Is violence ever justified?

[ChefPapiChulo]

When people justify violence I tend to believe their IQ is room temperature.

Updates

+1 y

Self defense is not violence.

Violence.
behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something

the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.

Updates

+1 y

People who call for violence make me sick! Hurting someone is never acceptable!

[ItsMariusz]

Violence is justified only when necessary. Take, for instance, the eradication of Nazi Germany; it involved violence and resulted in the deaths of many, but it was done for the greater good, safeguarding more lives in the future than those lost. While today's world isn't as dire, violence may still be necessary. Consider if acts of violence lead to a better future. If violence were to suddenly vanish, what then? Peasant uprisings or fighting for justice might become impossible.

However, the question becomes more complex when applied to interpersonal conflicts. Research shows that violence leads to introspection and questioning in many, yet I personally try to avoid it. If unable to persuade someone, I choose to walk away. But what if the person commits an unforgivable act, like a crime, and escapes justice? Would you walk away or mete out a punishment akin to their potential prison sentence? Keep in mind that this person may commit this crime again, and wasn't punished for it the first time, most likely not learning a lesson from it.

It's a profoundly intricate issue, one that society is never going to agree upon. I strive to be the smartest version of myself, ensuring my actions in such situations are logical and within the field of reason.

There is no simple "yes" or "no" to your question.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Finally a somewhat decent argument!

[JacobJordan]

The lack of education in the statement "hurting someone is never acceptable" is unbelievable. Violence has always had a place. In fact one of the most justified reasons for violence is in deterring future conflict and in the defense of others even if you are not the target. Violence when protecting children for example. Someone assaults a child. Is it justified to resort to Violence when the courts let them out of prison a mere months after they were incarcerated? Absolutely. But the suggest that it is never acceptable is a dangerous and ignorant hill to stand on.

[ChefPapiChulo]

I think it’s more a play on words. Violence is associated with unlawful physical force. If you were protecting a child and society found you to be innocent of any wrongdoing, it wouldn’t violence.

[JacobJordan]

It is still by definition violence though. Violence does not distinguish between morality.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Not necessarily. It can be, but I think it's more appropriate to use physical force instead of using the word violence. Because like I said, violence implies that the person carrying out self-defense is in the wrong.

Physical force in defense must be only what is necessary to neutralize a threat. If a person goes overboard with how they respond in self-defense, they could also be in trouble and in that case, it would be more appropriate to say they are being violent.

I'm being too technical I think tho.

[JacobJordan]

Violence: behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
I absolutely understand what you are getting at and I agree that their is a difference between self defense and violence. However by the definition of violence it is an all encompassing term of 'physical force' so if we are to give an accurate assessment of "is violence ever justified" we have to use the most up to date definition of what is violence. This allows for examination of which situations may require violence buy legally will be called something else. For example if you were to be attacked and defend yourself legally that is self defense. Definitionally it is violence. Remember morality is determined by the viewer not the doer. So you could be violent in what you feel is justified but if everyone else determines it to be unjustified you are in a pickle. Or perhaps a better approach. Self defense can be called justified violence (doesn't sound good but it could based on the definition and the legality of the action) where as assault can be called unjustified violence (a bit minimizing but it could based on the definition and the legality of the action). It ultimately boils down to this: should violence have more than 1 definition as the legality and morality of it change the precision of the definition. We have a blanket statement of what violence is. Should it be more in depth in its definition? Any court will be judging the act on the scale of morality. The outcome of that will determine if you were justified (self defense) or unjustified (assault)

[TenderFantasy]

Thing is, there are TWO types of violence. Physical and Emotional/Psychological/Mental. I'm guessing you are referring to physical violence only. Violence is aggression. Self-defense can INDEED be violent, depending on what's necessary to carry out the intended purpose of the act.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Look at the update.

[Booklover_90]

Yes. Self defense violence is justified (i. e. someone breaks into your house and you fight back, fight back an attacker, etc).

[ChefPapiChulo]

Please look at the update. I won’t spell it out further than that.

[Redstang88]

Yeah we all need an attitude adjustment at some point.
Never met someone and think “You’ve never been punched in the face, and it fuckin shows”?

[ChefPapiChulo]

Nope. That’s an actual horrible crime.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

From my perspective, there are no ethical reasons to initiate violence. Yet there are ethical reasons to reciprocate violence from my perspective, like protecting our family from harm's way.

[ChefPapiChulo]

That’s not violence friend.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

I see! If it excludes anything resembling self-defense (i. e., anything where the intent is to protect, not hurt, even if it requires hurting others), then I'd agree and say "never".

[ChefPapiChulo]

Yeah violence is strictly being the aggressor. Self defense would be better classified as a physical altercation. I’m sure there’s a better word, but I can’t think of one right now.

[normalice]

Only in self defense.

[ChefPapiChulo]

That’s not really violence.

[normalice]

It certianly can be.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Sure it could be, but I don’t think that would be your intended meaning.

[normalice]

True, I guess I wouldn't fault someone for a lack of self restraint if they feared for their own or someone else's life, though.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Have you seen American History X? The stuff that Derek does at the beginning of the movie goes beyond self-defense even though he was protecting his home. That would be violence in self-defense

[normalice]

Well, that's fiction. But in any case defending property is not self defense. It can be but it isn't automatically. The movie clearly depicted someone acting in anger to subjugate, not someone defending their food stores so they don't starve.

[gorydetails]

Of course it is, simpleton. If you threaten me or someone I care about…you’re gonna get some violence.

[ChefPapiChulo]

You really think hurting someone will prove something?

[gorydetails]

I really don’t care. I will defend myself and the people I love. Cope.

[ChefPapiChulo]

That... isn't... violence. Self-defense is NOT violence. lol.

[gorydetails]

What? Man, I knew you were dumb, but to not even have a basic grasp of the English language

[ChefPapiChulo]

I can't help you.

[Kylie_Bug]

Nope. To me, it is not justified.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Agreed

[Alwayreckles93]

Oh look who's talking hypocrisy!

[ChefPapiChulo]

GET OFF MY QUESTION!

[Alwayreckles93]

What you hate truth tellers? I DON'T HAVEBTO I WANT EVERYONEYO SEE HOW A LIAR AND HYPOCRITE YOU ARE!!!

[ChefPapiChulo]

Prove it.

[Alwayreckles93]

I took a lot of your history snap shots at your racist attackings in the past.

[ChefPapiChulo]

wtf is a snapshot

[Alwayreckles93]

Your a demon!

[ChefPapiChulo]

So what? Who cares?

[Alwayreckles93]

Oh so you are a satanist. I can see that demon in you. Repent! Before its to late.

[ChefPapiChulo]

nah.

[Alwayreckles93]

You should. Geez you look 50 areyou sure your not lying about your age? People always telk me I look 18.

[ChefPapiChulo]

living in lala land.

[Alwayreckles93]

I do look 18

[ChefPapiChulo]

not even you bro.

[Alwayreckles93]

Stop calling me bro. I am bot a worldly person im a sister in christ.

[ChefPapiChulo]

"I am a bot" xD

[Alwayreckles93]

Your absolute demon

[ChefPapiChulo]

at least you're somewhat entertaining.

[McLlovin]

What about military combat

[ChefPapiChulo]

You can make an argument if you want.