I dunno man, I really wish that was the case. But history has shown us time and time again that sometimes violence is the only way to limit an even greater violence. We can always look back and say there might have been a peaceful solution. That’s what education is for.
I suppose it is splitting hairs, violence is a method, it’s more a tool than an answer. A tool helps us achieve something or it doesn’t, and some get better results in a given case. Most of the time, for most goals, there exist better tools. Some people don’t have the patience or skill to use them, and some people just don’t have those tools and so looking at what they do know how to use- they might pick violence.
I think the saying gets shortened and what is usually meant is that violence is never the BEST or “RIGHT” answer to a problem. Philosophically that’s probably true, and pragmatically it is often true, but… violence is the fundamental power, especially among humans. If Jim wants what Joe has and Joe doesn’t want to give it up, and neither will budge and no acceptable compromise can be found- what is to be done? It comes down to subversion or violence. Each Jim and Joe will pick the tool they are most confident in for realizing their goal,
and if one isn’t comfortable with subversive tools, they will then take violence. It’s a fundamental truth that is infinitely observable in immutable aspects of reality. The food chain- most creatures require the lives of other organisms to continue living.
To live the snake must eat the mouse, to live the mouse must not be eaten. Most organisms will value their lives above almost everything. What deal allows the snake to walk away with the mouse life and the mouse to walk away with its own life other than to sacrifice someone else’s life, who likely won’t agree? In the end, put the mouse and the snake in a cage and one will almost always kill the other. We humans are much the same. There are those things we will not compromise on. What’s more- what if people who lack the intellect or skill to hold any power over their lives in a “civil” society? In the courts of kings where the rules are made by those in power, those without the connections or wealth or intelligence to fight on that
Battlefield on equal terms are at the mercy of the whims of others. The same person who could have nothing more than what others let them have in such a system might be able to live a life of their choosing in a system where they can settle things with violence. Isn’t that ultimately what so many revolutions are? When words fail, even emperors must yield to superior application of force.
In that sense violence can even be an equalizer among humans, a way to prevent subjugation or abuse of power. In theory and philosophy there would be some way to avoid violence and do all this- and perhaps in reality too- perhaps political pressure and subversive actions over decades or centuries could reform or overthrow tyranny- but often violence is the most expedient tool for such jobs. Of course violence in such cars usually creates the next long term problem(s), we see this mechanism with “mens rights groups” and white supremacists and others-
That when a traditional oppressor is removed (wether by force or other means,) even merely having privilege reduced is enough to trigger victim mentality where such oppressors would claim to now be oppressed because they no longer hold the same power and position they once did. Radical change over short periods also tends to create instability as people and society struggle to adjust. Since violence is often quick acting compared to gentler means, it often triggers radical change. Add in the effects of violence begetting violence- that is that if you kill someone’s father for killing your father, the person who lost their father might now try to kill you to make themselves feel “even” for what you took. Then your child may kill them later for taking their father as well… a cycle of violence.
So all this is very simplified and truncated, but violence is often not the best solution even when it seems practical. Violence is often not employed logically and in a calculated fashion- it is more often that violence is selected as a tool for reasons that are reactive, or a reflex or an emotional response.
With perhaps exception to responding to immediate peril, using violence reactively is an example of allowing our impulses to control us. Any human society that isn’t designed around instinct as an aspiration requires that we display control of ourselves as is necessary to mutually cohabitate and work towards common goals. One of the reasons that violence is seen as unethical to us is that violence is often an expression of lack of control, but another reason is that it threatens the ability of groups to work together, especially towards long term goals.
This is where many “manners” and traditions come from. For example- “don’t put your elbows on the table” is believed to be a hold over from earlier in history when one’s elbows could easily invade the dining space of another. Such acts can trigger territorial aggression and be seen as hostile. When you think about most “manners” in your culture- most are probably things that piss people off. Interrupting is often seen as “rude” because many people get upset at being interrupted. It is to a degree about courtesy- but courtesy is more modern or “civilized” way of saying “don’t piss people off because they might kill you…” this can still be true in the modern world, but was especially true back in history before we had such population densities or codified laws and enforcement. The other aspect of manners are that if you were way back when and you encountered a stranger- they were potentially dangerous. Manners have been one way which humans have helped identify dangerous people.
Think of it like this- if you have all these manners that are designed to either reduce the odds of people ending up trying to kill each other or demonstrate that you aren’t a threat (various handshakes or salutes to show you aren’t presently holding a weapon, passing people “off hand” the common dominant hand to make it less likely you’d be able to attack them with a weapon, not hiding your face, etc)….
If you met someone way back when who didn’t display those manners, they were either broadcasting they had dangerous intentions or they are showing a lack of knowledge or disregard in how to conduct themselves peacefully around others, which subsequently makes them a danger. If we set up a system so “peaceful” people all act predictably, and those predictable methods are such to thwart harmful acts, those committing or seeking to do harmful acts will seem unpredictable. So while not all people who would not follow the “manners” would actually seek to harm you, most people who would
seek to harm you openly would be acting in an unpredictable manner. This is true and observable even today. A homeless person with a sign asking for money or sitting quietly somewhere generally doesn’t scare most people, but someone who is stumbling about and speaking gibberish and going from yells to whispers and behaving erratically will be identified as a potential danger by most people. This is where the ethics of violence l, or ethics in general, get tricky. Ethics are a cultural value. Most organisms including most humans value our lives as we discussed earlier. So generally speaking as humans we tend to favor systems and processes which make it easiest and most likely that our own lives will be protected.
The idea of extending that thought to others, empathy, is a value decision. It’s cultural. If an individual or a society puts a higher value on something than life, these decisions can change. This is very clear as per our earlier example of the food chain- but humans. Most people will kill or see another killed over giving their own life. It’s common to consider giving your life for someone else or some idea as a heroic or exceptional deed- depending on how others view the value of what you died for. So examples:
A person who dies to save a child will probably be seen as a hero. A person who dies to achieve their dream of reaching the moon will probably but might not be seen by all as a hero. A person who dies to achieve their dream of becoming the <random video game> world champion will probably not be seen as a hero outside a very small group. But achieving a dream is achieving a dream no? What is different between that person and the one who died trying to reach the moon?
In practical terms- a lot right? So even in such a system where we value life as one of the most sacred things- we still apply some pragmatic filters to that value because it’s not a universal value but a cultural belief.
In the same vein as people killing another or allowing another to die so they can live, execution of those posing a danger to others or use of violence against such dangerous individuals is common place in the world. We are ok with it to some degree or another because of pragmatism. Ultimately our value on life is more often a value of our own lives- specifically that we value our own lives over others. So in the general day to day- we treat life as most important in the hopes that creates a culture where others will treat our lives as important. When we face an actual conflict where our lives or even our enjoyment of life would be threatened by someone- we will apply violence or death to protect what we don’t want to give up.
This is the fundamental nature of any society with a formal or informal law or security enforcement component. A village of 100 that has 10 people acting as guardians will generally have enough guardians to overpower any individual or small group threatening the general prosperity or safety of any inhabitants. 10 on 1 means each guardian also has a higher chance of surviving versus of ten guardians each acted along against threats they saw. Strength in numbers. The presence of such overwhelming force generally has a deterrent effect, so long as it is known or assumed that any malicious actions will be swiftly called out and met with overwhelming force, most people of sound judgment are more likely to behave outside of moments of extreme emotional response or an instinctual drive that overpowers their reason.
This is generally the concept behind police forces. When one commits a crime, especially a violent crime, and especially when one is unreasonable such as under the influence or..
Somehow mentally unwell, negotiation isn’t a sound option. TRIGGER WARNING:
To use topical news as an example- of a shooter is carrying out a mass shooting with no real reason or logic, just a desire to cause death or hurt and likely a resignation to death, how does a society respond without violence? Wait for the shooter to run out of bullets and weapons or get so tired of killing that they take a nap, then gently scoop them up? And what happens then? If you’ve taken them to where they are to be held in custody but they decide they don’t want to be in custody and are willing to hurt or kill to leave? You can’t simply ask polities or hope a lecture will reach their heart and they’ll decide to take their punishment because that’s the right thing to do. It can actually work- but it won’t always. If it doesn’t, do you let them walk out and follow them until they fall asleep again? If they try to run- physically restraining them- a form of violence- is probably prudent.
So as already said by nekkidninja- there are situations where the most prudent way to stop more harm is the targeted application of violence.
Arguably violence is most ineffective when used as a held measure. Violence generally should be applied with a swift brutality and absolute resolve towards a clear and concise goal through which violence is the most prudent option concluded upon within the time one has to consider their options. In a survival situation, that generally means violence must be used in split seconds, and to be most effective by one who has a mastery of the tool and is comfortable in its deployment as second nature.
There are a lot of angles here. A big question is wether society wouldn't be better off if instead of some “taboo” we treated violence like a tool. Many man made things are potentially dangerous. Guns, knives, scissors, farm
Equipment, heavy machinery, tools and power tools, automobiles, etc etc.
The thing is that the people who tend to be least at danger from these objects and usually the least danger to others are people who have been properly
Educated and had instilled in them a respect for both the helpful and destructive capabilities of such things. Perhaps violence is much the same- perhaps those who are taught that violence is a tool and has its proper and improper applications are less likely to be dangerous in general in its application? Statistics can be debated. I can say in my own experience that those people I’ve known whom are most familiar with violence in a sense of understanding and respecting it as a tool have tended for the most part to be people who were the least dangerous when it came to misapplication or careless escalation to violence. There is a key distinction there- being COMFORTABLE or complacent with a dangerous tool can be as or more dangerous than one with no knowledge of the tool at all.
Those who have seen true violence and lived true violence tend to have a complicated relationship with violence.
Not wanting others to experience that, but at the same time fearing for those who walk through life as though it doesn’t exist or can’t touch them when violence is always a bad dice roll away from walking into your life and taking the unprepared for a very bad or fatal ride.
Philosophically I would love to see a world where violence just didn’t exist or effectively didn’t exist between people. I’d love to see a place where not even the most deranged human being would have the thought to harm another. We may be a few thousand epochs away from that day if it ever comes. There is a philosophy to violence and the reality of violence. Kindness and morals and ethics are all luxuries of those who can afford them or the per ore of those with the power to give them. When we can afford them, we should indulge in them and spread them feely. When we cannot… well…
I think the saying gets shortened and what is usually meant is that violence is never the BEST or “RIGHT” answer to a problem. Philosophically that’s probably true, and pragmatically it is often true, but… violence is the fundamental power, especially among humans. If Jim wants what Joe has and Joe doesn’t want to give it up, and neither will budge and no acceptable compromise can be found- what is to be done? It comes down to subversion or violence. Each Jim and Joe will pick the tool they are most confident in for realizing their goal,
To live the snake must eat the mouse, to live the mouse must not be eaten. Most organisms will value their lives above almost everything. What deal allows the snake to walk away with the mouse life and the mouse to walk away with its own life other than to sacrifice someone else’s life, who likely won’t agree? In the end, put the mouse and the snake in a cage and one will almost always kill the other. We humans are much the same. There are those things we will not compromise on. What’s more- what if people who lack the intellect or skill to hold any power over their lives in a “civil” society? In the courts of kings where the rules are made by those in power, those without the connections or wealth or intelligence to fight on that
In that sense violence can even be an equalizer among humans, a way to prevent subjugation or abuse of power. In theory and philosophy there would be some way to avoid violence and do all this- and perhaps in reality too- perhaps political pressure and subversive actions over decades or centuries could reform or overthrow tyranny- but often violence is the most expedient tool for such jobs. Of course violence in such cars usually creates the next long term problem(s), we see this mechanism with “mens rights groups” and white supremacists and others-
With perhaps exception to responding to immediate peril, using violence reactively is an example of allowing our impulses to control us. Any human society that isn’t designed around instinct as an aspiration requires that we display control of ourselves as is necessary to mutually cohabitate and work towards common goals. One of the reasons that violence is seen as unethical to us is that violence is often an expression of lack of control, but another reason is that it threatens the ability of groups to work together, especially towards long term goals.
If you met someone way back when who didn’t display those manners, they were either broadcasting they had dangerous intentions or they are showing a lack of knowledge or disregard in how to conduct themselves peacefully around others, which subsequently makes them a danger. If we set up a system so “peaceful” people all act predictably, and those predictable methods are such to thwart harmful acts, those committing or seeking to do harmful acts will seem unpredictable. So while not all people who would not follow the “manners” would actually seek to harm you, most people who would
A person who dies to save a child will probably be seen as a hero. A person who dies to achieve their dream of reaching the moon will probably but might not be seen by all as a hero. A person who dies to achieve their dream of becoming the <random video game> world champion will probably not be seen as a hero outside a very small group. But achieving a dream is achieving a dream no? What is different between that person and the one who died trying to reach the moon?
In the same vein as people killing another or allowing another to die so they can live, execution of those posing a danger to others or use of violence against such dangerous individuals is common place in the world. We are ok with it to some degree or another because of pragmatism. Ultimately our value on life is more often a value of our own lives- specifically that we value our own lives over others. So in the general day to day- we treat life as most important in the hopes that creates a culture where others will treat our lives as important. When we face an actual conflict where our lives or even our enjoyment of life would be threatened by someone- we will apply violence or death to protect what we don’t want to give up.
This is generally the concept behind police forces. When one commits a crime, especially a violent crime, and especially when one is unreasonable such as under the influence or..
To use topical news as an example- of a shooter is carrying out a mass shooting with no real reason or logic, just a desire to cause death or hurt and likely a resignation to death, how does a society respond without violence? Wait for the shooter to run out of bullets and weapons or get so tired of killing that they take a nap, then gently scoop them up? And what happens then? If you’ve taken them to where they are to be held in custody but they decide they don’t want to be in custody and are willing to hurt or kill to leave? You can’t simply ask polities or hope a lecture will reach their heart and they’ll decide to take their punishment because that’s the right thing to do. It can actually work- but it won’t always. If it doesn’t, do you let them walk out and follow them until they fall asleep again? If they try to run- physically restraining them- a form of violence- is probably prudent.
Arguably violence is most ineffective when used as a held measure. Violence generally should be applied with a swift brutality and absolute resolve towards a clear and concise goal through which violence is the most prudent option concluded upon within the time one has to consider their options. In a survival situation, that generally means violence must be used in split seconds, and to be most effective by one who has a mastery of the tool and is comfortable in its deployment as second nature.
There are a lot of angles here. A big question is wether society wouldn't be better off if instead of some “taboo” we treated violence like a tool. Many man made things are potentially dangerous. Guns, knives, scissors, farm
Equipment, heavy machinery, tools and power tools, automobiles, etc etc.
Educated and had instilled in them a respect for both the helpful and destructive capabilities of such things. Perhaps violence is much the same- perhaps those who are taught that violence is a tool and has its proper and improper applications are less likely to be dangerous in general in its application? Statistics can be debated. I can say in my own experience that those people I’ve known whom are most familiar with violence in a sense of understanding and respecting it as a tool have tended for the most part to be people who were the least dangerous when it came to misapplication or careless escalation to violence. There is a key distinction there- being COMFORTABLE or complacent with a dangerous tool can be as or more dangerous than one with no knowledge of the tool at all.
Not wanting others to experience that, but at the same time fearing for those who walk through life as though it doesn’t exist or can’t touch them when violence is always a bad dice roll away from walking into your life and taking the unprepared for a very bad or fatal ride.
Philosophically I would love to see a world where violence just didn’t exist or effectively didn’t exist between people. I’d love to see a place where not even the most deranged human being would have the thought to harm another. We may be a few thousand epochs away from that day if it ever comes. There is a philosophy to violence and the reality of violence. Kindness and morals and ethics are all luxuries of those who can afford them or the per ore of those with the power to give them. When we can afford them, we should indulge in them and spread them feely. When we cannot… well…