When is it ok to use violence?

We are governed by many laws to help ensure that we treat each other in a proper manner. Sometimes, however, an individual may feel that it's necessary to take action into his own hands. Is it ever ok to use violence to do so? If so, then what are the criteria for its exceptable use?

Tags: 47, Day, Question, Violence

Views: 62

Replies to This Discussion

are you suggesting that without the laws, people would choose to treat each other in a "proper" manner of their own volition?
i utilize internal restrictions for the acts you mention, but these are considered "wrong/evil" by an overwhelming majority of the society, and, as such, are a not a very good example.

how about speed limits, a more gray area? if it wasn't for the 65 mph limits on highways, plus the un-written "so long are you're going 10 mph over the speed limit, you're unlikely to get pulled over" rule, i would probably drive quite faster, only leveling off when i thought i was losing control of the car. clearly, this is not a good idea - doing 90 or 100 leaves me little chance to react. still, i can't guarantee that this would be on the front of my mind every single time i get in behind the wheel.

looks like we're heading for the classic "people are inherently good" vs. "people are inherently evil" argument. i believe people are inherently evil, and site all of recorded human history as my evidence. therefore, we need laws to keep us from exacting physical/mental/emotional/financial violence upon ourselves and others.
i think i finally get your point (only after re-reading the back and forth several times ;) ). i agree - going back to your first post - that laws do not and should not dictate morality (how we treat ourselves and others). but, as long as lawless individuals exist, we will need laws.

and going back to the original question, when laws are not available to curtail or prevent lawless actions (when a thief breaks into your house in the middle of the night, for example), i believe it is ok to take matters into your own hands. of course, the extent of the violence is wholly dependent on one's ethics and abilities (do you try to just kick the thief out of the house or do you do something that could end his life?).
An interesting thread, gentlemen. I would agree that humans are inherently sinful, and therefore need curbs on their behavior. For most of us, these are self-imposed curbs that we derive from our upbringing, and they work pretty well. I would submit, though, that modern American culture is tilting dangerously toward the lawless. The "I'm okay, you're okay" generation (of which I am, unfortunately, a member) preaches compassion for everyone and the planet, yet practices self-indulgence (Al Gore's heated indoor swimming pool is a prime example of this dichotomy). When "it's all about me" is your mantra, then rules and laws ultimately mean little if they stand in your way.
I don't believe humans are inherently sinful. Humans are inherently selfish, self absorbed, and rationalizing.
I don't think that violence is a good way to solve our problems. People must get effort to obey the laws and improve them, if they are not sufficient to assure the rights of the citizens.
I think violence is never the answer...unless it is.

Sometimes diplomacy works, other times however, the opposition may only respect an overwhelming force prior to disengaging...and sometimes, not even that works.

Examples:

Pope Leo, through diplomacy...and threats of St. Peter's wrath...persuades Attila the Hun to turn back, and not conquer the prone city of Rome.

The US, understanding the Japanese divine sense of mission, realizes that only an unequivocal show of force will demoralize the Japanese enough to end their participation in WWII. It worked.

Saddam Hussein, out manned, out gunned, hopelessly losing his country while hiding in a dirt hole in the ground...is still talking trash and refuses to give up.
Well obviously it is acceptable in self-defense. If we are talking vigilanteism here then I believe that is acceptable there as well especially in cases in which the justice system fails or policing is inadaquate.
But doesn't vigilantism undermine the law? If we don't respect the decisions of the court because we disagree with the outcome, and take matters into our own hands, then why bother having laws and courts at all?
The problem with vigilantism is that the vigilantes inevitably get carried away. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." If you are a law unto yourself and answer to no one, it is the rare man indeed who can resist the temptations to abuse that power.
Wouldn't giving aboslute power to the courts and justice system corrupt them then? Following this line of thought we can rightfully determine that the justice system is corrupt and should not hold our confidence, and at that point we begin using our own common sense and sense of justice. Can't you think of any miscarriages of justice?
The courts do not have absolute power, they don't pass the laws they interpret them. And the judges are either appointed or elected and can be removed (high court judges and justices as well) should it be determined they are corrupt.

RSS

Latest Activity

Jack Bauer replied to Todd Serveto's discussion Revolting, Macabre Details About Planned Parenthood's Gruesome Barbarism--Where Are The Excuses? in the group The Great Debate
"'Degenerates' was a generalization.  There are exceptions among those who seek abortions.  Probably no exceptions in the industry, though.  How anybody who makes a living caving in babies skulls and sucking them out of wombs…"
12 minutes ago
Jack Bauer replied to Todd Serveto's discussion Revolting, Macabre Details About Planned Parenthood's Gruesome Barbarism--Where Are The Excuses? in the group The Great Debate
"Don't confuse legal/illegal with right/wrong.  Exposing genuine barbarity is worth the expense of violating a bullshit unauthorized recording law. They ought to be given a medal. JB"
26 minutes ago
Seitanist Dan replied to Todd Serveto's discussion Revolting, Macabre Details About Planned Parenthood's Gruesome Barbarism--Where Are The Excuses? in the group The Great Debate
"The best thing to do overall is simply discern how much of this GOTCHA is simply drummed up for their crusade, which at the least points towards 'doctored for their own side'. GOTCHA tactics are never going to go away, it's how…"
30 minutes ago
Zachary Stucki replied to Todd Serveto's discussion Revolting, Macabre Details About Planned Parenthood's Gruesome Barbarism--Where Are The Excuses? in the group The Great Debate
"It is only illegal to record parties without their knowledge in some states, not all. And let's look at parity, there are liberal "Gotcha" journalists who do this sort of thing all the time. Are we calling for their prosecution? No.…"
55 minutes ago
Milo Morris replied to Paul MacAlindin's discussion Privilege is invisible to those who have it
"^^THIS!! And this does relate to privilege, white or otherwise. If those who claim to lack privilege would do what you just did in your post, they would be much better off. Why people can't or won't look at the positives in their lives,…"
1 hour ago
Seitanist Dan replied to Paul MacAlindin's discussion "I like guns" in the group The Great Debate
"See? We still agree on thingies. "
1 hour ago
Sir replied to Paul MacAlindin's discussion "I like guns" in the group The Great Debate
""Few wish to restrict guns solely to cops or the military or make the nation a gun free zone. I have no qualms of having guns for home defense or even fun, and I doubt anyone here would, either." Yes, that's my point. Aussie style gun…"
1 hour ago
Seitanist Dan replied to Paul MacAlindin's discussion "I like guns" in the group The Great Debate
"Which is why I said might. For Williams, it would had taken a good interview by a damn good - or just suspicious - interviewer with a damn masters in psychology to deny him the pistol. But from what I hear of everyone who knew him, and without…"
1 hour ago

© 2015   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service