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?
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
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.