The Ethics of Violence

[Dan.Linehan]

A conversation came up today that re-ignited a long standing ethical question I have: What are the ethics of violence?

Is self-defense Ok?
What about violence that is in defense of another person?
How can one ethically defend against hateful speech or fear mongering?
How can one ethically defend against an immoral majority?

Usually I like to apply Kant's categorical imperative to things like this, which, I'll try to reason through a bit later, but I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks about the questions posed above.

[AnonymousOne]

Self defense to protect your own safety or that of someone else is fine, of course, and I think most of us can agree on that.

It happens to be my personal belief that if you do violence upon someone who isn't necessarily threatening you but really deserves it you're adding value to the world by teaching some d*ckhead to be more polite.

[Jennihul]

In my world, the best ethics with regard to violence is to help create a world where it becomes useless and is abandoned.

However, in the meantime, I will defend my physical body against attack to the best of my ability.

I would not hesitate to attempt to disarm someone who is hurting another. I guess it would depend on the circumstances but one does not necessarily have to commit violence to help another defend themselves. Or it such violence was unavoidable, it could be mitigated. Like aim for the knee instead of between their eyes.

The hateful speech or fear mongering question is interesting as I never thought of those as deserving of a violent response. Perhaps I misread the question. Hateful speech is only a weapon if you assign that power to it yourself. Fear mongering is only a weapon if you allow yourself to feel fear.

The immoral majority, I imagine, would be something like the Nazis in their prime. As a person, an individual, I would not be intimidated by their rhetoric nor buy into it, nor agree to participate. However, defense of human rights on a large scale is worthy of limited uses of violence.

Jennifer

[Jennihul]

Originally Posted by AnonymousOne

It happens to be my personal belief that if you do violence upon someone who isn't necessarily threatening you but really deserves it you're adding value to the world by teaching some d*ckhead to be more polite.

Nice philosophy.

Jennifer

[AnonymousOne]

Originally Posted by Jennihul

Nice philosophy.

Jennifer

Thanks, I had a feeling it would be well received here.

[Dan.Linehan]

To clarify question three, "How can one ethically defend against hateful speech or fear mongering," I'd submit Michelle Malkin as an example.

To see the type of hate speech I'm referring to, see this video at 34 minutes to see her (among others) in action.

How would one ethically counter an attack like that? A person who would call you a "terrorist dictator lover" for being peaceful?

[Nelson]

Where do your ethics come from?

I would say that self defense is okay, defense of another person is okay and that to counter hate-mongering you counterattack with lawyers and facts.

It requires quite a bit of irrational beliefs to call self-defense unethical.

[Plato]

Kant's categorical imperative? I'd be interested to hear your application of this. Not to put you on the back foot but I've never found a valid example where the categorical imperative actually works. In theory I love it but it seems you just end up justifying what you already think is the right thing to do... Kant himself ended up using it to justify his Christian value system. One of his main examples is that lying is categorically wrong. He actually says that you should tell a psychopathic murderer where they can find a person they want to kill rather than lie to them. Kant is considered by many to be just another part of the failure of the enlightenment project to find an objective morality without the teleological framework that had been thrown aside by the reformation.

As with all ethical debates of modern times these end in trying to decide which values matter most to us...Just like with abortion, euthanasia and just war arguments this results in an assertion of wills because the premises for either side are incommensurable. Given this inability to objectively say one thing is right and wrong no wonder debates have a tendency to get so shrill at times. :/

Dan, it sounds to me like you're veering on the side of assuming that there are ethically justifiable reasons for treating other people well (beyond natural compassion). I say, that without a teleological framework, there can be no ethical justification. We need to know who we are and what our purpose is in life and then we can start thinking about what is the best action in light of that. To put this in more practical terms, I mean to say we need to stop defining people as individuals but instead in terms of their function, as was the custom in ancient Greece. More specifically their functions within society- family member, team member, member of community, member of country and their job.. Within this context it is reasonable to label something or someone as good or bad because it refers to how well they perform these tasks.

In such a society the answers to these questions would be more clear:

Should you defend yourself? Yes, if you are injured or dead you cannot fulfill your taks and clearly somebody who attacks you is not fulfilling their task which adds justification to the need to stop them.

How can one ethically defend against fear mongering and hateful speech? Remove them in whatever way is neccessary, though I'm not really sure what fear mongering entails? How do you decide if somebody is "fear mongering" or telling the truth? Again, if it is not their place in society to make such decisions they will be silenced.

How can one ethically defend against an immoral majority? There is no immoral majority (in the sense you mean it). Moral good and bad is in terms of whether people are fulfilling their duty.

Of course the societies which operated in such a way came into being through seizing power. The government of ancient Greece was not democratic.

[Jennihul]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

To clarify question three, "How can one ethically defend against hateful speech or fear mongering," I'd submit Michelle Malkin as an example.

To see the type of hate speech I'm referring to, see this video at 34 minutes to see her (among others) in action.

How would one ethically counter an attack like that? A person who would call you a "terrorist dictator lover" for being peaceful?

The only way that is right: send her love vibes and hope for the best.

Jennifer

[evrgrn3]

I think it is not so much the context of the violence, it is the thinking and moral development behind the violence that really defines it.

If you go back to Kohlberg, or Gillagan or even social development theorists, there is a pervasive theme around how a person perceives themselves in relation to others. I think violence thought of in this light changes the game a bit.

For example (Thank you Mr. Kohlberg):

1. Obedience and punishment orientation (How can I avoid punishment?)

Violence in this situation is self serving and selfish.

2. Self-interest orientation (What's in it for me?)

Again, Violence to gain personally is very self focused.

3. Interpersonal accord and conformity (The good boy/good girl attitude)
This violence is like beating up the guy who beat up your friend and is more about loyalty.

4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation (Law and order morality)
I think this is the kind of violence you find from military and police -- this is violence out of duty.

5. Social contract orientation
This strikes me as survival violence. Someone is threatening the well being of a friend or family member. Or someone is being attacked unfairly and another person comes to their rescue -- this is like violence out of compassion - if you can buy that.

6. Universal ethical principles
If a person is truly operating under universal principles, there is no need for violence

Leo

[Brutha]

To clarify question three, "How can one ethically defend against hateful speech or fear mongering," I'd submit Michelle Malkin as an example.

To see the type of hate speech I'm referring to, see this video at 34 minutes to see her (among others) in action.

At first I thought you think that the video itself is fear mongering (it starts with fine military picutres create fear of the "evil").
In general you have to be receptive to fear for it to work. If you use similar tactics you are.

How would one ethically counter an attack like that? A person who would call you a "terrorist dictator lover" for being peaceful?

You don't counter attacks like that directly.
The goal is to move into a position where everyone sees that the person who attacks you is seen as unresonable.
In a direct confrontation you can also make a joke about it.
On way: I also love cats.
The other way, you are right there aren't enough terrorist out there, we don't we fund a terriorist group in North Korea?

In general violence is no effective answer to hate speech either way.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

How would one ethically counter an attack like that? A person who would call you a "terrorist dictator lover" for being peaceful?

I ask myself what would Martin Luther King do? WWMLKD ?

Really, I wouldn't feel violence necessary here. Oh, sure, there was a time I would have wanted to punch her in the face for saying something like that. But that would totally defeat the whole peace is the way philosophy I have going . I think those who continue to live out peace in the face of attacks like this are the ones who will be the greatest example to everyone else. Sensationalist Fox News type verbal pandering attacks will be shown for what they really are...we don't have to bomb the station . I mean, sometimes I want to slap Ann Coulter upside her head, but what will that really accomplish?

As for the other questions, I am okay with self defense and the defense of others. I would only use the amount of force necessary to secure myself or the person I was defending.

To the question about an "immoral majority" -- if you are talking about a regime such as the Nazi party that gets a little greyer for me. I would try to do all I could peacefully, but I bet I would take up arms in defense of my family, friends and neighbors before I would let them go into concentration camps. Although the stories of those who went willingly and through strength, patience and courage survived are very telling of what is possible. I am not sure I could do that.

[Akashic_Librarian]

To control the darkness, the violence the theft, the rape, murder and pillage in the world sometimes violence in kind is necessary.

As the great Sergei Lukyanenko says, "It is easier to destroy the light in oneself, than it is to destroy the dark in others"

So I don't know. Maybe violence HAS a place in our society. If someone punched me, I would punch them back...but how far one can take that analogy I don't know.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

If someone punched me, I would punch them back...but how far one can take that analogy I don't know.

That's not self-defense; that's retribution. Retribution begets more retribution, and so on and so on. It's not that violence or retribution is unethical; it's that it doesn't work very well in creating the kind of life for ourselves that we want to live.

I think it's an unnecessary limitation to place on ourselves to believe that violence, or even defensiveness, is the best or only way to respond to Dan's scenarios of self-preservation, preservation of another, hateful or fearful words, or an oppressive and immoral majority. I think violent reaction is group habitual thinking, and we don't have to to buy into it.

Why not free ourselves and use our brains to generate something that works better?

[AnonymousOne]

Originally Posted by Angela

That's not self-defense; that's retribution. Retribution begets more retribution, and so on and so on.

Retribution is a form of self-defense. If someone punches you and you do nothing, you're showing everyone around you that you're an easy target. If you fight back, I think you're less likely to be punched again in the future.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by AnonymousOne

Retribution is a form of self-defense. If someone punches you and you do nothing, you're showing everyone around you that you're an easy target. If you fight back, I think you're less likely to be punched again in the future.

I disagree that retribution is self-defense. That mindset is what has feuds, grudges, and wars lasting a long, long time. But I can see where you would want to establish yourself as an alpha, to avoid having the other monkeys mess with you.

[Akashic_Librarian]

I never even said punching someone back WAS self-defence. It was just an analogy, think about it, if someone hurts you emotionally, you - in your mind - mgiht resent it...in a subjective reality model, thats exactly the same thing as a fist fight.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

I never even said punching someone back WAS self-defence. It was just an analogy, think about it, if someone hurts you emotionally, you - in your mind - mgiht resent it...in a subjective reality model, thats exactly the same thing as a fist fight.

Right. In either model, it seems more effective to me if you just don't agree to be hurt in the first place. Be a person who it wouldn't occur to others to punch you, or alternatively, a person who flows with the aggression and transforms it into something that works better; be a person who says no, thanks to emotion pain (old stinky sneakers, as Rose puts it ) -- a person who realizes she has a choice. That is real power.