Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
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?
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?