Violence as a tool

Ive always maintained that violence is a tool, an action that can beget an infinite number of outcomes with its use. This is to say nothing, however, of the proper moral use of violence.

Unfortunatly, many I have spoken with state that violence is intrinsically wrong. They also hold that violence is the bastion of the weak and vain.

I was wondering what you think. Is violence intrinsically wrong? Will it always beget (under a rational objectivist def of negative) negative long-term outcomes?

Telesis, this is a hard nut to crack (is cracking nuts considered violent in politically correct countries :unamused: ). I was reading Albert Camus one day as i am wont to do and he said something to the effect that if you have ever loved one person you have committed yourself to violent aggression too. (One has to defend those one loves, right?). I believe this comes close to my answer, nevertheless, i am pretty much a pacifist although i accept that this may not always be possible. Still, i hope my pacifism is not that of the timid soul who neither loves nor hates, as this would leave out the very best of a peaceful life.

Violence is a tool of oppression. Why do you think governments want to have the monopoly on the use of force ? People that believe in violence are likely to want to oppress a certain group of people.

Some say the only kind of violence that’s justified is the one where you want to prevent other people from using it. Yet this sounds very much like hypocrisy, like screwing for virginity or killing to prevent killing (death penalty). Before you know it you gazed into the abyss for too long and there you are, stuck in a paradox.

Pacifism is flawed because it would only work if everyone was a pacifist. You can protest peacefully as much as you want but the moment someone tries to shut you up by using violence you’re powerless. Of course, if you’d die as a pacifist your symbolic death might accomplish more than you could have accomplished by using force. If the Jews would have gone underground in Germany during WW II and fought Hitler’s government with terror it would be far less historically significant than them getting killed massively in concentration camps.

I know pacifism is flawed, that is why i phrased my response the way i did. As Nietsche poignantly pointed out, one mean dude with a copy of the prince would suffice to wipe out a plethora of pacifists.

Ayn Rand says ( I am not affiliated with the cult of objectivism) that force should only be used against those who initiate it’s use and only in retaliation.

I ask here because I just finished a Military ethics course, and one of the people we read (Michael Davenport) has quite the list of requirements before violence is permissable.

On my own thought, I tend to think violence begets itself, in a dharmic fashion. Those who would seek to violently oppress will usually meet violent opposition, and a cycle starts.

As for myself, I wont hesitate to use non-lethal violence to defend the people I love or the things I need. (I will beat someone in a car jacking)

There are levels of violence though, like consensual violence (like sparring) non-violent combat, and attempted lethal violence (on micro or macro scales)

Lethal violence, which is more severe due to the potential loss of life, requires better reasoning.

It’s obviously a tool it’s just not a preferable one. The risk in losing your life for something you believe isn’t easy to accept. That’s an obvious statement but when your adrenaline starts pumping most people lose sight of the whole logical thinking thing :unamused:

yes, marquis de sade wrote something along the lines of cba’s last point --violence seems permissible (at least understandable) in the heat of the moment, when passions take over. it is not permissible when it is coolly and logically carried out (i.e. a jealous lover killing an adulturous partner is more tolerable than a state execution).

violence is definetly a part of human nature and abolishing it is striking away a part of who we are. even the most calm person will lash out given certain circumstances.

the original question, then, of it violence is intrinsictly good or bad would all depend on the morality of the person carrying out the violence. violence as a tool may not be wrong, if the person who carries it out is not in wrong – the act itself does not determine such states.

what is it that you are reacting against? Freedom (either positive liberty or negative) is something that can persuade within the individual that violence may be a last resort. Governments the world over only seem to take note when their policies, rules, laws etc. are being reacted against in this way.

There has to be a point in either the individual or collective that recognises that reason and rationality do not, or are not, providing the desired results in a specific situation and that a violent reaction may be taken. But as has been pointed out that this decision is reached when the ability of rational thought has long since been rejected.

Is violence intrinsically wrong? only if human nature is intrinsically wrong…

Violence most often will have a negative affect for atleast one party involved, but many times it can have infinite utility to the person perpetuating the violence…

Damn it Trix you have already mentioned Marquis De Sade a nanosecond before i was going to… :smiley: :unamused: :evilfun:

As i said before, if one chooses love, one also chooses violence, and as the band Rush put it, “and if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.”