Why is violence considered uncivilised?

In some forms i think so, like, murder and such...but if your a crazy mental religious nut case, it matters where your from, but you could get away with killing "blasphemers"

The expression depends on the culture. At the root of it may be something so pure as fear: We repent of and rebuke the violence we witness because we do not like to imagine ourselves suffering the same. The best explanation I have heard was passed to me through a portion of the Buddhist tradition that escapes memory, when someone explained about an old master of some sort that taught that violence is inefficient. This is an attractive notion. It sounds rational, and for the most part it is. Rational consistency, however, demands rational classifications and assignations. For instance, to use a broad example: Wars solve very little, except in terms of individual human lives and suffering. We might choose to argue whether or not the tumbling of a dictator is good or bad, reduces or increases suffering, or even whether it is an event unto itself, or a portion of a longer process. But for the one who points out that Saddam Hussein is dead, and Iraq ... well, we hope Iraq lives free someday. But, anyway ... People who support the present American expedition in Iraq tend to ignore history inasmuch as they do not see the Saddam Hussein chapter as related to the Shah Reza Pahlavi chapter. But while invading Iraq and toppling Hussein may have seemed an efficient solution to a problem, it is by another view merely another chapter of a specific story cycle that began at least with the overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953. (Click here for that story (http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html).) Of course, anyone could reasonably argue that the Pahlavi chapter is simply an inefficient symptom of a prior process, and they would be right or wrong depending on whether or not they chose that process from a rationally arguable version of history.

The point being, of course, that violence begets violence, suffering begets suffering. That violence on this scale is inefficient seems rather obvious. The smaller the violence, the greater the drag or disruption coefficient becomes.

And it is very possible that the species is aware of this. That fear may well be a manifestation of an evolutionary recognition of the futility of violence: it brings an ultimate, infinite cost in trade for rather a cheap outcome. Violence is inefficient and endangers the progress of the species. That violence itself is an instrument of evolutionary impact is an unstable thesis: the species-wide impacts of violence are too general, even through modern stratification, for such refined methods as those of nature.

In the end, we might simply say that "People are afraid of violence," and that could easily be sufficient. But as we know, the difference between fear and cowardice is not equally apparent to all people. There seems to be at least a reason why people fear violence, and it turns out to suggest in our favor.

I think in some situations, violence can be the most civilized action that we can do, like capital punishment, doing violence for the sake of stopping future violence.

Capital punishment is uncivilised, too.

Is it uncivilised to use violence to prevent violence being done to, say, a loved one?
If some dastardly individual is trying to violently rape your 10-yr old daughter, is it uncivilised to use violence to protect her?

I've often wondered what the Pennsylvania Dutch would have done if they'd discovered that guy in the little school house before he killed those kids? As avowed non-violent individuals, would they have stood by and let that man kill their children one by one ....and done nothing to stop him?

As long as there IS violence in the world, even by a few, then using violence to prevent those few from harming others is necessary in any society ....or else those few violent individuals would keep the non-violent society harnessed helplessly by their own non-violent vows.

Baron Max

Is it uncivilised to use violence to prevent violence being done to, say, a loved one?

Probably, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

As long as there IS violence in the world, even by a few, then using violence to prevent those few from harming others is necessary in any society

No. They can just be restrained, put in prison etc.

Baron Max: "As long as there IS violence in the world, even by a few, then using violence to prevent those few from harming others is necessary in any society"

No. They can just be restrained, put in prison etc.

But what if they don't want to go to prison? Remember, "violence" also includes such things as forcing others to do what they don't wnat to do. If those violent men used violence to prevent you from putting theim in prison, what would you do then?

Baron Max

Baron:

If the only violence you're concerned with now is violence justified by the rule of law, then I concede the point.

I guess we're done here.

Why is violence uncivilised?

I thaught you LOVED vioence!!?:cool:

Baron Max: "But what if they don't want to go to prison? Remember, "violence" also includes such things as forcing others to do what they don't wnat to do. If those violent men used violence to prevent you from putting theim in prison, what would you do then?"

Baron: If the only violence you're concerned with now is violence justified by the rule of law, then I concede the point.

I'm not, James ......just answer the question please.

Baron Max

Why is violence uncivilised?

It's because a few people (wimps of the world?) say so ......even as they carry out violent acts of their own against those that they don't like!

In most areas of the world, we call 'em "hippo-fuckin'-critters"!

Baron Max

It's because a few people (wimps of the world?) say so ......even as they carry out violent acts of their own against those that they don't like!

In most areas of the world, we call 'em "hippo-fuckin'-critters"!

Baron Max

Glad you recognise the duplicity of your government.

Glad you recognise the duplicity of your government.

Not just my government, Sam. Or are you trying to turn this around into another one of your anti-American threads??????

I'd say that my statement, "It's because a few people (wimps of the world?) say so ......even as they carry out violent acts of their own against those that they don't like!" is more pertinent to radical Muslims than to any of the other groups in the world. All one has to do is watch the evening news!

"Revenge is mine, sayeth the Muslims of the world."

Baron Max

Not just my government, Sam. Or are you trying to turn this around into another one of your anti-American threads??????

I'd say that my statement, "It's because a few people (wimps of the world?) say so ......even as they carry out violent acts of their own against those that they don't like!" is more pertinent to radical Muslims than to any of the other groups in the world. All one has to do is watch the evening news!

"Revenge is mine, sayeth the Muslims of the world."

Baron Max

Oh my bad, thought you'd used one of your two brain cells.

Violence could be the answer.

In the maintime, define civilized...

Encountering violence is inevitable, sadly.

Encountering violence is inevitable, sadly.

Inevitable? No, it's necessary in human populations. Take a moment and ask yourself; "If no one was ever killed throughout history, how many people would be on Earth now?" It's staggering to contemplate.

Baron Max

Is it the same thing for you Baron, dying because of a disease or being murdered?

Take a moment and ask yourself; "If no one was ever killed throughout history, how many people would be on Earth now?" It's staggering to contemplate.

Nature has its ways. And that means that there will always be a natural disposition arising with some statistical predictability that will come to violence with other entities. We can never entirely eliminate violence from humanity. To the other, even a completely rational body social would eventually be tempered by natural elements. We are part of nature, and cannot conquer it outright.

The natural inevitability of a Hannibal Lecter or Gary Lee Ridgway does not license or excuse the result. The only simple solutions are themselves violent and temporary, and of dubious rationale.

To use an illustrative notion: there are, literally, thousands, perhaps a hundred thousand, "date" rapes on college campuses each year. Among that ghastly number is a proportion, at this point utterly unknown, that could have been averted according to different social conditioning. As with murders and wars: it is only for certain presuppositions that most wars and murders happen.

Even if humanity manages to fix all of these mistaken ideas that eventually lead to violence, nature will still provide us with certain baseline violence.

And if we prosper too greatly too quickly in a newfound understanding and enlightenment, we will certainly be vulnerable the next time the planet decides to cull the human herd.

Nature ought to be enough to deal with. Ideological violence is illogical; passionate violence is illogical. Only sinister violence is logical, but only unto itself.

So why shouldn't we sack all that, and deal with the Universe? It's awfully big, after all. There's a lot to do, and who knows? Maybe we'll get our violence fix wrestling in a species-take-all battle-royale against vampiric strawberry gummi-worms from somewhere in the northeast quadrant of Andromeda. There comes a time when cutting down the evil worms is as essential as destroying the collision-bound comet, but why not let nature dictate? It's a stubborn will that holds wars and kills for love just because we're bored and boring.

Why is violence considered uncivilised?Because you wouldn't want to be hurt, and so you shouldn't hurt others knowing that. It would be egoistic to hurt anyone if you don't want to get hurt yourself.

If you engage in violence then you will justify that, which justifies violence and lowers the moral of people around you (and may lead to you and the guys going out to fight - if you are in that environment).

Violence is loud because violence is accepted, while peace is quiet since bringing peace is gay. So, where does that lead us to? It leads to a world where violence is shouting their presence and peace seems to triumph from nothing time and time again. Why not? There is much more comfort in knowing that people around you bring peace quietly.