Old title - Tolerance - Is violence ever justified?
For reference - https://lemmings.world/post/19791264 and all comments below the post about tolerance and non-tolerance
is it too naive for me to believe any and every lives matter? I do understand if someone is coming for my life, and i stop him by retaliating back, most nation’s laws would deem me innocent, maybe even most people will - but was it right?
It has not happened with me yet, and this is post is not politics related, a general discussion about tolerance, but I dont know how will I respond to such a situation, Is there a correct approach?
I know in a imaginary utopia - we can have a society where everyone thinks any violence, or for that matter, any evil deed is evil. And I know real world is far from being a utopia, but i believe most people can differentiate between good and bad. In my opinion, most people who do such acts are not really doing it because they enjoy it, some do because they have to, some think they have to, and they have been brain washed.
I also think if we ask a binary (yes/no) question to everyone - Is violence justified" - most people will vote no. I know there would be some exceptions (even in perfect utopia’s like N. Korea, lords only get like 99% majority)(/s).
Now if we change question - “Is violence ever justified” - many will now vote yes, and start listing out situations where they think it is valid.
This question was also brought up in Avatar. For people who don’t know - should Aang (a person with firm opinions, and more importantly a child - 12(112) years old) kill Lord Ozai (for now, consider him embodiment of evil for simplicity, but still a human). Many shows get away from asking, by basically having monsters (non human) as the opponent, so it is does not feel morally wrong. But here the question was asked. His past lives (in this world reincarnation exists, and aang is the Avatar - person who can control all elements) also suggested he should kill him, and he is tethered to this world, and this is no utopia … In the show they got away with basically a divine intervention.
Maybe here is my real question - Is it correct to have your morals be flexible?
Now for my answer, I have almost never felt correct labeling people good or bad, I have almost always treated people depending on what the situation expects me to (maybe how I feel I should be treating). In some sense I have a very flexible stance, and in some others, I dont. For example - I never cheat on exams or assignments - I can’t justify cheating, If I am getting poor marks, then I should prepare well. But If someone else asks me to help them cheat (lets say give assignment solutions) - I dont refuse either, as I have understood, even though judging people by a few numbers is bad, world still does that - mostly to simplify things, and in that sense, a higher grade for anyone is better for them.
I dont even know what can be a answer. I dont know if it exists, or it can exist, I am not really trying to find it either, consider this just a rant at clouds.
edit - I am not asking a binary question - you are not expected to answer a yes or no, see the line just above this edit. It is not even really about violence - it is about morality
edit 2 - Changed title, old 1 is still here for full context. I dont know why I chose that title. I am not blaming anyone who answered on the basis of title, It was my bad to have some title, and ask a “not really orthogonal but generalised question” in the middle, hoping people answer that, some one did, I thank them. Many people have written (or in similar vein) - violence should be be avoided, but not when it the last thing. I understand this general sentiment - but according to me - having a excuse to ever do violence allows you to have loop hole, just blame the circumstances.
Someone gave a situation where they would do violence - someone trying to assault a kid - and I agree I would too (If I would be in such a situation).
I had a small back and forth with someone about morals - my stance is morals are frameworks to choose if a action is moral/immoral. And then the question is really how rigid should your moral framework be, and should it depend on background of people in consideration?
“Violence is never the answer” only because it’s historically the only thing that actually works.
It’s propaganda meant to defang the population because it is an actual threat to those in power.
Since you used media as an example, let me use another common trope to answer. Do you know when in horror or thriller movies a character momentarily gets the upper hand on the killer by knocking them unconscious and then just tries to run away without even making sure that the killer is dead or at least arming themselves? Does that EVER end well?
The reason that trope is so common is that it’s very effective at eliciting the sort of instinctive emotional response that makes us as viewers want to yell “WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING?? KILL HIM!!” at the screen.
We have that instinct for a reason.
To answer your question more directly, yes, morals ARE inherently flexible. If they weren’t, we would never learn anything or progress as a society or even as individuals. I don’t know where the idea that someone’s morals are supposed to be immutable even comes from. One of the core steps to psychological well-being is realizing that you have no direct control over your “environment”, but you absolutely have direct control over the actions you take to influence it and the way you adapt and react to it, which includes letting go of standards and expectations you’ve set for yourself if you feel that it’s necessary.
Absolutes are not applicable in reality. You’ve mentioned utopias too, and well, the fun thing about utopias is that they don’t exist. They can’t exist. It’s the literal definition of the word: “an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect.” Dystopia, on the other hand, is what happens when you try to force a utopia into existence.
Morals can’t be absolute. Tolerance can’t be absolute. Everything is flexible and eternally changing. It’s scary and it’s complex but people have to come to terms with it.
sorry, I have not seen much horror (or hardly any).
morals ARE inherently flexible. If they weren’t, we would never learn anything or progress as a society or even as individuals.
I dont think so. Why would morality inhibit progress. Stale knowledge does prevent, but morals dont really change. By morals being flexible, I mean - “Killing is very bad, except in so and so situations, you have to”.
but you absolutely have direct control over the actions you take to influence it and the way you adapt and react to it
someone else also mentioned this, but i dont agree with this either, there are situations where you are blinded, in such situations, knowledge is not free, and only a few control it, and I find them to be the wrong-doers. If someone uses gun to commit crime, then these blind people are essentially just weapons.
Morals can’t be absolute. Tolerance can’t be absolute. Everything is flexible and eternally changing. It’s scary and it’s complex but people have to come to terms with it.
I agree with the scary and complex part, but i still uncertain about morals.
I dont think so. Why would morality inhibit progress. Stale knowledge does prevent, but morals dont really change. By morals being flexible, I mean - “Killing is very bad, except in so and so situations, you have to”.
You assume that what’s considered “moral” or ethical hasn’t changed multiple times throughout history and that it isn’t subjective. Sorry to sound pedantic, but once again, it’s right in the definition of the word:
a person’s standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
And nowhere does it say that “morals” imply any degree of immutability. There are countless examples I could make. Just as a personal example, I never particularly paid mind to the suffering of animals until I adopted a pet. I never believed getting involved in political discourse was a duty until I realized how increasingly distorted it’s becoming. Many people say similar things about having children, how the experience just changes the way you see the world, your perception of what is tolerable and what is not, and ultimately your perception of “right” and “wrong”: your morals.
If we as humans didn’t believe that we can actually influence other people’s conceptions of what’s right or wrong, there would be no point to education, history, politics, philosophy, law, religion, art, literature… culture as a whole. We wouldn’t have communication or civilization.
My honest opinion is that what you’re truly asking here isn’t whether it’s okay/possible for morals to be flexible, you’re asking whether it’s okay to stray from what you’ve always perceived to be the general consensus of what is “moral” and what isn’t. And my answer is still yes.
my definition of morals (which maybe is wrong) - is according to your knowledge, what is and is not acceptable to be do. As knowledge, updates, you move a action from one bucket to another - morals to me is not a list of things to do or not to do, it is framework, a constitution you form, according to which you deem a action moral or immoral.
my question is should your constitution deem a action moral/immoral in some situations, and opposite in others, and if so, where and how can you define such limits, and is it good to define such limits
my question is should your constitution deem a action moral/immoral in some situations, and opposite in others, and if so, where and how can you define such limits, and is it good to define such limits
You are not going to find a clear definitive answer to that question, for the reasons I’ve explained. If we as a species had a single, universal, correct answer to that question, a solution that somehow fairly handles all the infinite variables of context, cause, effect and emotion, according to a supreme, universally pleasing standard of justice, we would be living in a utopia. Or in Heaven. We wouldn’t be here having this conversation, and we wouldn’t be constantly teasing ourselves with debates or thought exercises like “would you kill Hitler if you could?”
YOU need to pick that answer for yourself. You have to come up with the best solution that you feel comfortable with after taking in consideration the variables of context, cause, effect and emotion to the best of your ability and knowledge for EACH experience you have. Then you’ll have your “morals”, and those are the only ones you should follow.
And yes, like I said before, this is complex, and scary, and difficult and absolutely exhausting. Which is exactly the reason why some people turn to religion or anything that promises the illusion of a ready, stable, immutable answer in a world that is constantly changing and constantly requires them to re-evaluate everything they know.
My opinion:
I think asking “is violence justified” in a binary manner means the question can’t be answered.
Not all questions have binary answers.
Morality itslef is a quagmire of philosophy.
You can have moral killing, and immoral pacifism.
Rigid adherence to a moral code could lead to immoral acts. Too much flexibility in morals leads to amoral behaviour.
Every life is important, but not to the point where it overrides someone else’s rights.
All of this is a spectrum.
It could be naive, but that feels like a binary position on a complex matter.
I never expected a binary answer.
You can have moral killing, and immoral pacifism.
when can be killing moral - how much evil (and of what kind) do you have to do to deserve that outcome. I can somewhat understand immoral pacifism, but is it immoral to take a stand in a non violent way.
Rigid adherence to a moral code could lead to immoral acts. Too much flexibility in morals leads to amoral behaviour.
I agree with the latter, but I dont know about the former - there can be 2 situations - either your morals were not refined enough to tackle the situation - or you did not act correctly according to those morals correctly
Every life is important, but not to the point where it overrides someone else’s rights.
I get this, and can understand it very easily. Great point. But a problem is still there - who should be put in the deciding situation. As a society - In most places we have judges - who are supposedly wise - but they are just as much human, and just as corruptible. There are juries, but still a small finite number, who may all be thinking incorrectly(For example - 12 Angry Men) Can a solution exist where we dont trust any person, but a system. I dont trust a machine predicting likeliness. I can get by with a mathematical framework - but who should be the one forming it ? Constitution is one such framework - and assuming it has mechanisms to update it self - then it should be fine, but do the the people updating it not get a lot of power, who are again corruptible.
Violence shouldn’t be the first action taken, but once all other options are exhausted, violence is necessary
how do we know we have exhausted all options? could it be our ignorance just getting the better of us?
uh, history? paying attention to current events? It’s very cyclical
sorry, i am tired, but i have answered your question above. In short - we are shortsighted, and not really that smart. we always view history from tinted scoped lenses, if we find situations where violence was necessary, then we also find situations where it did not result in violence. And even if last time it required violence does not equate to violence this time to. Re-evaluate all situations, That is the least we can do, and getting violent is a very taxing activity on us. If try to reason, the time it would take for it to be just as taxing is much larger, so reasoning well is still pretty beneficial.
I will argue that if a problem was solved in the past without violence, it’s only because there was nonetheless the threat of violence. Gandhi is the classic example - he’s the one everyone remembers, but he wasn’t the only leader in the struggle for Indian independence. Those in power generally refuse to negotiate with terrorists, but given the possibility of prolonged bloody conflict, they may choose to negotiate with the nonviolent alternative.
You say that you believe most people can differentiate between good and bad, but note that people often think they are doing good while doing evil deeds. The human mind is exceptional at reasoning even against logic or facts when it is to preserve a positive self-image. You mention being brainwashed; often, people “brainwashed” themselves.
Defaulting to tolerance, goodwill, and expecting good is a good start, but tolerance must end somewhere. Excessive tolerance will inevitably lead to it being used/exploited. At various costs.
Flexible morals make sense. Different contexts require different adaptions. Considering them flexible or not may also be a matter of not including enough data points/context that sources moral conclusions.
The question is put on wrong terms. All social order is derived from violence. What make the law, the law is the menace of violence. What supports democratic institutions are the violence of police and military against who don’t abide the order. So, violence is inescapable. The righ question is not if it’s justified, but WHO and WHEN have the right to commit violence. When put under these terms, it’s much more simpler question.
sorry to be rude - but the question is not about violence. If violence is inescapable - then for whom is the violence justified - who gets to choose that. I went into more detail about this on someone else’s reply, but it is the flexibility is what i am questioning
The idea of peace has always been attacked and defended violently. Acknowledging the irony in that is clever, insisting it’s an unsolvable paradox is obtuse.
In the same way, there is no paradox of tolerance. This kind of thinking haunts the mind of the theorist, but burns off in harsh light of reality like morning fog.
Can we not achieve peace without violence? What really stops us? Is it just that people are corruptible, and they would when given chance. I dont think so, maybe my naivety, but people are not inherently evil, they are just lazy, and would do nothing in most situations, and beyond certain trigger, most people people try to seek a new lazy spot, for that most people try the laziest approach.
Those who do not want peace will need to be forcibly dealt with.
Yes. Like a straight line, truth and morality are attained through constant refinement. Like anything worthwhile.
A straight line is defined by what it is not. It’s hard to be 100% sure that any given line is the shortest distance between two points, but it’s easy to tell which between two compared lines is the more direct.
We should never hold our current path so sacred that we won’t re-evaluate. But we should always choose the best path we know, and be brave enough to stick to it until we learn better.
I don’t believe in the death penalty. But there are people I will vehemently defend, and others where I’m not going to die on that particular hill. My morals are flexible.
Violence is a last resort, but not so much so that it must never be done. There are situations with leave you no other options by design.
However that doesn’t mean I think committing violence is fine. I think Luigi did more good than harm with his action, but that doesn’t mean I think he shouldn’t bear the consequences of that decision. I salute him for trading the remainder of his own life to remove a shitty person from this earth.
But it was as much luck as anything that he did more good than harm, and like someone who drives home drunk from the bar without hurting anyone, you can applaud the result but still understand it was awfully reckless and they should suffer consequences to discourage them and others from making that same choice.
Violence causes problems that will have to be dealt with later, but sometimes its necessary to deal with problem that is too awful to let be. If you want to prevent violence you need to prevent the situation where its necessary.
imo there is a line where flexible morals is okay and where its not and its not on same place for everything. Ultimately its about will it make things better or worse for everyone.
I also dont think anyone is inherently good or evil but everyone has tendency towards something. The tendency comes from genetics, environment and random chance. Its up to them if they want to go with it or not and if they end up doing bad things and dont want to stop then they should be considered evil until they stop and repent. Though they can still pretend to repent so if threat they represent is big enough, you need to also consider what the risks are if they lie and get away.
In avatar, (major spoiler)
spoiler
aang lucked out and had the choice of having it both ways by just taking away ozais power. Without that option I think he would have had to just kill the guy or watch him destroy everything. In that situation, in my opinion, the destruction would have been partially aangs fault too since he could have stopped it. Otherwise you might as well blame anyone defending themselves from ozai for killing fire nation’s soldiers.
What makes this so difficult question is also that everyone has their own set of morals they live by. One also kind of needs to define what good and evil is, because there definitely is evil at least.
While I wont push anyone towards any religiousness, there are some good points in some holy texts. If there werent, i dont think civilization living by those religions wouldnt have lasted very long. Unfortunately they are still words written by men and thus corrupted by shitty people, like that one part in bible about “you shouldnt rape kids” that got turned into something that was interpreted as anti homosexual. Religion has always been meant to “control” or guide people, but it isnt always malicious. Though getting the “core” message from some religion still relies on persons sense of morality since you need to know what to keep and what to discard.
So maybe ultimately being good is about honestly wanting and trying to be good and being willing to adapt and change towards it. It doesnt matter if you dont definitely know what “good” is, you can “construct” it from what others think is good. Also, its critical you dont lie to yourself about anything, that is surefire way to lose your way. Educating yourself, being capable of media criticality and watching and reading many kinds of stories also helps.
Violence, in most instances, is what many might call a form of escalation.
Suppose someone got on your nerves and you kicked them down a well? Or there was a country overrun by fanatics and the president ordered a genocide? Or there are people who have succumbed to some kind of immorality and someone set out to scare them with violence? These are all examples of the kind of instance where one might say that death is “a step above” the problem at hand. Think of the Allport Scale.
If you are in a bank and a bank robber starts threatening everyone and they take a particular interest in you or someone close to you, and you disarm and maybe cause them to die, that is harder to say is escalation, since the possibility of a violent outcome was already in the picture.
If one is to accept the idea of escalation, to escalate an issue, by definition, makes you worse than your enemies. Many people around here have unfortunately compared billionaires to Nazis when a Nazi would be closer analogously to the bank robber and the billionaires, even the ones who practice what many have called extreme acts of inaction, would be more analogous to the people mentioned who have “succumbed to some kind of immorality” (and yet there are some who aren’t even immoral, so that’s not even a good analogy either).
“Subdue your enemy without fighting.” ~ Sun Tzu
I agree mostly - but not with the most part in beginning. There are a lot of situations, where 2 parties involved are of not same stature - someone among them may not be in a position to prevent escalation
Stature wouldn’t be the only factor though in forcing one’s hand. As in, when you are in a situation where escalation would be tempting, you also have to look at all options as well as the gravity of the situation. This is perhaps the biggest criticism of a lot of acts of terror, as the choice to harm is oddly specific in a world of other options. For a decade, we had the Me Too movement, and although it was kind of overblown, engaging in activity that caused celebrities to watch themselves by means of lawsuit is, in terms of escalation, much preferred over doing the same thing with violence. And those who could not sue could protest, and those who could not do that could campaign, and so on, and all of those things would be better than violence, unless violence is necessary and matches the profundity of the situation. In a world where escalation is of no concern to anyone, nuclear war would have probably already happened over something dumb like calling Kim Jong-un fat again, a fear that probably is unique in uniting the fediverse. Always weigh things like the pros and cons.
by stature, I meant in context of power sharing in the dynamics.
unless violence is necessary and matches the profundity of the situation
I also replied to someone else, but how do we know when violence is necessary? And how much?
Violence is necessary when nothing can be done that has less unnecessary ramifications. A cornered mouse fights because it has no other resort, but any other mouse would run and not fight.
Problem is, people are not good at predicting, most people cant think much in future, not really because of our limits, but the problem itself, and having moral allowance ever, allows for being corruptible, and assuming that current situation requires violence, when in actuality it did not
When a situation is clouded, do people not still know at least some of their options? I imagine the people who went through with the Me Too movement weren’t sure what kind of results or perhaps humiliation or intimidation they were going to face due to their situation, assuming their accusations towards the celebrities were true. Some, I’m sure, strongly contemplated witness protection. But the ability to sue was a given, and they used it despite how clouded the situation was, and they remained headstrong because they had their eyes on a solution, and the majority won their cases without absolute unrest. They knew what not to look forward to.
