Striking someone that could cause lots of violence to others otherwise...
Of course violence would be the last resort in this case as well, in my opinion, but it would be the lesser evil.
Some people use violence to fuel their morbid curiosity.
Can it help an individual who delves into such topic through discussions and material?
If I’m out by myself and I see someone hassling an employee, I get some enjoyment out of being a Large, Unpleasant Man™ and hassling them right back. It’s funny how little they care about their little problem when some random weirdo who doesn’t work there gets involved.
I would argue to stop other violence, not necessarily bigger, is also justified. It’s never allowed unrestricted, especially as the bigger entity, but a tactical or measured response to prevent further violence can make sense.
I don’t believe that is what you meant, but @dewritoninja has a point: on your definition, where is the acceptable limit for the violence-to-supress-violence?
PS: “An eye for an eye” (law of exact retaliation) was written to suppress escalation of violence. And usually people consider even that excessive.
Let’s talk real world, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you think a reasonable argument can be made that those bombings made sense? If not, what about in 1945?
I’m not asking you to agree, just to understand the argument. It’s a discussion worth having, even if you disagree with the answer.
I don’t think it made sense, even at that time. Those cities were mainly built with wood, and US used a lot of fire against Japan.
The use of nuclear power against Japan was more like a test and a message, it was not needed to win the war. (At least this is what I remember from this documentary )
Violence is justified when you have no other means left to defend yourself or someone else otherwise.
At which point I would like to add that people will sometimes not be able to see the means they have left because they are put in a stressful situation in a second. I feel like you can’t really blame them for that.
Violence as a response should always be in proportion. That should avoid escalation. In an ideal world.
Unfortunately some people won’t stop. Those people need to be put into prison where they cannot hurt anyone anymore.
Self défense, yep. On a battlefield ? Let these old fuck fight one vs one to resolve their conflict. A noble end is so fucking subjective that I think it would be a terrible idea.
this is where the mythological concept of sin sorta helps. So its a bad thing but basically you decide at what point doing the bad thing is worse than other bad things but you can't ever make it not a bad thing. You just accept its price at some point and its ultimately and individual decision and I don't think many will know until that moment. For myself I try to avoid it as much as I can but I don't know in what situation I will be driven to it.
Surely protecting is by definition preemptive since it means you are not allowing the violence against yourself or someone else to occur? Not saying your first point is wrong just doesn’t seem consistent to me.
Only revenge/retribution would not be preemptive which imo is not better.
Personally, I’d prefer non-violent over violent means for myself. If other people are involved it would depend - I won’t risk someone else’s life if I can avoid it. I tell my niece that she’s allowed to stab dudes that don’t respond to “no”.
Preemptive is a different word from defending because they mean different things. Preemptive violence is violence that happens before a threat exists because of the possibility of a threat.
So shooting your neighbor on Tuesday because think he might be violent on Wednesday. If on Wednesday he shows up and makes verbal threats of imminent violence, responding to the threat of violence by being violent first would be self defense and not preemptive because the threat actually exists at the time. Timing and context matter, not who literally who gets off the first shot/punch/violent act.
Add comment