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?
What if… why…
If you want to keep your head in the sand fine.
There are people who are unreasonable and think violence is acceptable. You don’t reason with them.
If you are having a hard time accepting that, be more reasonable.
Sorry but now you are being unreasonable - I make a statement - Try to reason with nazi - you oppose that - now you present me with info that they were historically unreasonable - I ask there must have been a reason - you reply that i should keep my head in sand (Ostrich-ising aren’t we?)
Should we start afresh? We (I am assuming you and I are both on this one) consider Nazis bad. Historically, these were people who believed certain race (presumably theirs) is superior - and there are inferior races who have looted these supreme races - so they conquer half the europe to reach former glory. They also had very misogynistic view point, and believed females were only for breeding. People who became nazis, became nazis because they were in a financially bad situation, and in such situations, your abilities to reason are reduced, and some godly figure comes and tells them yada yada yada, they follow the figure, because the figure gave them hope.
I think If we now reason with them, they would be hesitant, since they have tasted hope, and we are not offering them any.
Now if we clearly elaborate to them the hope is just a hoax, eventually understand, if not, then it is okay for them. As long as they are no longer harming anyone (emotionally or physically). If they are harming, then saving the people from them would be moral, which may include violence, which would give them further scars, and reasons to believe that these groups are not good.
I dont even know why I am trying to reason with you, is it because I believe back and forth brings people on same page, maybe. Maybe it is because (presumably), you have been just downvoting me for no reason other than disagreeing. If so, atleast try to reason and maybe bring me to your viewpoint. I am not saying you are bad, but try to reason
You don’t reason with someone who wants you dead for being who you are.
As a person who has lost folks in communal violence - yes you do. You dont want more violence. Many of my folks died, or changed religions, but eventually everyone was just tired of riots, and stopped. That is reasoning - your resources are dwindling and you can not out last - try to reason out.
Also since I am not out for your life - try to reason with me - instead of throwing big statements - which you and i both know i would not stop you from defending yourself. try to reason. If you will, please read the edits and replies I give to others (more opportunities for you to downvote me) maybe you find flaws in my arguments - present them - and on there basis - reason with me
edit - spelling
I have read quite a few of them and it sounds like you are determined to believe that we can solve everything without violence. Which is naive. There are times where you don’t try and reason.
It just isn’t the fix all you want it to be. And my statements are from people who have seen more blood than either of us combined.
I live in a country where 10s of millions died, due to partition. So i have seen blood. And what were believes of the people who saw it first hand - just stop where we are and restart building from here. The thing is, we believe violence can solve everything, it is the last weapon of game, that when we pick, we end story there, but that is not always the case, believing that violence is last resort - is also very naive according to me - From a fellow naive. Consider this a goodbye from me for today, hope to meet you in some other post (or irl) someday.