When is Violence Morally Justified?

[BrentWil]

When is violence morally justified? I am asking when it is justified for a person (i.e. you) or a group (i.e. a State).

Also, what are the implications of your judgement? What wars were justified? What acts individual acts of violence are justified?

[yellerpup]

1. Violence is morally justified

when a person is defending him/herself.

[BrentWil]

3. How is that judged?

Bush would argue that is why we went to war in Iraq

[Major Nikon]

6. Bush also said god told him to do it

Which is really the best reason he could come up with.

[SomethingFishy]

8. Yeah but he would be lying...

That was never an issue. They knew it, I knew it, the UN knew it, Iraq knew it...

[yellerpup]

9. When someone is attacking you

with violence and the only way to defend yourself is to counter with violence, then use whatever force necessary to defend your life.

The USA was never attacked by Iraq and Bush (of course) lied that we were in imminent danger of being attacked with nuclear weapons. IMO, he does not now nor did he ever have justification to make war in Iraq. How he would argue--I doubt if he could put two thoughts together, much less a coherent argument. He's a war criminal and should be prosecuted. Let him argue his case in court.

[BrentWil]

24. Is imminent danger never a justification for violence?

Lets take this out of state politics for a second. Lets say you are African American in 1920s Georgia. You know beyond any doubt that the KKK is getting ready to strike your family. Is acting with violence unjustified?

[yellerpup]

37. You mean, like call the KKK out for a showdown?

If I am an AA in 1920s GA and KKK is coming for me I would get the hell out of there. Even if you win by fighting fire with fire, you still lose. You couldn't count on help from law enforcement because they wouldn't come stand between you and the Klan. If you managed to do unto your attackers what they intended to do to you, you'd be tried before an all white jury and be either convicted or executed (depending on how prominent the KKKer you offed was) and if not executed the rest of your life would be devoted to performing work as a prison slave.

We have brains to think, and mouths to make peace. We do have ways and means to fight but violence should be a last resort, and only in defense of your life or the life of another.

[BrentWil]

45. Certainly, I would get out of town also..

However, I could see some situation where violence on behalf of the oppressed would benefit them, even if it hurt the individual.

[Hosnon]

40. No, it is.

I don't have to wait for the man in a ski mask with a baseball bat to actually start beating me to defend myself.

The further away from an actual act by your would-be attacker, the less justified (such as attacking the man in a ski mask with a baseball bat as he walks by me on the street).

The doctrine has an analogue at the state level, with attacking an amassing army right over the border as clearly justified.

[BrentWil]

46. If attacking an army across your boarder is justified...

Why is it not justified to attack a country based on intelligence and WMD?

[Hosnon]

75. It might be - but it gets harder and harder to justify.

No rational person would look at a hostile army amassing just over the border and conclude that an attack wasn't imminent.

[BrentWil]

78. Armies do train. We mass all the time on the North Korean border and they do the same to us. NT

[Hosnon]

83. The DMZ is a unique situation in that it is expected to have two armies heavily entrenched along it.

I.e., neither side actually expects an imminent attack.

And kindly cite one instance of the N. Korean army amassing on our border with either Canada or Mexico.

[spanone]

64. we were not threatened by iraq. we were not defending ourselves against iraq.

[sabrina 1]

86. Bush was lying.

[Progression]

34. This is along my sentiment

Self defense was my first thought on this topic.

[yellerpup]

38. Self defense is always justifiable

in the personal sense. Going to war is about money and business or sometimes revenge only benefits the 1%. The cost isn't worth it for anyone else, IMO.

[BrentWil]

47. What about Poland in WWII? NT

[libtodeath]

2. In defense

of their own or anothers life.

[surfdog]

11. Well then....

Every year tens of thousands of people die because they don't have health insurance should we then kill the politicians who are keeping them from getting health insurance, should we kill the politicians that want to repeal the new healthcare bill ?

[libtodeath]

13. If you are being serious

it is a ridiculous analogy.

[surfdog]

15. Why ?

[libtodeath]

18. For the same reason

as saying that makers of beer are killers because some abuse it.
There is no legal reasoning for what you say.
Now does that mean folks who dont believe in universal healthcare are not selfish and evil,no but to take it the way you want is just a strawman for reasons I guess you only know.

[surfdog]

69. In that case

Was the Civil War justified ?

[BrentWil]

25. Who decides that? NT

[geckosfeet]

4. Hmm. I think it may be intellectually justified when

it is clear that your life, health and well being being threatened. And frankly that is enough for me.

In the case of war - if national security is threatened or attacked.

I will leave the moral arguments for the religious and philosophical.

[Marrah_G]

5. Defense of self and property

[Vincardog]

10. Is it moral to take a life in defense of all property? Shoot someone for stealing bread?

[Aerows]

12. If someone is burning down your home

I think that defending your property is justified. Stealing bread? No. But if it will deeply affect your livelihood and possibly your life, then yes. Of course, there are no absolutes here, and it depends on the circumstance.

[RebelOne]

21. And if someone is threatening your life or violence against you or your family. n/t

[Aerows]

62. To me, that goes without saying

Threaten me or my loved ones with violence, and expect me to respond much less than peacefully.

[BrentWil]

26. Some would argue that having property is an act of stealing. NT

[Fortran]

43. Indeed, and some would argue that abortion is murder.

In this wide world, one can probably find someone willing to argue just about anything in pursuit of an agenda...or a delusion.

[Aerows]

63. +1

[Marrah_G]

22. It of course depends on each situation

I would also point out the question was about violence, not limited to just killing.

[TheKentuckian]

42. If it means starvation for you.

[Taverner]

7. Violence against property is often morally justified

Violence against people is rarely morally justified

[Great Caesars Ghost]

20. There are moments where violence against property is not enough.

I believe, in my opinion, it depends either violence is justifiable or not. Morality is not the issue with me on this.

[BrentWil]

27. One will lead to the other. Do you have a right to use violence for someone defending their land?

[Taverner]

31. Anyone who kills another over property has committed cold blooded murder IMO

[Fortran]

67. Including a cop who shoots a bank robber that has not actually harmed anyone?

Murder is a finely-crafted legal term with specific definition...not dependent on opinion.

[Taverner]

68. Well I would say so, but unfortunately our courts wouldn't

[Fortran]

76. I do not consider it unfortunate. I have no problem with using as much force as necessary to

apprehend/detain/incarcerate thieves.

[Taverner]

77. So a man steals and runs - that makes him worthy of death?

[Fortran]

81. It depends. I can't speak to every situation, I leave it to rightwingers to assign absolutes to

everything. I probably would not kill a thief who stole my old pickup truck and was
driving away with it but I would gladly put a bullet in the head of someone who broke into my home and took my belongings. I'm pretty much fed up with apologists for thugs and criminals.

[BrentWil]

82. In the home, it is a legitimate threat to your life NT

[Fortran]

85. Yes, of course. nt

...

[white_wolf]

84. In this case the cop has gone too far.

I have no use for those who murder in the defense of property, especially given the fact that most crime is caused by the inequality in our society. I find it very ironic given your bank example, since there are no bigger thieves than banks.

[MicaelS]

72. In certain circumstances I do value property over life.

An independent skilled tradesman, such as a plumber, electrician, carpenter, HVAC repairman, has a work truck with all his tools, which could cost as much as $100,000. He has no fixed worksite, goes from job to job, working from his truck. This truck is his sole means of supporting his family, keeping a roof over their head, clothes on their back, and food on the table.
If this truck is stolen, he can’t work. His family could go hungry, and could even become homeless.

Is it ethical and moral for someone who works hard, pays their taxes, and doesn’t commit crime to become homeless to save the life of a thief?

I say absolutely, unequivocally NO!

[Great Caesars Ghost]

73. What of the american revolution?

Wasn't that fought over land?

[Robb]

14. It's not.

Violence is inherently a selfish act.

It can of course be rationalized. But not morally justified.

[surfdog]

17. Says the guy...

Living in and enjoying a nation that was born of violence

Talk about hypocrisy

[Robb]

19. You'll find hypocrites are typically less cynical.

That I have successfully rationalized violence that benefits me does not suggest I have ever seen a successful moral justification of it.

[renie408]

70. Wait..so if we live in any country with a history of violence and we don't believe in

violence, we are hypocrites?

Does that even make sense?

[Johnny Rico]

23. Since morality is an invented concept without an objective definition...

Violence can certainly be morally justified. It simply depends on what set of morals someone is using at any given time.

[BrentWil]

29. Social Constructionism ...

Does make very important claims, and I agree that it helps one questions to preconceived social norms. However, if one strips down human behavior to some basic assumptions (Human's don't like to die violently, Human's like to eat), one can ask which moral code allows these basic conditions to be meant.

[Johnny Rico]

32. I would say that in practice, no moral code allows these basic conditions to be met.

Now granted, if everyone followed what I will call for purposes of this argument a "conventional" moral code (i.e., don't kill people, don't let people starve) then no one would be murdered or die of starvation (short of natural disaster).

However, everyone is not going to follow such a code.

Ever.

Given that, if one doesn't want to die violently, one must occasionally ensure that the other fellow (the one trying to kill you) does.

[BrentWil]

33. Moral codes do allow for a majority of people to have their basic needs provided for..

Without one, there is some condition of chaos and very short lifespans. The question is, which moral code best meets the modern world, in my estimation.

One does have to see morality as a product of the times.

[Johnny Rico]

35. I agree, it's a societal consensus.

Of course, it varies considerably from society to society...and, as you point out, based on the period in which one finds one's self.

Morality in 21st Century America is a rather different thing than (for instance) the Roman Empire ca. 100 BCE.

[BrentWil]

44. Absolutely...

However, the morality of the Roman empire created a system that involved a lot of death and starvation of others. As a whole, the system wasn't that good, at least judged on those terms.

[Johnny Rico]

50. Realistically speaking, was there anything better around at the time?

We tend to romanticize the past, in which life was ugly, brutal and short. I read a lot of science fiction, and I really enjoy finding a good time travel novel in which the past isn't something out of an MGM musical. Harry Turtledove has written a few good books in this vein, as has Linda Evans.

[BrentWil]

56. China, perhaps

China during the Han dynasty might have been better for all involved..

[Johnny Rico]

60. Something to be said for that.

While any society that old is going to seem "backward" to modern eyes, China (in general) was considerably more advanced than the West for centuries. Then The Renaissance and The Age of Enlightenment came around, and that was that. So much for China.

(looking East) Waitaminute...

[BrentWil]

28. So it is not moral to save your family, for example? NT

[Hosnon]

41. Defending innocent life from irrational violence is undoubtedly justified.

Example: An alcohol and steroid induced rage by a 250 pound man against a 5 year old girl.

If violence is the only way to stop him, failing to use it to do so is morally reprehensible.

[BrentWil]

48. Depends on the social system doesn't...

Under Roman morality, if the 5 year old is his, he has the right to kill her.

[demmiblue]

16. When is shit-stirring morally justified?

This thread is not about violence, it was started because of another thread that was self-deleted.

Done. Sheesh!

[BrentWil]

30. What thread was self-deleted in GD? How the fuck is this "shit-stirring"

[MrSlayer]

36. In self defense certainly.

In the defense of others as well. My personal morality says I can kick your ass for lesser offenses as well. Morality is subjective.

[guitar man]

39. In defense of course

If someone is out to harm me and/or my family, I'm going to attempt to stop them by any means necessary. I don't own any property I think is worth harming someone over, those are just things, they can be replaced.

However, I will not flee from my home if I have the means to stop the attack.

[BrentWil]

49. Who is to judge if they are out to harm you? NT

[guitar man]

51. Only me

If they're running away I'm not going to shoot them in the back, no matter what they are carrying. If they're coming toward me, I'm going to assume they intend harm and act accordingly.

[flvegan]

52. Violence, when morally justified is no longer violence. n/t

[Major Hogwash]

53. They'll never get it, believe me.

Most of these people would rather lay down in the middle of the street and let a GOP steam roller run over them rather than do anything not considered "passive".

[BrentWil]

54. Actually, it is...

Violence:
1. Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
2. Strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive natural force

[flvegan]

55. a/k/a "HI! I know how to find Wikipedia, but am clueless as to what it means."

Thanks, chilly.

[BrentWil]

57. Violence doesn't stop being violence if it is used in a just means...

A hero stops a murder by killing them. Even if justified the killing is still violence. The word implies an act, not the moral underpinnings of that act.

[flvegan]

58. A hero stops a murder by killing "them" or whatever.

That's a liberation. Your legal allegations aside, considering.

[BrentWil]

59. It is still an act of violence, whatever other word you wish to use. NT

[flvegan]

61. No it isn't. n/t

[RZM]

66. That's utterly ridiculous

And slightly troubling. Violence should always be appreciated for what it is. Even when it's justified its the last resort and needs to be appreciated as such.

[slackmaster]

65. In defense of one's self, or of others.

That applies to wars as well as individual self-defense.

[renie408]

71. There are so many moving parts to this question, it is hard to answer.

First, you have to decide what 'morality' is. Then you have to find a moral code to adhere to. Then you have to define violence. THEN you can start to think about answering the question.

For me, morality is based loosely on 'do no harm'. That could be extended to 'prevent harm from being done', I guess. I think I would be morally justified in using violence, if it were the only means sufficient, to insure the safety of...anyone. If someone were determined to physically harm someone and I was there and the only way to stop that was to smack the offender in the head with Louisville Slugger, then I hope I would have the courage to do what I felt was right.

[BrentWil]

79. The other questions were follow on questions to make one think about their consequences NT

[lumberjack_jeff]

74. You're asking me, right? Then the answer is "when I think so".

The only immoral violence is the kind that other people do.

[Fla_Democrat]

80. Every time I've used it. eom