Is there at any time justification for violence?

Some would argue that for self defence there is.

And yes I agree that in self defence violence is sometimes necessary. But....does this not perpetuate a cycle of violence.


Does punishing a child with a smack just entrench the percieved benefits of violence?

Does that child not grow in to an adult also thinking that violence is appropriate at some time.

For mankind to evolve in to a peaceful state it could be suggested that the principle "There is no justification for violence" needs to be taken.

What say you?

Quack:
Is there at any time justification for violence
Yes. When its mine.


For mankind to evolve in to a peaceful state it could be suggested that the principle "There is no justification for violence" needs to be taken.


...and if mankind cupped his ear for you and listened we would have never seen the beautiful Golden Age of Greece, what came right after those nosy Persians picked a fight with those "helpless" Athenians that bit the hell back.


Imagine how utterly fake we'd be without hate, scorn or contempt- all those human passions that allow one to act sans artifice. Imagine how run down our societies would be if at every second of every hour of everyday each and everyone of us would have to remember that credo: "Violence is not good. I cannot jusitify it. Only by legitimizing it can I use it".

We'd all be Christians- repressed, lonely, warped, and fucking, fucking miserable.

Violence can sometimes result in peace, thus causing peace. For instance, if someone went around killing everyone, and not listening to anything anyone said, then stopping him wouldn't be just allow peace. Basically, to get peace, when there is no peace, you must be unpeaceful.

Punishing children using violence may be effective, but it teaches the child that when they don't get what they want, to use violence. Besides, if there was no violence, that doesn't necessarily mean there is peace. People can be angry, frustrated, and unhappy still, which is what ultimately matters.

Violence is the unintelligent application of force. It is inefficient and often counter productive to the furtherance of life, in the big sense of the word. It is justified when there is little education and/or sociopathos conjoined with power though such instances are evidence of a lack of a social process that brings intelligence and sufficient resources to dealing with human problems. It is always desirable to avoid violence but it will always exist to various degrees.

What kind of violence is this about?
If you speak about children, let me ask this: "When a child throws a tantrum, banging fists and head, what do you do?" A psychologist would advise to ignore the incident, to prevent spoiling. Would you call this solution emotional violence? How do you reason with a child without spoiling him? If you do spoil the child, how will he learn the right way to behave, how will he learn not to be violent? Would it not be through observing his own pain?
Allow me to examine violence as war. War is a way to assert/protect interests of a certain country. With this example, if Americans were not violent and brutal, there would be no United States; there would be lots of slavery. Another way to assert a country's interests would be through money but I find political prostitution low. If you sit and object, saying "if there was no violence in the world at all, [etc]" I can say to you that you are describing socialism, which goes against human nature.
As long as there are conflicting interests, there is always violence to some degree in some way.

Just a thought to fire this discussion along.

I hear about a sniper shooting people at service stations, every one is in fear, they don't know if it's safe to go any where.

Then you walk in to an amusement hall and there are heaps of video games with pistols for the players to enjoy shooting opponents and great hoots of laughter and joy can be heard from the players. and yet, they fear going out side because of a sniper.

One could ask the question does society know what it wants?

You either want violence or you don't.

violence is part of human nature.
any attempt to restrict it would go against human nature.

it all depends on the environment one is in... how society looks at violence, how that person has been conditioned.

The perspective that there is no justification for violence is flawed, as pointed out, because anyone who held that perspective would be quite vulnerable to being physically over-ruled by those who do not.

Quantum Quack

Then you walk in to an amusement hall and there are heaps of video games with pistols for the players to enjoy shooting opponents and great hoots of laughter and joy can be heard from the players. and yet, they fear going out side because of a sniper.

One could ask the question does society know what it wants?


Well I hope it wants its <b>entertainment</b> uncensored and unfiltered and stops trying to use it as a scapegoat.

True, violence is part of human nature. Furthermore, trying to suppress it would only make the situation worse! What's best to do is to accept all of the human characteristics, "good" or "bad."

Never, ever blame anything on entertainment! People have common sense and can think for themselves. Also, once entertainment is censored, I bet people will cry about being oppressed by the government (and this would lead to more violence).

I also would not suggest censorship but taking in the big picture over time is it possible that we can evolve to a point where we know we can be violent but choose not to be?

We have no need for violence unless others is violent.

Therefor if everyone held the principle that violence is wrong then there would be no violence and because it wouldn't exist then no one would miss it.

Sure we can figure out other more creative things to do.

Violence can also be the effect of frustration, when other's don't do what we think they should do, or if we see a behaviour that we got out of that someone else has and we want to "help" them get out of that behaviour too. But using violence and mockering is just egoistic and lame, care about your own life first, and there will be no frustration and you'll be able to help other's in a non-violent way, by simply reasoning with them.

gendanken:
We'd all be Christians- repressed, lonely, warped, and fucking, fucking miserable.The christians you talk about have a lifestyle that (they think) best suits their interpretation of the bible and the "right way", there are other ways that may suit you better, we should all find our own way. There are christians that have other lifestyles too, don't judge the whole because of the part or because it doesn't "sound" right to you, who said that they are miserable? Lonely? Warped? Repressed I can agree on to a certain limit, since they have to follow rules that you don't follow, but it's relative to one's perception, they don't have to feel repressed because they follow rules that you don't.

otheadp:
violence is part of human nature.
any attempt to restrict it would go against human natureWhat tells you that violence is a part of human nature? What is human nature? Think less human and more you, violence may be a part of your nature, it isn't a part of my nature. You judge the part because of the whole. We should be independent of what other's think, and do what we do, be who we are, because "other's do it" or "it's human nature" isn't a argument...find your own way.

VitalOne:
Violence can sometimes result in peace, thus causing peace. For instance, if someone went around killing everyone, and not listening to anything anyone said, then stopping him wouldn't be just allow peace. Basically, to get peace, when there is no peace, you must be unpeaceful.I agree, but this doesn't happen that often, it's a greyzone where something that is wrong is being justified because of what it leads to - and since there are no other ways to handle the situation. However then I think we should try to do the less bad.

there is always an alternative to violence if you have the time and the will to find them.

For instance the police here were issued with stun guns to hopefully minimise the violence needed to apprehend violent criminals or violent psychotic persons. (You guys use them in the USA I think)

It is human nature to attempt to remove violence from society, many laws etc. have been established just to try to do this.

Mankind has been working consistently for centuries to minimise violence and create security and safety for it's members. So to say that violence is human nature may very well be true but it is also a nature that we are trying to eradicate.

Do you think it is possible with time and the will?

Originally posted by Quantum Quack

Is there at any time justification for violence?


Is there any reason for justification?

well....if you want to be violent with out justification then why be violent. If violence gives you a thrill or a buzz then is this not justification.

It seems to me that "justification" has a kind of violence to it.

What tells you that violence is a part of human nature?
i meant that violence is part of the animal instinct, which is part of human nature, as we are animals. it is natural, and anything done to supress it would be going against that which is natural.

everything that stops us from violence -- so called "rational thought" -- is the result of conditioning. you are conditioned into some desirable state of thinking which is branded as 'rational'. anyone not in that state is branded as a 'barbarian' ...

one does not need to 'rationalize' violence. it just is. that's the way we, as animals, tick.

i meant that violence is part of the animal instinct, which is part of human nature, as we are animals. it is natural, and anything done to supress it would be going against that which is natural.Even animals have the options to fight or run.

Do what's right for the situation and what you feel at the moment, most people tend to excite themselves more than they originally felt, enabling behaviour that was more than necessary for the situation, when they should search for arguments why they don't need to fight, they search for arguments why they should just because they want to justify it (so they can say that they had a reason to do what they did), but the searching itself makes it unjust (cause they are searching for more than the person did at the moment).

Yes we are of the genre Animal but we consider ourselves to be a little more than animal. Whether we like it or not we do possess intelligence or at least a higher level of sentience.

To deny our ability to manage our lives is also to deny our sentient nature.

To say that we should not deny our animal instincts is like saying cut of my head because I don't want to think.

WE are thinkers, we do have a considerable conscious awareness and imagination. WE do have choices how we utilise our resourses. To say we should not deny our base instincts and overrule our higher instincts is absurd.

Violence is a method. The decision to use is it a question. To demonize it seems to be committing a form of violence. "Justification" and guilt go hand-in-hand.

Violence is inevitable if there are no alternatives.

It sort of depends on the position, disposition, degree of clash, skill and intention of those involved in the negotiation.

Sometimes there are no alternatives.

Originally posted by Cyperium
We have no need for violence unless others is violent.


I agree with this. Would we ever need to use violence if we weren't faced with violence? If you think so, I'd love to hear your reasons why. Sure it's not practical in the world we live in (which is already critically infected with violence) to go about sticking daisies in gun barrels, but in a world where you were not subjected to violence why would you ever need to be violent?(except to gain power :) )

Originally posted by Quantum Quack
Yes we are of the genre Animal but we consider ourselves to be a little more than animal. Whether we like it or not we do possess intelligence or at least a higher level of sentience.

To deny our ability to manage our lives is also to deny our sentient nature.

To say that we should not deny our animal instincts is like saying cut of my head because I don't want to think.

WE are thinkers, we do have a considerable conscious awareness and imagination. WE do have choices how we utilise our resourses. To say we should not deny our base instincts and overrule our higher instincts is absurd.

yes, we are more sentient.
yes, we are thinkers.
but we are still animals. we still have that animal instinct (that which is not conditioned but is coded into our genetics) to slap/kick/punch/scratch/pull etc.
and to try to deny it "well, i'm more intelligent than dogs and cats so.." is ridiculous.

We have no need for violence unless others is violent
and since others are violent, the conclusion of this sentient being is that we need violence, even though we are thinkers.. and it's not just a natural process

Originally posted by Varelse
Would we ever need to use violence if we weren't faced with violence?

In the case where you sense imminent violence and you are pretty certain you could not effectively retaliate, or you would incur losses you are not willing to incur... do you get pre-emptive? What if, if you're right, a million lives will be lost before you can stop the attack? What if you're 80% sure the attack is imminent? What about 90%?

Cyperium:

There are christians that have other lifestyles too, don't judge the whole because of the part or because it doesn't "sound" right to you, who said that they are miserable?

A holy man claiming chastity with drool on his chin and a woody peeking out from his robe does not need to say that he's miserable.



Lonely? Warped? Repressed I can agree on to a certain limit, since they have to follow rules that you don't follow, but it's relative to one's perception, they don't have to feel repressed because they follow rules that you don't.

Yes, lonely warped and repressed. I'm not talking the wishy washy make-believe of backdoor Christianiaty, love.

We call that America.

I'm talking taking up vows and living life by The Word.

Hook up with a Benedict monk and then get back to me.

The thing to remember is that violence appears to be cyclic in nature.

Over an extended period of time it is only when we consistantly break this cycle that eventualy it will cease to occur.

Say over the next thousand years or so.
We manage to allow only defensive violence, and manage to remove offensive forms of violence. WE would be left with the capacity but not the need.

As Wes said, at the present we sometimes act pre-emptively such as the case in Iraq.

Paranoir is a big problem with regards to violence too.

But I think at the bottom line it is the pleasure that some get from striking out that is the key to this issue.

Some persons actually like to see another person "Bleed"

It's called sadism and is a form of reflective masocism.

Othedp has quite clealy stated his view that he feels we need violence because it is our animal nature to do so.

I would ask what evidence suggests this dependancy on our violent nature?

Othedp, If you had a choice between violence and peace which would you choose?

If you chose Violence why did you ?

If you chose violence I ask the board, how does the world evolve by peaceful means persons such as Othedp?

( Othedp...please excuse me for using your Id as part of this question for it is only an abstraction)

I don't believe in the use of violence out of self preservation. The use of violence, even in self defense is an invitation to retaliation. If somebody wants to kill me, then so be it, but most violent people are into the harm thing, not aiming for death. If I'm willing to eat it the first time, I stand a good chance of eliminating further, possibly more severe, violent offenses in the future.
If you are a peaceful person, then as a general rule, people will be peaceable. When people are violent, why give them a reason (retaliation) to become even more so?

Violence is only natural in response to an unpleasant situation. By denying that natural instinct once, we avoid more unpleasant situations in the future, and therefore the natural instinct for violence. It is natural to want pleasure. But the natural ways of trying to please ourselves are not always the most effective in the long term. So in the case of nature--

Which is more important to you -- the natural means, or the natural end?

One could also ask why is that of nearly all the animals known mankind seems to be the only one of a few that utilises his violence instincts to actually enjoy torturing and terrorising his fellow man.

Is this terrorising an act of instinct or is it a perverted intellectual pleasure? Using the instinct as an excuse?

Othedp has quite clealy stated his view that he feels we need violence because it is our animal nature to do so.
that sentence doesn't make sense.

we don't "need" violence. but it is a part of us.. so when people are violent it shouldn't be surprising.

Othedp, If you had a choice between violence and peace which would you choose?
i'd choose talking over fighting, of course. goes without saying. but sometimes when you try to talk, all you get is kicks in the face... so because of the animal instinct, and as a result of a rational conclusion, i'd choose to fight (or run)

Otheadp
and since others are violent, the conclusion of this sentient being is that we need violence, even though we are thinkers.. and it's not just a natural process

With the above quote can you excuse me for my misinterpretation of what you stated?

Quack:
One could also ask why is that of nearly all the animals known mankind seems to be the only one of a few that utilises his violence instincts to actually enjoy torturing and terrorising his fellow man.

Is this terrorising an act of instinct or is it a perverted intellectual pleasure? Using the instinct as an excuse?

I've already asked me this and answered me.

I thought is as a bittter pill the thinking mind had to swallow in its evolution, something odd, and dedicated a whole page to it in this wannabe book I'm trying to write when someone here (Xev) used a word that in a zinch summed up what a whole page was trying to get at: shodenfreude.

The fact that we even have a word for it, and fucking German to boot, unifies this idea I have of mankind being 'fucked':

"Its then inevitable to wonder whether this ability to think is really worth the praise we're so easy to furnish on ourselves. Considering how we're the only nerurotic living organisms prone to eating, sleeping, and social problems, having to contend with oddites that I'm dead sure were never around 10,000 years ago- how exactly odd is sadism? Never mind that its morbid or cruel- isn't it odd that a mammal can relish in this? pornography? snuff films? How odd it is that a creature has a need to concot crucifixions and iron maidens, all those Roman and medieval curiosities solely for the grisly thirts of a human crowd? Think how incredibly weird it is to have Dahmers among us, the Gacy's, Bundy's, Chikatilohs and dememtd Lady Bathories who no doubt had been steered by something not right bewtwen ears."

-from Gendanken's little wannabe book she has no fucking clue how to title.

holy man claiming chastity with drool on his chin and a woody peeking out from his robe does not need to say that he's miserable.Many of them are actually glad to be suffering, since it cleanses them from their sins.

Yes, lonely warped and repressed. I'm not talking the wishy washy make-believe of backdoor Christianiaty, love.

We call that America.

I'm talking taking up vows and living life by The Word.

Hook up with a Benedict monk and then get back to me.The monks often enjoy loneliness so I don't think they feel lonely, I think the time they spend with other monks are enough for them, they've got used to their lifestyle. There's no reason for them to be warped either, maybe it is we who are warped? If one person believes that he is a perfectly straight line, then everyone he looks at will be curved.