 |
|
Reply
| | From:  sæskwač (Original Message) | Sent: 3/26/2005 11:39 AM |
I have often gotten into arguments with people over the justifications of violence...usually my stance is that violence is never justified, but lately have been trying to determine if that is actually true, and if not, determine when violence is actually justifiable. I am currently reading abridged version of Rising Up and Rising Down: Some Thoughts on Violence, Freedom, and Urgent Means by William T. Vollman, and it has given me pause. I thought I would bring some of the ideas to discussion here (there will be quite a few direct quotes from the text, which I will underline in order to distinguish them from my own words), in the hopes that some of you will offer your own points of view, that I might learn something, or at the very least, that there will be an amusing discussion. An introduction to some of the problems inherent in the justification of violence, and ethics in general. First off, ethics is not a circumstantially exact science, and if it ever became one, free will and cultural varibility might be compsomised. Our ethical decisions are always coloured by personal and cultural bias and context. Because this is the case, any system of morality will give rise to different judgments in the same circumstances, when applied by different people. Benjamin Frankline used to divide a sheet of paper into two columns, one in favor of a decision, the other against. "And tho' the Weight of Reasons cannot be taken with the Precision of Algebraic Quantities,...I have found great Advantage from this kind of Equation, in what may be called Moral or Prudential Algebra." Much of this procedure indeed makes common sense, but its sums, variables and formulas necessarily or unnecessarily rests upon vaguely defined terms. Plato's moral calculus differs from Cortes's, not least because their definitions of piety are different. Moses's Ten Commandments leave Lenin cold, in part on disagreements over the defined range and domain of that variable called Man: Does it include or dominate Woman? May it be substituted for God? Do its characteristics alter with its productive class? In many situations requiring moral judgment, there is no "correct" answer. One person's right answer might be wrong if given by another. Which does one put first, defense of gender, which might repudiate female circumcision, or defense of culture, which might demand it? When does defense of race (one's own family) supersede defense of homeland? ...if you consider only one of those two categories of defense, your judgment will remain superficial, unfair, and therefore unrealistic. Can defense of gender meet defense of culture somewhere? I hope and believe so, provided that both sides respect each other by applying some approximation of the Golden Rule. Most often when people are faced with finding moral answers to dillemas that affect more than one person, and more than one kind of moral consideration, there is some range of consensus that can lead to a solution or compromise that should satisfy all parties, and all moral considerations to some extent. Yes, the divergence may at times widen far enough to allow for more than one specific "right" choice--for example, in the case of Caesar versus Pompey--for people and situations less frequently dazzle us with the pinpoint light of self-evident truth than with the diffuse glare of ambiguity. Still and all, the question of when violence is justified need not be left entirely unanswered. There are some categories of justification of violence that does not, by definition, allow a consensus view, for example ethos of homeland, identity of race, place and animals, ecological threat, inalienable qualities of creed. More traditional categories such as class inevitably provoke irreconcilable differences of opinion, but it remains possible to argue out those differences based on common presuppositions about fundamental human rights. Fundamental human rights suppositions seem to be absent for such categories of ethos of homeland, etc. And there are questions that have not yet been answered well enough to create a consensus view. What right do we grant an ancient redwood grove to remain as it is? Which alien ethos of creed, homeland or race can we tolerate; and when do customs which some people consider abhorrent, such as hunting, justify violent intervention? Does a white separatist have the same rights as a black separatist? The best way to determine whether or not an act of violence is justified is to determine every possible justification, or reason why it might not be justified. For example, consider the case of a Palestinian suicide bomber. What justifications does he (or his enemies) have for their acts of violence? In order to determine that, we need to look justifications concerning homeland, creed, war aims, ground, honour and authority, as well as policies of deterrence, retaliation and punishment, as well as "the fate-invocation of inevitablity." Perhaps if we make a list of the pros and cons, we can begin to use Franklin's moral algebra. When one commits violence, it is more likely that it will be unjustified than justified. Therefore, I would advise that if an act seems...to be classified as evil, it should be treted as suspect at best. On the other hand, if the act seems to obey all the rules for justification...it should be treated as--somewhat less suspect. At its most noble, an act which passes all the [moral] tests...can only be said to tend to be justified. Since [the] rules necessarily remain vague, and their interpretation open to opnion, no one test is sure... We should do our best to follow a moral calculus, and follow it consistently, when making moral decisions, but we also need to retain some flexibility. Calculus-lessness reliably produces amoral brutality; but, as Clausewitz reminds us, methodicism easily becomes stupidity. We must seek out the truth of each particular case. That's all I'm going to write for now...just an introduction to the kinds of things I've been thinking about, and some of what Vollman has to say about it. I will be back later, though, with more.  Feel free to comment and discuss! |
|
 First
Previous
2-7 of 7
Next
Last
|
Reply
| |
I'm looking forward to discussing this further, but am rather tired at the moment. However, I would still like to add that I believe that violence is not just about survival (yes it can be mindless and automatic) but also about ego (individual & cultural). Basically ... When ego is removed from the equation, so is violence. Hope everyone is having a great weekend. Good night |
|
Reply
| |
just me again ... Okay ... I've been thinking about this and the honest answer doesn't really answer anything except a very basic need. The need for survival of any species will usually produce a violent reaction to extermination ... why? because our egos do not understand an existance beyond life. We can rationalize and produce ideal afterlifes, we can create any number of beliefs, but they are all once again based on our ego. We demand the right to exist because we truly believe it is the basis of our lives and will go to any length to see it validated... this includes violence. The act of violence is an act of supressing another, it creates an imbalance that says one Will, Idea or Ego will survive or become dominate enough to continue. It doesn't matter whether this act is done for the good of oneself or another, in protection or defense ... it is still a belief that you are right and will do anything up to and including violence to achieve that sense of 'right'... and that sense of right is driven by Ego. I can honestly say that although I do not condone violence and usually avoid it at most cost, there are a few things that do provoke me to violence... one of which is protection of self and defense of kin. Which of course brings us right back around to survival of the ego driving me. I know it and recognize it for what it is. Using violence for good seems an oxymoron to me, how can it be so? Yes I understand the samples given and react one way or another to each of them ... but violence is something mankind doesn't even think of doing away with... it exists as a human state as much as love does... we label it with pride and justice... we resort to it as a means of validating our way of life. There is no easy answer here, except ... I don't think violence can be justified, we give reasons... yes and beliefs as well. But when we know its our ego driving these reasons, how can we actually justify it all. Still more to think about... I'm just putting out my thought process at this point ....
|
|
Reply
| |
Imo violence is justified in cases of self-defense and then only in an amount that fends off an attacker. I dislike violence being a peace-loving type. It's a necessary evil though in some instances. I think pacifism draws violence and the total rejection of violence isn't a realistic option. --L.B. |
|
Reply
| |
I think 'realistic' is the keyword. |
|
Reply
| | | From: imbas1 | Sent: 3/29/2005 2:35 PM |
Morning all, This is not something that I've ever thought about in any depth. Your comments are interesting, but I wonder if the point is defined correctly. Is it really violence that is "bad" or the way violence is used, most often in large scale planned occasions, that is being discussed? Declaring violence as bad, in my opinion, is like declaring breathing bad. Violent aggression is a physical capability that every single human on earth, and most other life forms, will perform at some point in a lifetime. It's a reaction to a hormonal spike from adrenalin, usually called a fight or flight reaction. In the most personal sense, violence that protects oneself, or one's family, why is this even in the most objective sense, a point of discussion? It is not an equal right, to protect oneself as the aggressor's perceived right to attack your safety? Personally, If attacked in a physical sense, I will quickly turn violent with varying levels of force, and would have no problem with total destruction of the aggressor, should that be what I feel is appropriate. But that could be a result of training. Violence is always something that falls into individual belief of level of appropriateness, which is why war is ambivalent to most. Unless the reason are extremely clear and personal, then the many questions of motives stack up. Unchecked violence by cultures, individuals or groups, I think, need to be dealt with, sometimes with equal violence, at least to gain a situation of agreed restraint. I would compare these situations either to a hormonal imbalance, or a situation created by environment. Take for an example, the junkyard dog. That 99.9% of people quickly understand this term, is perhaps an indication of the propensity of humans to brutalize through violence to create violent tools. But the dog is merely a product of the environment it was raised in most cases. But in most cases, the parties can be brought to compromise, as the dog can be calmed to at least an uneasy peacefulness. I, like any sane person, would prefer to never have to resort to violence, but I think it unwise to remember that it exists in all of us. How many non-violent cultures can one point to just within recorded history that have been virtually wiped out by an invading violent culture? The culture and relative peace you now are experiencing, was more than likely won through a violent occurrence. Even if through some evolutionary miracle, the entire planet becomes non-violent, I would not wish to become a docile food source in the event that another, more violent, lifeform presented itself. Another point that just occurred to me is greed. While greed exist, violence must. Violence offers the instability that life's equation needs to hold greed in check. I don't personally feel that ego, in the normal sense, is bad. But an ego that leads to unchecked greed would not be stopped by non-violent protest. I can think of many examples of this, as I'm sure many of us can. That's my thoughts for the moment, but as I turn this over, I'm sure a different opinion could present itself..... |
|
Reply
| | | From: sæskwač | Sent: 3/29/2005 8:38 PM |
Wow...some replies here and I've been taking my own sweet time... ...anyway. The stuff about Ego is interesting, and probably true, but I'm not sure how helpful it is. Asking people to give up their Ego is, in my opinion, asking the impossible...Ego comes hand in hand with being a thinking, cognitive being, and the argument that Ego is the root of violence has the flipside argument the Ego is also the root of every selfless act...it really is. Imbas's expressed thoughts on the matter closely reflect the ones that I have been developing lately while thinking on the subject (and I really have to give props to Wanduring for making me taking a deeper look at it...I tend to be slow in coming around to see his point of view when we disagree, but sometimes it happens ). Anyway, and I hope I don't step on anyone's toes here, feel free to complain if I do and please forgive me for any introductory material, but I mean to build this up as much as possible from scratch, here is another excerpt from Vollman...this is all leading somewhere, really... What Is the Best Way to Seek the Truth? - In solitude. A member of any organization can hardly without visiting the darkly mysterious world of nonorganization comprehend the truth about his organization--that is, the truth of what he has done and caused. I have seen and applauded Julius Caeser's clemency to my fellow Romans, but have I taken counsel with myself to see whether the purpose in whose service he so leniently fights is equally applaudable?
- ...And in diverse company. A hermit may come to know himself, but unless he listens to others, and sees the happiness and suffering of others, he cannot know if what seems right for him will also be right for others. Moreover, a withness knows (even if he misunderstands what he knows). How could a Spaniard fairly judge the Mexican Conquest, without first enquiring of remnant Aztecs?
- ...And through history. The world was different once. Learn what today's truth has in common with yesterday's. Hitler invoked defense of homeland. So does Lycurgus the Spartan. My President invokes it today. Which of those two predecessors, if either, does he more faithfully resemble?
- ...And through service. He who helps no, cares not. He who cares not, possesses no right to guide other lives.
- ...And through the commission of error, and through patient revision. "No organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration."
- ...And by eliminating the redundant terms and categories which make it difficult to distinguish a locally valid axiom from a universal one--or from a tautology. "A war of the Soviet Union against an imperialist aggressor would be a just war" really means "a war against an aggressor would be a just war."
Experience alone, and theoretical grounding alone, falter. Context must inform the act that we judge, but it cannot predetermine the judgment. |
|
|
First
Previous
2-7 of 7
Next
Last
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to Discussions