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: 53

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 commented on John White's blog post needing a change
"A few years back my college roommate committed suicide.  (His mother called me.)  As I drove home that day, I saw the sun on the trees, and the blue sky, and thought:  you idiot!  You're _missing_ it! He was bipolar.…"
4 minutes ago
Adam joined A.C.'s group
Thumbnail

Musicians

A group for Musicians to discuss musicianship and share experiences.
6 minutes ago
Jack Bauer replied to John Mertz's discussion "Pet" Names
"Tits McGee. JB"
12 minutes ago
Steve Dallas replied to Will's discussion What's going on in those heads in the group The Great Debate
"Titus, when are you finally going to come to America? You talk so much about people having to learn this or that to be taken seriously. At some point, for many of us to take you seriously as someone who claims that they understand America, you are…"
14 minutes ago
Steve Dallas replied to Will's discussion What's going on in those heads in the group The Great Debate
"Funny, I have always thought of the conservative as the coward. Their entire philosophy is built on the premise of not trying to do something new, to staying with the old. The very word, conservative is to take the easy way, to not challenge or push…"
37 minutes ago
Steve Dallas replied to Kneller's discussion Shoes for a night out
"I'll second this one. Been in boots since the mid-90's. First it was Justin Ropers, then I did the Wolverine work boots for years(after doing construction then working in a factory), quality went down so I went back to the Justin roper…"
42 minutes ago
John Muir replied to Will's discussion What's going on in those heads in the group The Great Debate
"I've heard screeds about some phantom "War on Women", but never from a liberal - just from conservatives yelling there's a boogeyman. I shop at Hobby Lobby and live in the belt buckle of the bible belt. Have you ever been to one,…"
46 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to Kneller's discussion Shoes for a night out
"You might have to go custom"
59 minutes ago

© 2014   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service