I'm not saying that bullying the bullies who bullied me in school made them stop... I'm saying the threat of grievous injury and loss of football player staus did. Carry a rubber mallot in your book bag nerd kids. USE FORCE.
Concepts like “violence is wrong” are… simplistic. If you say violence is wrong then it is wrong, wether you are trying to kill someone or using violence to defend against being killed. But WHY is someone using violence? As humans we enact our will in the world through actions. You act with reason in some measure. Even a “crazy” killer with “random” victims killed each person because they wanted to create a world where those people were dead right? Toddlers and kids dump out their drinks to watch them pour or fiddle with everything because from any early age, discovering you can make things happen is reason enough to do them. It compels us even if we have no greater purpose than to see that we could make a change to our surroundings.
Is it wrong to want to interact with the world? No. It isn’t wrong to want or need things and it isn’t wrong to act in ways to get them. If we couldn’t do that, we wouldn’t move or breath or eat, we’d be born and die right away.
So we simplify it.
A bully beats on you for social status or to express their trauma or for some amusement it gives them, a feeling of power, maybe to lower your status or to take from you or whatever else. We say it is bad- wrong. It isn’t wrong to want to establish your social status or to compete with others, life is always to some degree competition. It isn’t wrong to want to be amused or to want to feel powerful inherently. But we can say that their methods are wrong, and that is a value judgment.
To win a game using a trick or exploit may be seen as clever and commendable to some and dirty or dishonorable to others. To court the mate of a mated pair could be seen as “wrong” to some and natural, even commendable to others. It’s values and perspectives.
So when you “fight fire with fire,” when you use violence against violence, cheat to beat a cheater, use brutality against the brutal… yes, if the means are wrong then they are wrong if you use them too. That’s self evident. That said, why and how you use them changes wether the act or you yourself are wrong or “as bad” no?
A man ties another man up and keeps him in a small room in his house for 10 years because the man wouldn’t do what he wanted. He feeds him enough to survive and gives him books and such but keeps him locked away for ten years and tells him on release that he will be watching him, and if the man doesn’t do what he wants again, he will lock him away for 20 years.
Most would call this wrong, to force your will on someone in this way. In most countries it is a crime. If you locked someone up for 10 years like this, you’d be arrested and locked up for perhaps 10 years or more. If it is wrong to lock someone up like that for not following your rules- then why is it a public service when the police do it?
Pragmatism. They lock up a man who locks people up because you can’t have that man running around locking up whoever he feels like yes? You can’t let s killer just roam around knowing they will kill more people most likely, and if you can never trust them to be free, you would need to pay to keep them in captivity for life, under hood conditions that is quite expensive and under bad conditions that is inhumane. Killing the killer becomes pragmatic.
It’s merely a matter of majority and perspective. If most people liked killing people and didn’t mind the danger of being killed, killing people probably wouldn’t be illegal. Most people don’t want to kill people and most people recognize the value of living in a society where your odds of being randomly killed are reduced.
So it’s just math and a dash of psychology.
A means is a tool to an end. To kill a person to save the world might be seen as noble. To steal medicine from a closed shop to save a child’s life when there was no other way might seem noble. To do those things for “fun” or money would generally be seen in most values systems as “bad.”
It is just a matter of enacting your will on the world. If people agree with your will and want to see the same world as you, they tend to support you in enacting your vision.
Is it wrong to want to interact with the world? No. It isn’t wrong to want or need things and it isn’t wrong to act in ways to get them. If we couldn’t do that, we wouldn’t move or breath or eat, we’d be born and die right away.
So we simplify it.
To win a game using a trick or exploit may be seen as clever and commendable to some and dirty or dishonorable to others. To court the mate of a mated pair could be seen as “wrong” to some and natural, even commendable to others. It’s values and perspectives.
Most would call this wrong, to force your will on someone in this way. In most countries it is a crime. If you locked someone up for 10 years like this, you’d be arrested and locked up for perhaps 10 years or more. If it is wrong to lock someone up like that for not following your rules- then why is it a public service when the police do it?
So it’s just math and a dash of psychology.
A means is a tool to an end. To kill a person to save the world might be seen as noble. To steal medicine from a closed shop to save a child’s life when there was no other way might seem noble. To do those things for “fun” or money would generally be seen in most values systems as “bad.”
It is just a matter of enacting your will on the world. If people agree with your will and want to see the same world as you, they tend to support you in enacting your vision.