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: 58

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

Will replied to Vytautas's discussion What Do We Learn From History?
"We learn that there are other ways of thinking beyond our own.  (At least, if we do it right.)  I don't think we get that from current events.  It's too easy to deceive yourself into thinking that when (say) a Muslim says,…"
9 minutes ago
Will replied to Chu Kim's discussion Slavery is Awesome
"Right, Rick, I was thinking of South Koreans.  If slavery's awesome, Kim only needs to emigrate to PDRK to experience it firsthand. I won't respond to Kim's post directly.  Someone proposing slavery for others can't…"
22 minutes ago
David K. replied to Padre's discussion Girls in football
"When she gets sacked, we'll see if it was a good idea. There's going to be quite a big mass disparity, no getting around that."
22 minutes ago
Pale Horse replied to Padre's discussion Girls in football
"Female football league? If so, more power to her. But there's no way I would play football against a lady. I would rather forfeit."
1 hour ago
Satanist Dan replied to Padre's discussion Girls in football
"If she can make the cut...no reason to bar her. "
2 hours ago
Michael J. K. left a comment for Rusty Rogers
"looking good there Rusty"
2 hours ago
Shane replied to Padre's discussion Girls in football
"Title IX is overall a good thing. I find it odd that she made QB, "throws like a girl" is a physiological statement. But, good on her for making the cut."
2 hours ago
Pat Bohm replied to John P's discussion Food Recipe Blogs?
"This is my go-to whenever cooking is involved: http://kirbiecravings.com/recipe-index-visual The mug-cake-things are to die for, and super simple."
2 hours ago

© 2014   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service