Can violence be morally justified?

Can violence be morally justified?

If you excuse an act of violence by claiming that you are in a battle and hence fighting back, the explanation is flawed since you do not have the right to consider yourself in a fight. Fighting back is justified in relation to the practice of fighting, but it is only totally justified if that practice is prohibited.

Is violence ever justified?

In terms of self-defense The most convincing justification for violence is when it is carried out in exchange for other forms of violence. If someone strikes you in the face and continues to do so, it may feel acceptable to try to retaliate to the physical aggression. However, if your attacker could just as easily have been beaten up by someone else, then there would be no point in engaging in violence yourself.

The only time I can think of when violence is justifiable is when you are trying to stop something worse. For example, if a dictator were about to kill thousands of people, then killing him would be justifiable.

But otherwise, violence is never justified.

What action may be justified by violence?

Just War and Violence A state may be justified in retaliating violently in response to a violent attack, whether physical, psychological, or verbal violence is involved. Similarly, others argue that responding to legal or institutional abuse with physical violence is appropriate. These arguments are usually called "justification by reaction." The key factor in determining whether such violence is just is how much worse the situation of the victim could have been if not for the retaliation.

The concept of justification by reaction was popularized by the English philosopher John Stuart Mill. In his book On Liberty, he argues that a government should protect its citizens' rights to life, liberty, and property. However, it sometimes becomes necessary for the government to interfere with these rights; for example, to prevent serious injury or death. According to Mill, when this happens the only acceptable response is retaliation against the aggressor. He calls this kind of action "reprisal," and it can be either open or secret. Open reprisals are those in which the harmed party announces its intention to harm the perpetrator back. Secret reprisals are those in which the harmed party takes action against the perpetrator behind the perpetrator's back.

Many modern philosophers agree with Mill that retaliation is always acceptable under certain circumstances, but they do not believe that it can ever justify the initiation of force.

Who is responsible for the use of violence?

Individuals choose to use violence on purpose. An abuser decides to use coercion or violence to achieve their goals and maintain control over others. The abuser is always responsible for the violence.

Sometimes individuals fight wars, but not all people who fight are responsible for the use of violence. For example, when an army fights against another army, neither group is responsible for fighting. They are both responsible for using violence.

Finally, groups of people can be responsible for the use of violence. A government is a good example of this type of responsibility because it often uses its power to force other people to do things or not do things. Governments can also use violence to protect themselves from other groups or individuals who might try to harm them.

Criminals are another example of a group that is responsible for the use of violence. When criminals commit acts of violence they are choosing to use intimidation and pain to get what they want. However, criminals would not be able to function if everyone stopped cooperating with them so they must be willing to put down their guns after being punished by police officers or other security guards.

In conclusion, individuals, governments, and criminals can all be responsible for the use of violence.

What is the purpose of violence?

To put a stop to pain, or a combination of the aforementioned. Violence makes emotional sense to the offender at the time because it seems "right." It also has a "free" feeling since societal restrictions are removed. And it feels good to give in to furious emotions; rage is the most popular rationale for violence.

The first thing you need to understand about the purpose of violence is that every violent act contains within it the potential to become a deadly force. If you attack someone with malice intent, then there is a chance you could kill them. This means that every time you use force against another person you are putting yourself in danger.

The second thing you need to understand about the purpose of violence is that no one commits violence without intending to cause some kind of harm to another person. Whether they mean to hurt others emotionally, physically, or both, offenders believe that violence is an effective way to obtain their desired results.

It is important to realize that not all offenders who use violence as a means to an end will continue to do so. Some may even decide that violence is not an acceptable solution to problems because it causes more damage than what is needed to solve them. However, for those who continue to abuse others by using force, it is likely due to a lack of better options.

Finally, understand that violence is never the answer, but it can be necessary under certain circumstances.

What is the violent resistance?

Violent resistance is defined as physical violence used by one partner in reaction to intimate terrorism, which is a type of physical violence employed as part of a broader web of control and power that typically includes economic control, isolation, intimidation, and psychological abuse.

It can be either open or hidden. Open acts are those that are readily observed by others, such as physical attacks or weapon possession. Hidden acts are those that only the victim knows about, such as being controlled with a leash or ringtone. Open acts serve to expose the controlling partner's behavior to others, while hidden acts serve to punish the victim for asking for help.

Open acts of violent resistance include physical attacks, threatening gestures, and attempts to escape. These acts may be visible to others if there is no intent to hide them (e.g., if an individual walks into a bar with a gun on his or her back). Hidden acts of violent resistance include using skills or abilities learned from others (such as self-defense classes) and using tools that the abuser provides (such as lockpicks), as well as attempting to contact authorities without success. Acts of violent resistance can also be passive, where the victim does not physically attack or threaten the abuser but still receives punishment for asking for help. Examples include leaving a relationship or being sent home from work/school early.

Both open and hidden acts are forms of resistance to intimate terrorism.

Is violence ever ethical?

There are three prominent views on the morality of violence: (1) the pacifist position, which holds that violence is always immoral and should never be used; (2) the utilitarian position, which holds that violence can be used if it results in a net "good" for society; and (3) a hybrid of these two positions, which both look at...

The first thing to say about violence is that it is a difficult topic upon which to have an unambiguous opinion. There are many different ways of looking at things and many different situations in which we might need to act violently. As long as we are discussing physical violence, then the answer to the question "is violence ever ethical?" is clearly "yes", since there are many times when we need to defend ourselves or others.

However, we should also understand that there are other forms of violence beyond physical force. For example, violence can also include using words or actions to hurt someone's feelings, such as bullying. These types of behaviors can be just as effective as physically attacking someone and they have the advantage over physical force of being able to hurt more people more often. In addition, there are certain contexts in which even physical force may not be appropriate. For example, if you are not acting in self-defense or in the defense of another person, then you should avoid using violence unless the situation requires it.

Finally, it is important to note that violence is only unethical if one believes that some form of force is always wrong.

About Article Author

Oliver Hafner

Oliver Hafner is a security expert who has worked in the industry for over 15 years. He has been Chief Executive Officer of Security Incorporated since July, 2010. Oliver’s areas of expertise include cyber-security and network infrastructure, compliance with regulatory requirements, business intelligence, data analytics and enterprise reporting. His company offers 24/7 monitoring for vulnerabilities in both physical assets and information systems.


Related posts