Why do some people believe violence is always wrong?

[Anonymous]

For all violence to be wrong is ridiculous and stupid. When a person uses necessary violence in self defense, it’s always justifiable. Anybody that disagrees needs to be charged with attempted murder. I won’t argue that violence is the last resort. Pacifism is useless. People that believe all violence is wrong lives in a magical fairy world which is a world that doesn’t exist.

[normalice]

It is the belief of someone who has never been in a position where they had to use it. Which is good, in a way. We should strive to get all of humanity in that position because we are not animals. But it is also important to know that we are no where near there yet.

Or, it is a defensive function. Someone who is easily intimidated by violence might say violence is always wrong so that by including themselves in that absolute they don't have to admit they are terrified of it. It is the same as people who drive big trucks and act like it's a sign of strength when really they are just saying they want to be spared from even the slightest instant of pain if they get into a collision, even if it means the other person will need to be picked out of their own grille. And guns, also people act like it is strength when really it is just covering for how terrified someone is of being bullied or robbed. Saying they believe violence is always wrong is the same sort of bluster as carrying around an ar15. Both are idealistic ways to avoid thinking of practical problems.

[NaultD]

Necessary and justifiable levels of violence are complicated to say the very least. We do have a jury of peers that helps, but it is still not cut and dry. It's just as fanciful to think it is as easy as checking a few boxes to have clear permission to hurt people.

Yes, a pure pacifist state is difficult, but I think it is ultimately a matter of skill. Or at the very least, resorting to violence should be as embarrassing and shameful as pissing your pants in public.

I've been watching Vinland Saga about Vikings raiding and looting and jerking their egos over blood and gore, yet they live miserable lives and die even more miserable deaths. A true warrior fights without a sword.

https://youtu.be/xEVcTStgA4A?si=kXFKyW1O6GxYldqc

[NaultD]

https://youtu.be/4C0inAh_gTA?si=vnAAxW-hN2qn1W6t

This could be better. because he is such a badass he figured out the gun was empty so he acted to keep everyone safe. Later on his ego catches him and gets him tangled with bad people.

[Vesuvius87]

The issue is when people start using it mainly out of retaliation and overdo it when it's no longer needed. There is a difference between using necessary physical force out of legitimate self-defense (you're literally fearing for your life and safety and the person tries harming you or your family) and knocking out someone that only shoved you just because you want to teach them a lesson.

[Vesuvius87]

The use of physical force has its place and time. I agree to use it if you've tried walking away and there aren't any other options.

[laly520]

the issue that lot use violence as if it is the only solution since it could be easier than the peaceful options

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

I think that way too a lot. Sometimes I feel as though I was born in the wrong century, not because I'm so tough or anything but I don't understand why violence is considered that bad as long as it doesn't cause permanent injuries or fatalities.

Like gossiping and spreading lies about me is more hurtful to me than a black eye. I got bullied a lot in high school and I didn't mind the black eyes nearly as much as gossiping. I can recover from a black eye. Ice pack. Simple.

It's not so simple to recover from people with no honor who do everything they can to damage your reputation; the types who prefer the way of poison and backstabbing over the fist.

So if we're talking about what's barbaric and uncivilized, a lot of people do things far worse on a daily basis in my opinion than a fistfight.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

There is an honesty to violence as I see it. Like I got beat up last year like so:

But I didn't mind it. I wasn't emotionally hurt and my reputation with people I cared about wasn't damaged. The bruises healed along with the collapsed lung (was slightly annoying coughing all the time, but cleared up around 6 weeks later).

But when I hear people say something untrue about me behind my back, that hurts more than all those bruises and injuries I took. That is just hateful and cruel.

[OtterMan68]

There are two kinds of pacifism: absolute and relative. Absolute pacifists usually make religious arguments, while relative pacifists believe that war is always bad but occasionally necessary to accomplish a greater good.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

And you know, you can't confront the person who is spreading this poison behind your back and fight them, because now you're the barbarian. But you also can't use the poison they're using because it's against your code of honor.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

@OtterMan68 I like this relative one. I would prefer we just all get along but I prefer directness to indirectness as a form of conflict resolution.

[OtterMan68]

for example, the US had and still has no business being involved in wars in Iraq and Syria and all the bombing we did in Yemen over the past several years is downright sinful.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

@OtterMan68 Foreign policy goes beyond my head, I'm afraid. It never made sense to me to intervene so much overseas over seeking improvements domestically. I don't see the point of trying to fix the world when our house is in need of improvement. But I hate this gossiping, espionage, backhanded type of stuff. I think like Ned Stark! 😅

I like honor, even when it's stupid.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

It's an ethical constraint. I think I could be glorious if I didn't value honesty. I might be able to destroy all my enemies. I can be clever and I am reasonably sociable. But I'm not so cruel and I'm honor bound. I got an ethical constraint. So violence is not an ideal solution, but to me it still beats lying and cheating and backstabbing.

[BCRanger10]

Most likely because they're worried about contributing to a cycle of violence. To be fair, I think physical and violent confrontation should be resolved peacefully (or at least an attempt should be made), but sometimes, you don't always have the time or ability. You have the right and responsibility to defend your life, family, and property.

[strateguy632]

they only say "it is always wrong" if they can attack their political opponent. for example palestian mass murdered many jews oct. 7. when israel returns fire "all violence is bad" israel should be more peaceful" but when arabs did violence they were silent.

[NamerOfStars]

Rome, in self-defense of its city, conquered most of the known (to it) world. Was that justified? How about Stalin's purges? Or the Holocaust; the "useless eaters" and "secret Jewish overlords" were a threat to the survival of German state and people. Was that? If so, what does that say about the attempts by the prisoners to stop it?

[ProbablyClueless]

It's because of retaliation. It's just so easy for situations like that to fly out of control. We see how often situations get out of control before violence is involved, so the addition of violence just increases the danger. Violence rarely stops the other side in their tracks, so a lot of people's perspective is that it's best to avoid responding with physical violence whenever possible.

[JacobJordan]

People that believe violence is wrong are the first to call the police so they can do the violence they feel is wrong. It is pretty stupid. Violence has its place

[joehypo1]

Just like they say its never ok to hit a woman, but what if you come home and she has your kid in the bath tub trying to drown her and has already drown your son can you give her a pop then?

[Anonymous]

People are usually referring to unnecessary and excessive violence when they say that. You're just doing that thing I hate when you knowingly take something too literal. Any amount of common sense would tell you people aren't saying people shouldn't defend themselves.

[OtterMan68]

too many people use violence to resolve issues that could be resolved peacefully, or call to use it preemptively

[Asker]

I do agree violence should be the last resort. Pacifists might as well kill themselves. As for me, if my life is threatened, I’d rather defend myself than have to end up in the hospital. If the government doesn’t like me for defending myself, that’s too bad. Tyranny has no control of me. I’m anti-tyranny.

[exitseven]

They do not like to confront people. Sometimes you just cannot walk away from something. There are some people who just refuse to let it go

[msc545]

The prevalence of violence is not an indication of its morality or necessity.

[jahaims]

They live sheltered lives