When is Violence Justified?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

This question has been alluded to on other threads.  Rather than getting bogged down in specifics, anyone fancy mulling it over in more general terms?

 

I think violence is generally best avoided, but it can sometimes be appropriate, depending on context.  Off the top of my head, I'd say that the key questions of context are:-

1.  Are your aims morally defensible?

2.  Is violence the most effective way of achieving those aims?

3.  Are there likely to be any unintended negative consequences?

4.  Is the violence proportionate or excessive?

 

Anyone reckon we can discuss this without ending up outside KFC on County?

 

[Boss]

It's not appropriate to attack politicians in the street because you don't like their views, no. 

[Rico1304]

Subjective. 

 

I cant believe you’ve posted this.  

[General Dryness]

You're on a hiding to nothing here Mal. Boss has nailed it.

 

IMO violence can only be justified as a response to violence i.e. self defence. Revenge attacks, vigilante action etc. have no place in a civilized society.

[aRdja]

I think we should all be governed by law obviously, but IF someone had asked me to choose between Corbyn or Farage to push down the stairs, then I’d have to pick the latter. Did I answer your question?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

7 minutes ago, Boss said:

It's not appropriate to attack politicians in the street because you don't like their views, no. 

Do you believe violence is ever justified?  And in what circumstances?

[Pureblood]

Hope I get beat.

[General Dryness]

Lets get down to brass tacks, the question you want to ask is "Is it ok to batter Waxy Lemon or Carl Whathisname and their respective supporters in the street". The answer is no.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

3 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Subjective. 

 

I cant believe you’ve posted this.  

You can't believe I've started a general discussion on a general forum?

 

Obviously, it's subjective.  If there were a single straight, absolute, verifiable correct answer to the question, we'd all know it and I wouldn't have to seek opinions from you derps to see if any of them shape my own thinking.

 

So, what's your thinking?  Is violence (NB - not just in a political context) ever justified and if so, why?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 minute ago, General Dryness said:

Lets get down to brass tacks, the question you want to ask is "Is it ok to batter Waxy Lemon or Carl Whathisname and their respective supporters in the street". The answer is no.

Those questions are being discussed elsewhere.  I started this thread to swerve the specifics and chew the fat on the morality of violence more generally. 

[General Dryness]

1 minute ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Those questions are being discussed elsewhere.  I started this thread to swerve the specifics and chew the fat on the morality of violence more generally. 

Mate, your hearts definitely in the right place and I can understand that you feel so strongly about what you see happening that you want to do whatever you can to stop it and shut these people up.

 

But at the end of the day people will choose what they choose. "Every country has the government it deserves". And violence is never the way to change it. 

[Rico1304]

7 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

You can't believe I've started a general discussion on a general forum?

 

Obviously, it's subjective.  If there were a single straight, absolute, verifiable correct answer to the question, we'd all know it and I wouldn't have to seek opinions from you derps to see if any of them shape my own thinking.

 

So, what's your thinking?  Is violence (NB - not just in a political context) ever justified and if so, why?

It was a punch!

[TheHowieLama]

1.  Are your aims morally defensible?

Even if you feel they are, there is a very good chance they are diametrically opposed to whomever you are going violent on.

2.  Is violence the most effective way of achieving those aims?

In a situation where you want to influence the outcome individually or collectively violence is usually the easiest option and more likely than not will create an easily identifiable outcome.

3.  Are there likely to be any unintended negative consequences?

Yes, always.

4.  Is the violence proportionate or excessive?

See number 1 -- if you feel morally vindicated then there is no excess.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

6 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

It was a punch!

The fuck are you on about?

[Rico1304]

2 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

The fuck are you on about?

Earlier, the egg v the milkshake. 

 

But you knew that. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 minute ago, Rico1304 said:

Earlier, the egg v the milkshake. 

 

But you knew that. 

Yeah. I should have asked "Why the fuck are you repeating a lie that was debunked weeks ago?"

 

Anyway, since you dragged it into this thread, let's use it as a starting point.  You seem to think that that bloke punching Corbyn in the mosque and the people who have chucked milkshake at Far-right campaigners are morally equivalent  (and therefore anyone who condemns one but not the other is a hypocrite). I disagree, obviously.  I've tried to give some of the thinking behind my opinions in the first post.  It'd be interesting to see what your thinking is.

[Section_31]

Anyone who breaks into your house is fair game for anything in my view, especially if your loved ones are in the house.

 

I've always wanted to shoot a burglar in the back. With a handheld musket.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Tories. And people who lick their fingers when turning over the page. 

 

On a serious note, I'm a white male. We're seeming to say that people shouldn't get a dig for their opinions. That's a fair claim. But, with the likes of Richard Spencer and Generation Identity type folks who are talking about white ethno-states and the forced "remigration" of black people and Muslims etc, where do we stand on the rights of the people who may face the real life consequences of such rhetoric to give these gimps a dig? 

 

It's easy to say that violence shouldn't be used when you're not one of the people whose life has become more unsafe because of such words and spreading of hate. But, it's not that simple, for me. I don't like violence. But, there's a counter argument that sterner than usual actions can be justified to prevent such hateful rhetoric (and its potential associated consequences) from being normalised. 

 

It's currently don't punch horrible racists. It's currently don't milkshake horrible racists. How long before it's don't shout down or protest against horrible racists, then straying into let them have freedom to advocate ethnic cleansing and a fairly extreme right wing ideology? 

 

In those circumstances, legging them and get a bit physical with them might genuinely be the lesser of two evils. 

[Jose Jones]

I'm of the "only in self defence" party.

 

However, this is fairly easy to poke holes in, particularly when dealing with imbalances of power.

 

[Aventus]

43 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

Anyone who breaks into your house is fair game for anything in my view, especially if your loved ones are in the house.

 

I've always wanted to shoot a burglar in the back. With a handheld musket.

 

[Red Phoenix]

I'll egg ya fuckin windows.

[Red Phoenix]

1 hour ago, General Dryness said:

IMO violence can only be justified as a response to violence i.e. self defence. Revenge attacks, vigilante action etc. have no place in a civilized society.

 

Agreed with this mainly I think.

[moof]

When it’s against fascists, for a start

[Red Phoenix]

I said "mainly", but there's loads of grey areas too I think. One that comes to mind is if we get to a situation in the future where it's widely accepted that we're almost fucked (as in it's accepted that our time has basically ran out unless we do something in that moment) for saving the environment I accept violence to eject workers from a polluting factory/workplace (say an oil company) so that the place can be destroyed if that's what activists choose to do.

 

Not mindless running in and beating people up, just basically getting them out of the place by force if needed so the place can be destroyed. That to me is trying to defend the species of the planet basically though, and is clearly an extreme situation. Hopefully we can avoid ever getting to that stage.

[Red Phoenix]

Basically. Think I might have autism or something.