Is Violence Ever Justified?

[scardella]

I got into a debate last night
Is violence ever justified?

[cathoholic_anonymous]

Yes. If somebody tried to rape me (and horribly someone did try that when I was very young) I would feel quite justified in kicking and punching and scratching and biting and generally inflicting whatever violence I could on the attacker, in order to get away. Violence is sometimes necessary, but its use must be governed by strict rules.

It should be:

The last resort (try all other options first),
Proportional (don't gun down a whole village if you're on the hunt for one mass murderer),
Controlled (make sure that you always know what you are doing - don't let yourself sink into a bloody kind of feeding frenzy).

[scardella]

The argument presented against violence was this, perhaps over-simplified:
It is never justified because violence does not respect the dignity of the other.

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='scardella' post='1270179' date='May 10 2007, 01:55 PM']The argument presented against violence was this, perhaps over-simplified:
It is never justified because violence does not respect the dignity of the other.[/quote]
God created humans and gave humans their dignity. God has, in the Bible (Old Testament especially, but there are a few arguments with the New despite the difference in emphasis) commanded violence and killing. It must on occasion be justified in God's eyes.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='scardella' post='1270179' date='May 10 2007, 01:55 PM']The argument presented against violence was this, perhaps over-simplified:
It is never justified because violence does not respect the dignity of the other.[/quote]

It takes dignity to get dignity. If an individual is inflicting violence upon another individual, there's no purpose or point in everyone else "preserving their dignity", when that individual didn't have enough respect, decency and respect to preserve the dignity of others that are inflicting harm upon him.

Check the old testament, God told the Isrealites to kill [I think it was the Amalachites] because they lived immoral lives and would eventually rise up [many years later] and overpower the Isrealites and slaughter them. Sadly the Isrealites disobeyed and Esther had to deal with it later.

Reza

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]It is never justified because violence does not respect the dignity of the other.[/quote]

Ask the person you were arguing with if I, as a ten-year-old girl, was violating the dignity of my would-be rapist when I slammed a heavy mental gate on his fingers and then lashed it shut with a rope. I was concerned with a lot of things at that moment, but his dignity wasn't one of them.

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='Light and Truth' post='1270190' date='May 10 2007, 04:01 PM']God created humans and gave humans their dignity. God has, in the Bible (Old Testament especially, but there are a few arguments with the New despite the difference in emphasis) commanded violence and killing. It must on occasion be justified in God's eyes.[/quote]

Violence isn't inherently evil, especially in "defense" situations.

It is true that as much of the dignity of the attacker should be kept as possible. However, the victim is also a person in possession of human dignity. Defense is not the same as attack. The logic of defense lies in the same logic used by surgeons. I'll give an example, then explain the reasoning.

If one is out in the boonies camping with a friend and that friend falls and breaks his leg, it is vitally critical that one sets the leg to prevent further internal bleeding and to allow the bone to heal properly. Now, the setting of any bone is extremely painful, usually more painful than whatever broke the bone to begin with. Since, in this example, there is obviously no way one could wait for an ambulance and, therefore, probably has no access to things like morphine, there's no way the pain involved in setting the bone could be alleviated. What does one do in a case such as this? One sets the bone. Here's the reasoning (this is calld the principle of dual effect):

In situations where a good outcome must occur, but there is some evil necessary with its occurance the following criteria must be met for it to be a good action:
1. The action causing the dual effect is good or indifferent (it cannot be intrinsically disordered, i.e. evil).
2. The good effect is not obtained by means of the evil aspect; (there must be simultaneity.) (In the case of the broken arm setting the arm is essentially good though evil (pain) is simultaneously brought with it. As opposed to committing an intrinsically evil act for the sake of good.)
3. Sufficient/proportionate reason exists for permitting the unsought evil aspect. (The situation is grave enough to need the dual action to occur).
4. The evil aspect is not intended inn itself, but is merely allowed as a necessary consequence of the good.
5. Other means have been ruled out, exhausted, etc.

In the case of violence in self-defense or in defense of others, one can only do it, if it doesn't meet the criteria. Examples of things that would not meet the criteria would be:
-You kill the person or maim with significant wrath (violation of rules 1 and 2).
-You do violence to someone, because you think they may attack you (violation of rule 3).
-Your goal is to kill or maim with significant wrath (violation of rule 4).
-You do violence to someone you could have just as easily run away from (violation of rule 5).

Now, in the heat of the moment, one shouldn't stop and make these considerations in a very conscious manner. That would be ridiculous because of the immediacy and severity of these occurances. Therefore, one should have resolved to act in a manner in accordance with these principles prior to anything happining. If one doesn't adequately follow these principles because of the stress, terror and suddenness of attacks, culpability is greatly reduced.

I hope I don't sound too cold and calculating about the whole thing. Victims need an incredible amount of understanding and care. One shouldn't interrogate victims to see if they have followed these principles. However, I do believe that these principles can aid a person in doing the right thing in difficult situations.

Edited May 10, 2007 by The Joey-O

[Socrates]

[quote name='scardella' post='1270179' date='May 10 2007, 02:55 PM']The argument presented against violence was this, perhaps over-simplified:
It is never justified because violence does not respect the dignity of the other.[/quote]
Violence may be necessary to defend the dignity of oneself or another.

To use a graphic example, if a man is about to rape a woman, would it respect that woman's dignity to stand by and let her be violated, rather than use violent force against her attacker to defend her?

Unprovoked violence is wrong, though.

[scardella]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1270664' date='May 10 2007, 09:19 PM']Violence may be necessary to defend the dignity of oneself or another.

To use a graphic example, if a man is about to rape a woman, would it respect that woman's dignity to stand by and let her be violated, rather than use violent force against her attacker to defend her?

Unprovoked violence is wrong, though.[/quote]

Their argument is that there are non-violent ways to do the same thing...

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1270324' date='May 10 2007, 06:17 PM']Ask the person you were arguing with if I, as a ten-year-old girl, was violating the dignity of my would-be rapist when I slammed a heavy mental gate on his fingers and then lashed it shut with a rope. I was concerned with a lot of things at that moment, but his dignity wasn't one of them.[/quote]

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='scardella' post='1271106' date='May 11 2007, 08:36 AM']Their argument is that there are non-violent ways to do the same thing...[/quote]

And those would be...

[kafka]

Ecclestiastes

{3:3} A time to kill, and a time to heal. A time to tear down, and a time to build up.

[kujo]

[quote name='T-Bone' post='1271190' date='May 11 2007, 01:53 PM']And those would be...[/quote]

Politely asking your rapist to stop....reasoning with him/her....

Ridiculous.

If anyone were to rape my sister or my lady friends, I would fully expect them to do everything under the sun to stop the guy. But, it would be wrong for me (or my father or my guy friends) to track the guy down and throw him a beating...it's that last part that I would have to struggle with...

[carrdero]

There are ways in which one can tell the Truth and still be true and honest to themself. I think this may apply to violence. If someone does not like to inflict violence or for that matter receive pain or hurt, there are ways to defend or negotiate oneself out of the most brutal of situations. Defensive training courses teach methods where you can defend your way through a hand to hand brawl without ever laying an offensive move on your opponent. Though I do not think these methods work against guns but what the say is true: A smart defense is a good offense.

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1271370' date='May 11 2007, 02:14 PM']There are ways in which one can tell the Truth and still be true and honest to themself. I think this may apply to violence. If someone does not like to inflict violence or for that matter receive pain or hurt, there are ways to defend or negotiate oneself out of the most brutal of situations. Defensive training courses teach methods where you can defend your way through a hand to hand brawl without ever laying an offensive move on your opponent. Though I do not think these methods work against guns but what the say is true: A smart defense is a good offense.[/quote]

Even deflecting a blow is somewhat violent.

[hoosieranna]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1269934' date='May 10 2007, 09:32 AM']Yes. If somebody tried to rape me (and horribly someone did try that when I was very young) I would feel quite justified in kicking and punching and scratching and biting and generally inflicting whatever violence I could on the attacker, in order to get away. Violence is sometimes necessary, but its use must be governed by strict rules.

It should be:

The last resort (try all other options first),
Proportional (don't gun down a whole village if you're on the hunt for one mass murderer),
Controlled (make sure that you always know what you are doing - don't let yourself sink into a bloody kind of feeding frenzy).[/quote]

I absolutely agree. I will defend myself. I will not go around looking for people to hit because I'm in a foul mood.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='scardella' post='1270179' date='May 10 2007, 02:55 PM']The argument presented against violence was this, perhaps over-simplified:
It is never justified because violence does not respect the dignity of the other.[/quote]
Actually I think that violence can in some situations actually respect the dignity of the other.

We all make choices, and live with the consequences of those choices. If I hit a brick wall, I will feel pain. I choose the action, and deal with the consequent pain. God doesn't somehow change the nature of the wall in order to respect my dignity.

In the same way, self-defense in the face of grave threat of harm is justifiable in order to protect the nature of the person attacked, and that protection may bring about pain to the attacker. But the attacker made the choice to accept that pain and therefore to withhold it is to deny the dignity of the attacker in making the choice to attack.


(does that make any sense?)

[Socrates]

[quote name='scardella' post='1271106' date='May 11 2007, 09:36 AM']Their argument is that there are non-violent ways to do the same thing...[/quote]
Like what? Try to quickly sweet-talk the crazed attacker out of commiting his violent act, and if he doesn't listen . . . well, then too bad for your sister/girlfriend/wife/daughter??

That's the problem with that extreme pacifistic philosophy - it simply doesn't apply in real-word situations.

[scardella]

(BTW, in case you hadn't figured it out, I'm not the one who's a pacifist. Otherwise I think my arguments would be more passionate and probably better.)

The specific examples given were (and I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that they're true)
1. A woman in an alley was being followed/stalked. She had groceries or similar baggage with her. When the guy came up to her, she turned around and said something similar to "Oh, can you help me with these bags?" in a happy, cheery sort of tone. Confused, the guy helped her with her bags rather than attacked her.
2. During WWII in Germany, Jewish men married to Christian women were, for a time, given a reprieve and not brought off to the concentration camps. When the Gestapo finally did round them up in one town, all the wives went to the Gestapo headquarters and demanded their husbands back and they let the husbands go.

BTW, yes, Terra, your argument does make sense...

Also, I've invited my friend to join Phatmass to take up the debate. Hopefully he will, but I'm not sure of the reliability of his access to the internet.

Edited May 14, 2007 by scardella

[Socrates]

[quote name='scardella' post='1272728' date='May 13 2007, 08:35 PM'](BTW, in case you hadn't figured it out, I'm not the one who's a pacifist. Otherwise I think my arguments would be more passionate and probably better.)

The specific examples given were (and I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that they're true)
1. A woman in an alley was being followed/stalked. She had groceries or similar baggage with her. When the guy came up to her, she turned around and said something similar to "Oh, can you help me with these bags?" in a happy, cheery sort of tone. Confused, the guy helped her with her bags rather than attacked her.
2. During WWII in Germany, Jewish men married to Christian women were, for a time, given a reprieve and not brought off to the concentration camps. When the Gestapo finally did round them up in one town, all the wives went to the Gestapo headquarters and demanded their husbands back and they let the husbands go.

BTW, yes, Terra, your argument does make sense...

Also, I've invited my friend to join Phatmass to take up the debate. Hopefully he will, but I'm not sure of the reliability of his access to the internet.[/quote]
Know you're not the pacifist here - just refuting his arguments.

As to the examples given - yes, non-violent means of defense do exist, but they are not applicable in every case. Sometimes violent physical defense is the only practical option.

For instance, the "can you help me with your bags?"-type diversion would not work with most serious attackers. It would seem to only work with an attacker not really sure of himself. A similar approach would not likely work in the rape scenario I gave. And if it is tried and failed, what options are left?

Your friend's argument is all-round weak.

Edited May 14, 2007 by Socrates