When is violence acceptable?

[Vein]

When in our society is violence an acceptable action, if ever?

[RoundElephant]

When the positive results out way the possible consequences.

[Mr.A]

I would say, only when combating evil.

EDIT: Sorry Odin, I will add to this a little later to fix it.

I've been trying of thinking to add more to this.

About subjectivity, we all are subjective and cannot help it if we are right? We all hear things and before we hear them what we hear is run through a sort of "filter" before we first understand it. We evaluate everything that we experience with subjectivity. With perspective, don't we? How can anything not be subjective?

With that, I still say violence is acceptable only when combating evil. When faced with evil, and evil will allow you no other option out of the situation. This is all based on the perspective that we are using the word violence synonymously with the word confrontation, physical confrontation. IMO, big time, this is an interesting topic.

[odin_dax]

1. Soldiers in battle.

2. When your life is in danger.

3. When someone else's life is in danger.

4. When it'll prevent other serious crimes, like rape, assault, car theft.

5. When it's faked, for acting.


Other than that, I'd be cautious to write blank checks as the previous posters have (first is relative, second is subjective). :sad6:

[MrMinister]

1. Soldiers in battle.

2. When your life is in danger.

3. When someone else's life is in danger.

4. When it'll prevent other serious crimes, like rape, assault, car theft.

5. When it's faked, for acting.


Other than that, I'd be cautious to write blank checks as the previous posters have (first is relative, second is subjective). :sad6:

Don't be too sorry, 2/5 of your answers above are subjective. Well 3/5 if someone wants to split hairs about what battle is, but that is relative :)

[Vein]

exactly. this can't be subjective for sake of communication and practicality.

I think its acceptable only for consensual recreation and defense from the aggressor, and even then there are often non-violent ways to defend.

[.VX]

When all else has failed.

[onemillionfriends]

When they're drunk or disorderly and I'm in a bad mood.

But really, to protect property, people or human rights. Which is all it is ever used for come to think of it....just viewed from different perspectives.

It is acceptable whenever you can convince yourself that you're doing one of those three things.

[Th0r]

But really, to protect property, people or human rights. Which is all it is ever used for come to think of it....just viewed from different perspectives.



A guy mugs an elderly woman using a knife. Violence has been applied. Whatever way you look at it that does not fall into any of your categories.

[onemillionfriends]

But what about how the mugger looks at it? Chances are he's not doing it for fun. It would fit a category for the mugger. Self-preservation in a roundabout way.

The OP question; when is violence an acceptable action. I'm assuming we are taking the view of the one causing the violence. Violence is always acceptable to the one causing it at that point in time.

And violent crimes of passion etc there are studies that will show decisions can become conscious AFTER the mind has made them. Something to consider.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080414145705.htm

EDIT: Hmm oops, I was too busy putting mugging a lady into a category I missed the point. Society views violence as acceptable when someone is protecting people, property or human rights. I was just saying that the mugger, as a member of society, would believe that he was protecting himself. He has to justify it to himself to do it. Majority of people however, would not find it acceptable.

[Vein]

i mean, when should the masses, as a society tolerate violence.

[Mr.A]

i mean, when should the masses, as a society tolerate violence.

Sounds to me like a different thread, but I'll bite.

The society in which one lives should only tolerate violence to where violence has met the end of its means. To where violence within the particual socities rules and regulations on such does not seem to be working anymore. Where to go from there is an entirely different question though...

[StealthSeeds]

Interesting question..I think its the persons morals, mental status, etc...although I think violence is acceptable at anytime afterall is there rules in life? :beerchug:

[thief]

When the outcome justifies the means. The the question comes... whats the outcome and means? But thats like asking..."how long is a piece of string?" It all depends. It depends on if the oucome will benefit in some way. i.e - escaping your own imminent death so that only way to survive would be to comit violent acts against your foe or do the same for a loved one or family member.

[death11284]

Don't be too sorry, 2/5 of your answers above are subjective. Well 3/5 if someone wants to split hairs about what battle is, but that is relative :)

Well what's the inherent bad in subjectivity? All systems of ethic are simply subjective social constructs, such as morality and justice. Violence is simply a means with which to impose your system of ethics.

One argument that has been brought up is that the systems of ethics themselves derive from violence. At that point the argument can be made that any evaluation made using a system of ethics is inherently flawed.

Absent of the systems themselves being flawed, certain ways assumed to be the best to meet justice can be flawed. Consequentialism is the idea of evaluation based upon the ends an action produces. This can directly conflict with the systems of ethics it's designed to be a criterion to meet...for example it justifies things such as Hitler creating a master race, insofar as it creates the end of a more superior race and greater happiness. Further things like killing random people for their organs can be justified, as this will save more people, etc.

It's a very complicated question when violence should be "accepted." In my perspective I believe it should be accepted in the simple context of prudcing an overall good. At certain points this can contradict itself but oh well.