I would like to hear everybody’s answer on the following question:
When can we use violence?
I could’ve thought of a better answer than this :
“ I can use violence only when I know that there are no other means that could solve the problem†….. but is there any problem that can not be fixed through diplomacy ???
A user-powered service that tracks voices of protest from around the world by crowd- sourcing information.
Visit SiteDocumenting and raising awareness about the plight of migrant workers in the Middle East.
Visit SiteA bilingual tool for LGBTQ youth in the Middle East that leverages game mechanics to facilitate authentic, high...
Visit SiteMobilizing public opinion, collecting information and disseminating knowledge...
Visit SiteRaising awareness about the increasing human rights abuses against Baha'is in the Muslim...
Visit SiteAn informative web portal on the stateless nation that suffered genocide and are still denied rights in the Middle...
Visit SiteCampaign is to make March 18 the definitive day for commemorating the risks taken by bloggers around the world...
Visit SiteA collection of Israeli organizations, individuals, activists and free thinkers, dedicated each in their own...
Visit SiteAttempting to reach thousands of postcards to be sent to Iranian officials, with the aim of bringing a voice to those...
Visit SiteContent on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
We Love to Share
Join the Conversation
According to your argument, I can kill the boy sitting in the next office because I need his laptop and there is no other way to have him give it to me. I think there should also be a constraint on what a “problem” can be.
I say I can act violently if I allow others to act violently against me in the same situation.
A thief breaks into my home, he has a big knife and is high on LSD, he approaches my wife and tries to stab her, I take my gun out and stick 5 bullets in his chest and one last one in his head. Ain’t not chance for diplomacy in such a situation. It’s plain and simple. No remorse or regret whatsoever. I’d do it in a split second with no second thoughts.
Violence is permissible as a last option and in self defense. I would like to point out something though. The act of self defense might be “violent” in nature but that doesn’t mean it’s violent because it’s not intended to strike fear or be violent in the first place. It’s self defense, not violence but self defense.
I hope that answers your question.
Cheers =)
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
- Isaac Asimov
Violence should never be the last choice. People can get lot of things done if they talk rather than kill.
Violence should be a last resort, though I have no problem with violence to circumvent an absolute threat.
I could argue that it is immoral NOT to use violence…even a preemtive fashion.
It is a simple question that presents complex problems.
I could ask it differently. How often do folks here think violence is clearly abused? If we could just start with that we would be heading on a better path.
We think of violence as Israel shooting Palestinians or terrorists blowing themselves up. But what about the daily violence that never makes headlines? Bullies in schools, spousal abuse, child abuse, rape, hazing, harrassment, road rage, drunken or drugged violence, state sponsored torture intimidation, extortion and on and on.
Who makes it through life without being the victim of violence? I didn’t get past first grade before my first experience. And how many of us can honestly say we never clearly and illigitamately abused violence…especially the men here?
I like this question and whoever thought of it has a real soul.
Violence is OK to defend myself or others if I perceive that no other viable option exists.And no, Diplomacy is not allways an option.If I see someone running at me with a knife foaming at the mouth I *will* react violently, not least of all because he will be on me before I’ll be able to pronounce more then one word(at best).The exact amount force will depend on a long list of variables, most of which I probably won’t even be able to even define beforehand- the only two hard and fast rules are “neutralize the attacker” and “don’t cause unnecessary harm”.
Simple, use violance to avoid danger on the self or others. So, use violance against israel occupation and any other sorts of aggression against the person or properties of self or others.
Does that include the right of Israel to use aggression against suicide bombers and other terrorists?
This is our Drima the hero.
I think this would apply to the question “when is violence completely necessary?”
The problem though is what people consider an “absolute threat,” different people will define this differently and thus violence can be justified in many ways. Every single war throughout history has been completely justified by the people who declared it, and here we are many years later still talking about how such wars never really accomplished anything. It’s complicated indeed.
By the way, this was a great point:
This is a problem I have with certain peace activists, because they really do apply the meaning of “peace” to politics only. I know a lot of people who never practice what they preach in reality, they just love to talk about it, “peace is good, dialogue is great, you must always be willing to understand those from the different cultures,” and yet I sometimes hear these individuals making generalizations or even racist remarks sometimes. I wouldn’t doubt that they resort to violence often, either. They just think peace is a universal thing that mostly applies to politics rather than something you must practice individually.
This argument is flawed. You can’t state such thing and apply it to just one side, otherwise you’re approving of the bloodhshed and in fact making it worse because Israel can use the same argument:
And I think that’s when justification comes in. Israelis have justifiactions for their crimes as do the Palestinians, so who’s “right”? Haven’t we been asking this same question for the past few decades?
violence , was never a solution to any problem except to defend your self against theft , getting robbed , getting waved by a knife , a gun , ( your safety)etc …
a man is smart enough to avoid the loop of violence it will only get you to a “void” & broken bones heh , even getting killed !
thats why are able to think , analyze and respond to what ever we interact with on daily bases …
& the end ” its the mind that makes all the differences ” .
sozz , i forgot to post this quote … i like it , have a look …
http://coolquotes.wordpress.com/2006/08/11/mahatma-ghandi-quote-on-violence/
Violence in self-defense is justified in the Koran, too.
“but is there any problem that can not be fixed through diplomacy ???”
If time permits, then diplomacy can work but when there is not time for diplomacy (read #2) then violence becomes absolutely OKAY… Don’t get me wrong, I like peace and all but I’m not going to turn into a naive 100% pacifist angel.
thanks Esra’a- that was *exactly* what I was trying to show:The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has reached a stage where who is “right” is an impossible proposition to find, and indeed trying to do so is counter-productive to peace.At this stage the *only* possible solution is one based upon mutual agreement of “Damn ‘right’.Let’s find something that works”
I agree with the same thing too.
Nobody yet has gotten to the heart of my point and got carried away on the Israel-Palestinian thing.
You might want to re-read.
Howie, I’m still trying to “decrypt” your point but I think am failing. Are you trying to say that violence is a natural thing that shapes us as humans and isn’t only bound to I/P conflict and soldiers with big guns?
Drima-
My point is the “big” violence grabs headlines…and this is how it should be.
But war is not a manifestation of most folks day-to-day lives however violence is.
I see the manifestations of violence daily, here in the relatively safe United States. We routinely beat on each other, rob, murder, rape, molest, bully. We smack our spouses and our precious children. We enage in road rage and fan violence at ball games.
The topic question presented was a “macro” question and I asking more of a micro question with marco ramifications. Somebody earlier mentioned that we necessarily focus on national and diplomatic issues…but does this not all start with each individual human being? How do we deal with the less dramatic but far far more common violence, much of which has nothing to do with self-defense.
Ooooh, i c. Now you’ve got me really thinking.
*scratching head*
*wonders off to continue thinking*
We also can be horrifically and needlessly violent to animals…might as well consider that in the formula.
Yeah, howie is on to the micro level, which, is where it all begins.
No matter, someone always wants to know what you’ll do, no matter who you are, when the MINORITY comes through the window with a knife and a gun to attack your poor old defenseless grandmother.
You can’t suddenly change your gut reactions if you have been violent most or all your life, you will teach this to your children pretty quickly.
So what about me? I grew up in what statistically was called the most violent region of the US. I felt violence from my “old man” I saw it, just like Howie mentioned almost every week (not everyday, Howie where do you live/ Compton CA, USA
?) I was a victim of violence at school, I dished it out to my weaker neighbors. and so on. I lived in violent neighborhoods. BUT I was never a member of a gang. Basically I tried to avoid violence. So only briefly in high school was I attracted to what it could get or achieve. I saw REALLY violent cops, though, and that probably gave me enough fear not to want to get on their bad side. I mean there are some SUPER violent pot-bellied racist, bigots who become policemen, a few, not all. And they beat on their wives, their children, friends in bars when off duty.
I kept telling Treasure, that the US in Iraq is just giving out (but taking more now) to others what we give to ourselves everyday across the US. It’s called “Tough Love”
hmmm.. does it make sense to comment, if the content of the comment implies that I cannot answer the posted question? Well, I still give it a try.
For me there are two parts:
a) Violence as a means of self-defense
I think there are situations – like mentioned above (someone being after you with a knife..) – where probably nobody would question one’s “right” to respond violently in order to protect oneself. (! and this “nobody” is a very important point!! it seems to be true for people from very different cultures and nations.. so it somehow seems to be a global “truth” – something most of the people would see the same way.)
So the argument goes that if I am threatened by someone else, I am “allowed” to use violence (by very many people). – At least on an abstract level.
But in only very rare cases, the situation is as clear as that..
Thus my next logical question here would be: Who is to decide whether I really AM threatened in a certain situation, or whether I simply assume that I am threatened, and my assumption is wrong?
Maybe talking with the one who I think is threatening me might be a possibility. But also only in cases, where I am not convinced, that the other one will attack me, before I can open my mouth. (I stick to this picture, because I think it can be also used very well as an analogy on a more abstract level.)
And concerning this question I doubt that there still is a more or less globally shared opinion, whether a certain situation is threatening enough in order to justify a violent response or not.
Thus I think that it will always be a tightropewalk and a very intense and important discussion to agree on a standard by which this “justification of violence” is measured. The standard always being a set up by a certain group of people in a certain time.. not an absolute standard that is valid for everybody, in every place, at every time..
So much about the easier part: violence that might be justifyable as “self defense”.
But we still have the other part:
b) Violence by the “attackerâ€
(And this is where I see Howie’s comments:)
It seems that violence is just a part of humankind, is part of ourselves. That we are not only possible victims but perpetrators as well, meaning that we are not only acting violently in self-defense, but also when we are not attacked, maybe even when we have power over someone else (children, weaker persons, animals…)
Being a psychologist, I certainly have also some theories about the reasons for this kind of violence, meaning I try to understand why it comes to situations like that. Still, even if there is a “good†reason for someone to act violently against others (because of his own history e.g.) it is necessary that those other people are protected. Thus again it is a tightropewalk to do justice to everybody. But then again maybe this is the wrong goal. Maybe it is not possible to do justice to everybody.
In the end I think that usually it is not possible to justify violence excluding all possibility of doubt. Fact is: we still use it and I don’t think we will ever stop that.
sorry for the long rant.. but this question made me really think hard (and then I get taken away..).. and it still does.
Thanks a lot for it, Bashar!
Endo- actually I have typically worked in places like Compton, East LA., La Puente, etc. Though the violence is more apparent, I have known some pretty mean rich white people and you can throw in any ethnic group you want.
Belin-there are numerous explaination for violence, both nature and nurture. It does seem to be man’s nature, but then I have also known people to lay down their life for a peer, give away a kidney, spend hours with a depressed friend etc. Goodness also is so deeply in our nature.
So…I love this discussion. Maybe folks like us can contribute some spark towards increasing the goodness end.
From the Tao te Ching:
Weapons are instruments of fear; they are not a wise man’s tools.
He uses them only when he has no choice.
Peace and quiet are dear to his heart.
And victory no cause for rejoicing.
If you rejoice in victory, then you delight in killing;
If you delight in killing, you cannot fulfill yourself.
When many people are being killed,
They should be mourned in heartfelt sorrow.
That is why a victory must be observed like a funeral.
Not bad for 2000 years ago? Just out of curiousity, has anyone ever translated the Tao te Ching into any of the Middle Eastern Languages?
Ben
Lao-Tzu was a genius.
31. Maintaining Peace
You guys should read all if you can because this philosophy can be applied to every religion and people. Jus don’t think in a Western manner and think Taoism as a religion.
Yup yup have fun