in nature live in a balanced equilibrium with their environment and other animals. Killing is only done for bare necessity. But when you put animals in captivity and deprive them of an environment that they need to be balanced, they may become violent toward their human keepers.

Humans are similar. We wouldn't express violence if we had balanced lives. The systems of control that humans have invented to govern other humans are part of the reason why people lash out. On a global scale, nations wage war because one or both sides fail to see the humanity in the opposing side.

For a government to manufacture consent that the people will accept, the enemy must always be portrayed as less than human, or an imminent threat. The average person would say that war is bad, but governments are murderers. There are one set of rules for us, and one set of rules for them. If everyone played by the same rules and assumed that peace was not only possible but was the default, then the world would be different.

The stuff you mention about evolution and genetics is a result of science being the right hand man to a violent system. Science always tries to justify dysfunctional human behaviour as being something out of our control, and a product of human evolution. I disagree. While violence is within us, it's a wolf we don't have to nurture. We are at a point in human history where everyone on this planet could have what they need to not only survive, but thrive; it would feed the good wolf instead of the violent one. It's people's addiction to power and control that makes it impossible.

 

[TheAppleCore]

While violence is within us, it's a wolf we don't have to nurture.

I see. Indeed, I tend to have a fairly mechanical view of humanity, which is not so popular I suppose.

It's people's addiction to power and control that makes it impossible.

But isn't that itself hard-wired? Or can that too change?

And if so, if it is really in our power to make all of these changes toward a more peaceful world, how exactly do we purge humanity of its greed? Change the structure of our educational systems? Raise the children with proper morals and values?

 

[L2R]

No, definitely not. I'm approaching it from a Darwinian angle, looking at the evolution of the human genome over many many generations. Humans are given the genetically hard-wired impulse to war with opposing groups / tribes, because it leaves only the strongest and most intelligent humans standing. It's a form of "artificial selection", as opposed to natural selection.

Foreigner, I'm not sure what "post-colonial" means in this context?

thanks for clarifying, so in this case, what foreigner says i agree with. the instinct toward protection in numbers (the social instinct) predates the instincts of war (competition).

 

[aliencowstorm]

Sorry I should clarify, I'm not asking which you prefer personally.

I'm wondering which is a more ethical scenario.

I hate to do this, but your question can't be answered unless you set some boundaries and a construct. What's ethical to the ancient Greeks would be different to what's ethical to a Turk to what's ethical for an American.

Society creates structures and defines what's considered ethical vs what's not. Laws enforce these structures.

You ask

Is it ethical to place a monopoly on violence in the hands of the state, allowing it to keep order by using force when necessary (or even excessively)?

And then you juxtapose the question with

Or is it ethical to lax the control of the state and allow the chips to fall where they may without interference?

I ask, does it matter which one imposes the violence? Is the question are people inherintly violent? Of course humans are violent. I mean, the idea of ethics is in its infancy when you look at how long humans have been around.

People seem to need the feeling of security and that is best handled via a governing structure that can enforce said security. Without this, people become frightened and fear leads to many things and violence is one of them. Self restraint is not a strength of the human race. I'd hate to be around if there was no government to enforce laws, convict criminals etc.

The answer to your question is, some form of democratic government control is more ethical. Why? Because this form of government is ruled for the people by the people. If they feel their government is doing harm, they have the ability to effect a change.

 

[aliencowstorm]

No, definitely not. I'm approaching it from a Darwinian angle, looking at the evolution of the human genome over many many generations. Humans are given the genetically hard-wired impulse to war with opposing groups / tribes, because it leaves only the strongest and most intelligent humans standing. It's a form of "artificial selection", as opposed to natural selection.

Why do you say this is a form of artificial selection versus natural selection? Is it not natural selection when the smallest cub starves because they aren't strong enough to compete for their mothers milk? I would argue that your statement is all part of natural selection in that the strongest / smartest does survive the battle and in turn is able to procreate their genes.

This really is a fun subject to discuss, but I don't feel that the construct around the original question allows for meaningful debate.

 

[Bardeaux]

I hate to do this, but your question can't be answered unless you set some boundaries and a construct. What's ethical to the ancient Greeks would be different to what's ethical to a Turk to what's ethical for an American.

Society creates structures and defines what's considered ethical vs what's not. Laws enforce these structures.

Of course it's ambiguous, otherwise it wouldn't make for very interesting discussion

I began thinking of this topic after considering the way different cultures approach violence one way, and others another way. For instance, some societies value personal freedom over state imposed order, by default choosing violence among themselves over personal restrictions and social planning to ensure equality and safety. While others value egalitarian ideals and accept the state as an organ of order.

Whether out of fear of the collective or out of fear of chaos, all societies institutionalize violence to some degree.

I ask, does it matter which one imposes the violence? Is the question are people inherintly violent? Of course humans are violent.

The question is does society have an obligation to keep order even through violent means if necessary, or does society have an obligation to maximize freedom even if it means enduring massive amounts of violence. It certainly matters which one imposes the violence, as every culture has a strong opinion or set of values that allows for one over the other.

 

[Foreigner]

I see. Indeed, I tend to have a fairly mechanical view of humanity, which is not so popular I suppose.

The mechnical view serves a purpose, but often to the exclusion of culture-borne biases. The mechanical view of nature is always going to be somewhat influenced by what the dominant culture is of any given period. After all, humans are not outside of the system. We are analyzing evolution from within an evolving system.

But isn't that itself hard-wired? Or can that too change?

There is surely a hard wired component to power, but I don't think that can explain or justify the complex ways that humans currently use power. We are still animal, but the best and brightest of us are capable of transcending some of our animal habits, even if only temporarily.

I find it contradictory that many humans celebrate our sentience as a species, yet then turn around and justify our violent acts as being animal and uncontrollable. Are we self-aware or not?

I can only surmise that it therefore must be nurture whcih guides our sentience toward focusing on power as a means to an end, much like other values such as consumerism, competitiveness, etc. Competition is another good example. Humans contain this capacity within them, but I've seen group exercises where people compete for the betterment of all vs. competing in total-sum games. It's those two wolves again.

And if so, if it is really in our power to make all of these changes toward a more peaceful world, how exactly do we purge humanity of its greed? Change the structure of our educational systems? Raise the children with proper morals and values?

That's a complex question. My individual opinion is that the answer lies in how we are raised to to perceive the world. I mean, look at your own language. We need to "purge" humanity, "change the structure" (implying force), presuming "proper" morals and values. We don't harmonize imbalances in the body, we "fight disease". We "combat viruses". It's not the individual systems that need to change, it's our epistemology, or perceptual structure, that does. Once the perception changes, all other systems follow.

The challenge is within people, not within systems.

As for greed... it tends to flourish in a system where scarcity is no longer a practical concept. Humans may unfortunately end up "acquiring" until our very source of life is threatened. But I have faith that such a low point will renew our species and start a new way of being that is better.

 

[ebola?]

I think that we may need to first define what we mean by violence. I think that part of the process through which the state establishes a monopoly on the means to exert legitimized violence (see Weber) is shaping how society defines violence per se. For example, in the US, individual-to-individual robbery is defined as clearly violent, while the structuring of economic inequalities and allocation of environmental degradation by industry which causes suffering and disease isn't approached as violence (particularly when thinking legalistically). Through a Foucauldian lens, maybe violence is defined in terms of the discursive regimes that impose the division between what is "ordered" and what is "disordered" in terms of how the exercise of power is deployed in order to assess order and correct disorder in the image of this assessment. For Foucault, it is the discursive regime itself that structures how participants are set in relations of domination rather than raw characteristics of the dominant group allowing it to exercise domination. Maybe for Bourdieu, the way in which the state demarcates violence and non-violence reflects the outcome of a struggle between classes for possession of symbolic capital in the political field, the dominant group holding reign over how violence is defined through deployment of this capital, imposing this definition on other groups in a way that reduces their autonomy in class-competition. For Boudieu, the struggle is in a way 'pre-conscious', participants in struggle perceiving their preferred definition of violence as 'naturally true' rather than reflecting conditions of class-struggle.

ebola