Non-violence

[GrayCat]

Who else believes in it and that it is morally correct? What are peoples thoughts?

 

[heart of peace]

Please define how you are using the term 'non-violence'.

 

[Washington]

Who else believes in it and that it is morally correct? What are peoples thoughts?

I believe that when meeting people for the first time that it's the wisest approach.

 

[The Nihilist]

Also please explain what you mean by "morally"

 

[Vehementi Dominus]

"Morally" is subjective. What's morally acceptable to one, is not necceserily acceptable to the other.

Violence, unfortunately, has been a pillar on which we've built our entire race since we realised the rest of the world wanted to eat us. It's litterally built into our DNA, we get adrenaline and it tells us to either fight, or flee. Violence is a basic survival instinct, although our current society has much less of a need for it, until everyone, bar none, can overcome their natural survival instinct for violence, then going down the path of non-violence would destroy our species as there will always be those that are unwilling to cast off violence, the non-violent ones would be unnable to fight back, granting the ones retaining their violent nature the ability to shape the human race as they saw fit.

I think, until our species has matured enough, violence is a neccesary evil. Not pleasent, but it prevents greater evils, such as slavery and mass genocide.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Depends on your view of morality, I guess. Is it moral to be non-violent, and so let an old man be beaten by thugs? Is it moral to be non-violent, and so not invade a country that has no hopes of defence?

 

[ebia]

Non-violence does not mean inaction.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"

 

[HighwayMan]

I quite like what Gandhi preached - though it also can't work for every circumstance.

 

[Mystman]

A few weeks ago I saw an interesting program where they interviewed this guy Theo Maassen (Wikipedia describes him as just a comedian, but the things he tells often have some message or other emotional load... that kind of performer is pretty common here, does an American equivalent exist?)

anyway

What he said made me think. Basically, he wondered why it is that writers are allowed to flame someone into the ground, even when they do so while telling lies, and why then the victim would be the bad guy if he punched the writer in the face.

I could think of a few reasons myself, but the idea stands. From a young age we're taught that "words don't hurt", but that (starting) fighting is bad.

But as Theo neatly pointed out: an (untrue) rant against you in a major newspaper would probably do more damage to your career and psychological health than a punch in the face. Yet the rant is totally fine, and you're going to jail for the punch.

Now I'm not very physically strong, so I like this world where words and not punches are the preferred tools of attacking your opponents, and I fully understand that allowing physical violence might lead to nasty escalations, and that thus the status quo is probably for the best...

...but I still find myself wondering about Theo's words.

 

[quatona]

A few weeks ago I saw an interesting program where they interviewed this guy Theo Maassen (Wikipedia describes him as just a comedian, but the things he tells often have some message or other emotional load... that kind of performer is pretty common here, does an American equivalent exist?)

anyway

What he said made me think. Basically, he wondered why it is that writers are allowed to flame someone into the ground, even when they do so while telling lies, and why then the victim would be the bad guy if he punched the writer in the face.

I could think of a few reasons myself, but the idea stands. From a young age we're taught that "words don't hurt", but that (starting) fighting is bad.

But as Theo neatly pointed out: an (untrue) rant against you in a major newspaper would probably do more damage to your career and psychological health than a punch in the face. Yet the rant is totally fine, and you're going to jail for the punch.

Now I'm not very physically strong, so I like this world where words and not punches are the preferred tools of attacking your opponents, and I fully understand that allowing physical violence might lead to nasty escalations, and that thus the status quo is probably for the best...

...but I still find myself wondering about Theo's words.

I guess the reason (or one of the reasons) is that physical violence - as opposed to lies, defamation, untruths - can easily be spotted, discerned and constituted.

The forte (and maybe its weakness, as well?) of the principle of absolute physical non-violence is its simplicity. A simplicity that can not as easily be established in regards to verbal or emotional violence.

 

[GrayCat]

Sorry everyone, i forgot to come back and read the responses yesterday after i posted this.

By "morally correct", i mean that non-violence/pacifism is what logically follows after one believes in the moral premise that taking lives and/or injuring people physically is wrong. I believe in that premise, so i'm against using violence in any circumstance as a means to solve a conflict.

Part of why i believe this way is because i see little principle involved today with how some people go about the topic of wars. There are some people who support us being in Afghanistan militarily, but not in Iraq. And some people were against both wars until Obama became president, and now they support or accept them because he is in charge of them instead of Bush. I don't understand how someone can oppose one war in one case, but arbitrarily support another in another case. The fact is, all wars involve killing and pain. So it seems like either these things would be ok with someone morally, or not ok at all. It makes no sense to me how you can condone those things in one war, while using them as the reason why you oppose another.

Then there is also the issue of, does using violence to stop violence really work in a pragmatic sense? And even if so, is it justifiable logically and/or morally?

 

[flicka]

Since people respond to violence, or sometimes just the threat of violence, I don't know if you can eliminate it entirely. Whether or a large scale like war, or a smaller one like a well timed slap.

 

[Matty1919]

I believe that when meeting people for the first time that it's the wisest approach.

Agreed.

Although, if it's in self-defense I think it's morally acceptable.

 

[quatona]

By "morally correct", i mean that non-violence/pacifism is what logically follows after one believes in the moral premise that taking lives and/or injuring people physically is wrong.

Well, said conclusion follows from said premise quite fine.
The fact that people might disagree with you is not due to disagreeing with the logical steps, but rather with the premise:
The typical premise isn´t as strict as yours, but usually comes with qualifications:
"Taking lives and/or injuring people is wrong, unless...."

I believe in that premise, so i'm against using violence in any circumstance as a means to solve a conflict.

Out of interest: Do you believe in that premise without any exceptions? Like, you don´t see self-defense as a justification for injuring someone?

Part of why i believe this way is because i see little principle involved today with how some people go about the topic of wars. There are some people who support us being in Afghanistan militarily, but not in Iraq. And some people were against both wars until Obama became president, and now they support or accept them because he is in charge of them instead of Bush. I don't understand how someone can oppose one war in one case, but arbitrarily support another in another case. The fact is, all wars involve killing and pain. So it seems like either these things would be ok with someone morally, or not ok at all.

Since most people don´t share your belief in your categorical premise I think it doesn´t make much sense to argue against them as if they did.
Most people believe that violence can be justified (for a supposedly greater good). Heck, some people even justify spanking children. If you want to discuss with those people, you can´t simply ignore that they work from different premises than you do.

It makes no sense to me how you can condone those things in one war, while using them as the reason why you oppose another.

I´ll let those who justify violence make their case themselves, but here is just one example that cannot simply be waved away: if you are driven by the intent to grant the best result for most people it might be indicated to kill one (on top if you feel he has caused the problem) for the benefit of saving millions (thousands? hundreds? ten? one?).

Then there is also the issue of, does using violence to stop violence really work in a pragmatic sense?

Pragmatically yes, depending at which time you look at the result. The short term effect may well appear to be desired.

And even if so, is it justifiable logically and/or morally?

Logically - that would depend on the premises.
Morally - in your introductory sentence you said that you used "moral" as a synonym for "logical", as in 'logically following from your premise'.
If you want to use "moral" in a different meaning now, I and others are going to repeat the question "What do you mean when saying 'moral'?"

 

[GrayCat]

Well, said conclusion follows from said premise quite fine.
The fact that people might disagree with you is not due to disagreeing with the logical steps, but rather with the premise:
The typical premise isn´t as strict as yours, but usually comes with qualifications:
"Taking lives and/or injuring people is wrong, unless...."


Out of interest: Do you believe in that premise without any exceptions? Like, you don´t see self-defense as a justification for injuring someone?

Yes, i believe in it without exceptions. I think that when attacked, people can have instinctive reactions that result in them being violent in return in order to preserve their life, and i understand that that's sometimes not controllable, but i still don't believe that makes it right. I think people should always try as best they can to be peaceful.

Actually i do have one exception to that premise that isn't related to violence, but is related to the taking of lives. I am pro choice for the first trimester, and pro life for the rest of the pregnancy, so that is a case where i don't stick by the premise of "taking a life is wrong". I have several reasons for why i have this view on abortion, but since abortion isn't the topic, i can't really go into it.

Since most people don´t share your belief in your categorical premise I think it doesn´t make much sense to argue against them as if they did.
Most people believe that violence can be justified (for a supposedly greater good). Heck, some people even justify spanking children. If you want to discuss with those people, you can´t simply ignore that they work from different premises than you do.

I´ll let those who justify violence make their case themselves, but here is just one example that cannot simply be waved away: if you are driven by the intent to grant the best result for most people it might be indicated to kill one (on top if you feel he has caused the problem) for the benefit of saving millions (thousands? hundreds? ten? one?).

True...i guess i was creating a strawman there.

For that example, i do not see a need to kill the person. Even if that person was Saddam Hussein or Bin Laden or who have you, they could just be put in jail for life, and all the rest of the population would be safe from them.

Pragmatically yes, depending at which time you look at the result. The short term effect may well appear to be desired.

Logically - that would depend on the premises.
Morally - in your introductory sentence you said that you used "moral" as a synonym for "logical", as in 'logically following from your premise'.
If you want to use "moral" in a different meaning now, I and others are going to repeat the question "What do you mean when saying 'moral'?"

I meant "logically" as in, what follows from the moral premise. The premise itself may have nothing to do with logic, since it's a value mostly rooted in emotion. So here, i'm using moral to mean, is it right in a philosophical or ethical sense to use violence as a means to stop other violence?

 

[quatona]

Yes, i believe in it without exceptions. I think that when attacked, people can have instinctive reactions that result in them being violent in return in order to preserve their life, and i understand that that's sometimes not controllable, but i still don't believe that makes it right. I think people should always try as best they can to be peaceful.

Thanks for elaborating!
I hold a similar view on the issue, I just have problems operating with terms like "right/wrong".
As far as I am concerned, using violence appears to be counterproductive in regards to my major goals and pursuits. I find this statement easy to make, and on top it doesn´t require me to pretend it´s more than a description of my preferences.

Actually i do have one exception to that premise that isn't related to violence, but is related to the taking of lives. I am pro choice for the first trimester, and pro life for the rest of the pregnancy, so that is a case where i don't stick by the premise of "taking a life is wrong". I have several reasons for why i have this view on abortion, but since abortion isn't the topic, i can't really go into it.

Yes, it would be a drag if this thread would turn into another abortion-discussion, but of course this is an exception from the stance that you declare an absolute, and this renders your line of reasoning ('how can taking a life be considered right when in other instances it is considered wrong?'). Thus, it seems that your stances do not follow as logically from your premise as you like to think. You need further logical steps in order to justify your distinctions - and this is exactly what you said you don´t understand when others are doing it.
(And what about animals? What about suffering persons who want to die?...)

We´d like to think that we derive our ethical decisions from abstract general ethical rules (e.g. "taking a life is wrong"), but I am inclined to think that the process is actually the other way round: In regards to certain situations we have a pretty clear feeling as to what would be ethical, and we do our best to condense this into a general, abstract rule. Unfortunately, the more general and abstract the rules are, the more likely we will at some point find out that there are situations in which our feelings are not alignable with this rule as we have worded it - conclusion: life is not that simple, situations are too complex as that we can cover their ethical aspects with a one-liner.

For that example, i do not see a need to kill the person. Even if that person was Saddam Hussein or Bin Laden or who have you, they could just be put in jail for life, and all the rest of the population would be safe from them.

I agree. However, in my terminology incarcerating someone against their will certainly falls in the category "violence" - thus, I have problems aligning "absolute non-violence" and "imprisoning someone for the greater good of the safety of a community". Prison is certainly another exception from "absolute non-violence".

I meant "logically" as in, what follows from the moral premise. The premise itself may have nothing to do with logic, since it's a value mostly rooted in emotion. So here, i'm using moral to mean, is it right in a philosophical or ethical sense to use violence as a means to stop other violence?

Well, then all depends on the premise more than anything else, no?
As for the premise as you have worded it seems your own stances allow for exceptions.