• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

When is violence just?

Libby

Libby

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
2,770
Location
Outside of Society
For such a world like this full of violence, with violence on the news on TV in video games at the movies, full fledged internationally wars continuing daily, does anyone else find it unusual that not alot is ever addressed about when violence is good and when it is bad? like it's never taught in school or anything, well only to the point that if u get in a fight you will be put on detention, which gives the message violence is not ok, meanwhile we are expected to "support the troops" in the exceedingly more violent wars waged as though violence was good. When is it ok and when is it bad? The impression gained might be mild violence is not ok but extreme violence is.

I know from my experience as a child that violence is not ok, I advocate non-violence. I think that even if a disagreement comes to violence, the violence only proves who is physically stronger it doesn't prove who was right and so it's irrelevant and doesn't solve any problems. And war is especially bad because it's not even the people having the argument who fight kill and die, rich men in power send the poor to do their dirty work for them, so a fight between two leaders that could have had a total 2 deaths resulting before the conflict is over can now have thousands, millions, who knows deaths resulting and still no resolution of the conflict. Surely maximizing the devastation and minimizing/eliminating the resulting conflict resolution is very bad.

but..

If someone attacked me, even though I believe in nonviolence, I mean, I could die theoretically, so fighting back could at least be good for my personal survival, I would definitely fight back whether it was likely I'd still die or not. So In self defense violence is ok.

Also if someone attacked someone near and dear to me, who was unable to sufficiently defend themselves like my bestest feline friend 'Sugar' for example, no question I would step in and do whatever needed to be done, and this feels like the right thing to do, without question, so violence in defence of those unable to defend themselves sufficiently must also be ok.

but then, if I just said violence on behalf of others is ok, then doesn't that mean war is ok? but that can't be right.
Also then I mean I would fight on behalf of others, so is it right to break into vivisection labratories and dis-able all workers violently in order to rescue and liberate the victims within? It makes sense, theres no diffence between the cat I've loved all my life and the other non-humans in these labratories except that I have not meet the later, and me not knowing them intimately doesn't mean they suffer any less... But my hero in the animal rights movement proff gary francione says of A.L.F. that violence is the problem, it isn't any part of the solution.

But I don't understand why violence is ok sometimes and not other times, and if it is never ok, then are we suppose to let anyone who is violent just kill us or make us their slaves, or do so to others, surely then they just have more reason to exploit us and would do so on larger scales, and already there is too much, I mean it's the 21st century, but there are still slaves, that's insane, sex slaves in trafficking, child slaves in chocolate and coffee industries that keep african farmers in third world conditions but make nestle representatives in western countries stinking rich, whole families kept in bonded labour in brick kilns in pakistan, slaves without even proper sewage in dubai, laogai prisoners in china, armies blowing soldiers and civilians to pieces in afghanistan, it's disgusting, completely disgusting the entire world, and how can nonviolence be practiced if it means doing nothing to stop those with power over others from exploiting them mercilessly just for money, or what have you. Like people who can do that are just gonna be like sweet everyone has moved to the philosophy of non violence that means I can keep being a dickwad.

Thoughts?
 
I guess anytime the that violence is used to prevent something worse then the act of violence itself or to achieve a ends that justifies the use of such violence. I have no real moral stand on violence as of itself as i see it as a tool that can be used for either good or bad.
 
Pretty much the only time I would ever be potentially violent is if mine, or someone I love's, safety was in danger.

Even Gandhi wasn't against using violence, most people don't know this about him.
 
self defence. protection of the innocent.

If the reasons the USA and the UN got involved in civil unrest in other countries were because they were protecting the innocent and oppressed - they would be justified...but as we have seen time and time again the UN does not do shit - it is impotent and just a way to enslave people into treaties not in their best interests.

The USA is deceitful about why it goes into other countries to "topple the oppressors", it's interested in more power, and introducing puppet dictators to do that, who are paid a good wage to sell out their countrymen. It wages war in reptilian brained mammal self interest - power and domination.

The true protection of the innocent and weak, or just your fellow man, on an individual level, and self defence on an individual level - these are the only two reasons why you should be violent. EVER. You should train for people acting violent towards you, but it should never be a focus - once you focus on something like this, you become a warrior, and attract that kind of energy towards you.

War being waged by people, and coming into your country - you are justified to fight these people as they are coming to kill you and your families and friends, take your houses, wealth and try and wipe out your culture generally. An army would then be formed (if there wasn't one already), so fellow countrymen could help each other to defend each other.

You are however never justified as an army on the offensive, you are never justified to go into someone else's country by force, for any reason. Mind your own fucking business, and stop desiring other people's natural resources - you want it? Trade for it at a fair price. You want their land? Tough - you have your own land you came from, ask if you can settle there, don't take it.
 
Last edited:
If there aren't any other options then I would consider it okay. You can't make a cup of tea for the robber who just entered your house and hash out a charitable deal so to avoid violence. Wars on the other hand usually have a million different options.
 
Gandhi: "Poverty is the worst form of violence."

All kinds of violence: physical, verbal, psychological, sexual, social, structural; direct, indirect, intended, unintended, justified, cruel...

I think violence is just when it is the only apparent alternative that will most mitigate harm in a given circumstance. This, of course, is impossible to determine with 100% accuracy because none of us has an eagle-eye point of view that can see all possible outcomes. For example, look at what is happening in Afghanistan: the U.S. claims to be fighting to rid the land of the "evil Taliban" and bring peace and democracy to the people, but what they're actually doing is escalating the blood-shed, using people's villages and homes for military operations, and, through this all, persuading more Afghans to join the Taliban. This is why pacifism is a good starting point, and violence should be a last resort.
 
The only time I feel violence is necessary is when another person dares to try and take my life from me.

If I'm attacked and somebody is trying to kill me, you better believe I'm going to hurt them as hard as I can before they try and hurt me any further.
 
If we're talking human on human violence, then defense only. Humans that instigate violence have not learned control over their animal instincts, whether they are individuals or governments. Keep in mind that the violence that is instigated does not have to be physical. If a government that is supposed to protect and provide for its people is knowingly negligent in its duties or does something that goes against the welfare of society, violence is justified to remove that government from power.
 
when the lack of action would have worse consequences... and there is no time to prepare an alternative way of solving the problem
 
Cthulhu said:
Gandhi: "Poverty is the worst form of violence."

All kinds of violence: physical, verbal, psychological, sexual, social, structural; direct, indirect, intended, unintended, justified, cruel...

I think violence is just when it is the only apparent alternative that will most mitigate harm in a given circumstance. This, of course, is impossible to determine with 100% accuracy because none of us has an eagle-eye point of view that can see all possible outcomes. For example, look at what is happening in Afghanistan: the U.S. claims to be fighting to rid the land of the "evil Taliban" and bring peace and democracy to the people, but what they're actually doing is escalating the blood-shed, using people's villages and homes for military operations, and, through this all, persuading more Afghans to join the Taliban. This is why pacifism is a good starting point, and violence should be a last resort.
Click to expand...

Pacifism is a tyrants best friend. If you sit by and do nothing you are just as bad as those who are committing the act itself. You can only speak to people in the language they understand and as is the case with the Taliban and other groups that force their ideology on others through imperialism the only language they understand is violence. If you try and get through to them in any other way you might as well be talking Greek to them.
 
RobotRipping said:
^yes must agree here. Read some karl marx FFS lol, not you android, the others i mean :)
Click to expand...

Add some Fanon to the Marx my fellow Atlantic comrade.

"Violence alone, perpetrated by the people, violence organized and guided by the leadership, provides the key for the masses to decipher social reality. Without this struggle, without this praxis there is nothing but a carnival parade and a lot of hot air. All that is left is a slight readapting, a few reforms at the top, a flag, and down at the bottom a shapeless, writhing mass, still mired in the Dark Ages.” - Frantz Fanon
 
Have you heard of the Moriori people ?

They were the traditional native inhabitants of the Chatham Islands off the east coast of new zealand, for generations they practiced a culture of complete non violence. A moral principle they referred to as Nunuku.

At some point they were discovered and invaded by Maori from the North island of new zealand and realized that they had to either kill and wipe out these invaders (who were cannibals and total murderers, the south sea equivalent of the vikings) or they themselves would be killed and wiped out., they had this one opportunity when the numbers were on their side to win a conflict situation.

The decision they made was to not resort to violence knowing full well this would mean their own destruction.

Here is an account from colonial records of the time.

In 1835 some Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama people, Māori from the Taranaki region of the North Island of New Zealand invaded the Chathams. On 19 November 1835, the Rodney,hijacked a European ship, arrived carrying 500 Maori armed with guns, clubs and axes, followed by another ship with 400 more Maori on 5 December 1835. They proceeded to enslave some Moriori and kill and cannibalise others. "Parties of warriors armed with muskets, clubs and tomahawks, led by their chiefs, walked through Moriori tribal territories and settlements without warning, permission or greeting. If the districts were wanted by the invaders, they curtly informed the inhabitants that their land had been taken and the Moriori living there were now vassals."[11]

A council of Moriori elders was convened at the settlement called Te Awapatiki. Despite knowing of the Māori predilection for killing and eating the conquered, and despite the admonition by some of the elder chiefs that the principle of Nunuku was not appropriate now, two chiefs — Tapata and Torea — declared that "the law of Nunuku was not a strategy for survival, to be varied as conditions changed; it was a moral imperative." A Moriori survivor recalled : "The Maori commenced to kill us like sheep.... We were terrified, fled to the bush, concealed ourselves in holes underground, and in any place to escape our enemies. It was of no avail; we were discovered and killed - men, women and children indiscriminately." A Maori conqueror explained, "We took possession... in accordance with our customs and we caught all the people. Not one escaped....." The invaders ritually killed some 10% of the population,a ritual that included staking out women and children on the beach and leaving them to die in great pain over several days.


and here is how the last descendants of the Moriori describe what happened.


They arrived severely weakened, but were nursed back to health by their Moriori hosts. However, they soon revealed hostile intentions and embarked on a reign of terror.

Stunned, Moriori called a council of 1,000 men at Te Awapātiki to debate their response. The younger men were keen to repel the invaders and argued that even though they had not fought for many centuries, they outnumbered the newcomers two to one and were a strong people. But the elders argued that Nunuku’s Law was a sacred covenant with their gods and could not be broken. The consequences for Moriori were devastating.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top