On Violence

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It has been said that violence is the supreme authority from which all other authorities derive. Based on the historical record, I find it hard to disagree.

Boru

[Ivan Denisovich]

I don't see point two sorry, is there any indication humans are moving away from violence as a means to achieve what they want? If so I must have missed this, just watch the news for a few days. 

Yes, the data has been argued to show that human history has had two major trends: First, that the further back you go humanity becomes increasingly and unrecognizable violent, second, that the further up you go humanity becomes increasingly more progressive. And so, a good example of the two would be to contrast the Dark Ages with the Enlightened.

Humanity sure was really progressive in XX century. Let's just check:

- Herero and Nama genocide
- Armenian genocide
- Holodomor
- Shoah
- Great Leap Forward
- Cambodian genocide
- Rwanda genocide
- Bosnian genocide

One or two could be argued as statistical outlier. Several however... What changes is that violence became industrialized and increasingly under control of states rather than some tiny princedoms, city states or tribal chiefs.

[Sheldon]

Hello, I hope everyone is doing well—it's been a while. Here are a few disorganized thoughts I've had this week, based on current healthcare events:

1. Violence is an impoverished conception of power. That's because true power can only come from social consent, and to achieve consent you must communicate, negotiate, and persuade others—not coerce them. Violence is thus the absence of strategy; and without strategy you will always have the illusion of change but never the certainty of progress.

2. As such, violence and progress do not, and cannot, coexist. They are inverse measures of each other, such that you can predict the state of one by observing the state of the other. Nor can progress rationally precipitate from violence, because you cannot lend yourself to wrong you condemn and hope to move beyond the place where you started.

3. Finally, my conclusion is that no matter how justified violence may be in a given situation, IF a nonviolent alterative exists the nonviolent one will always outperform the violent one.

Hey, it's been a while! I hope life is treating you well.

In one of Zizek's books he talks about violence that's "below the line" and violence that's "above the line." 

"Above the line" just means that it makes the news, or people are aware of it and shake their heads about how it's something bad. "Below the line" is more like structural violence -- the stuff that our society needs to keep running, so we all just sort of ignore it. If we're aware of it at all. 

The below the line stuff might vary somewhat according to how we define violence. For example, the fact that to have our battery-powered devices there have to be lots and lots of people working in slave-like conditions in Africa seems like structural violence to me. The fact that the people of Iraq can never benefit from their country's natural resources because the US still steals all the profits. Not to mention for-profit jails where investors make more money if more people are incarcerated. 

And I'm not vegan or anything, but violence against animals is still violence. 

So your statement "violence and progress do not, and cannot, coexist" will seem silly to people who have no trouble ignoring or justifying the below-the-line violence. But for people who are aware of it and hate it, it means that what we see as progress is in fact not. Progress gained through oppression is not progressing anywhere, except toward greater inequality and injustice. 

A society that needs such structural violence to maintain the comfort of the more fortunate will seem like an advanced society to those who are comfortable. But seen from an objective distance, it is not a successful culture. 

The very least we could do is to be conscious of the structural violence and work towards its alleviation. But we just had a big-time political campaign, and neither side thought it worthwhile to bring up the problem. Though if one side had, I might have actually been moved to vote for somebody.

Sorry, but if you're not prepared to learn anything, then I'm not prepared to waste my time, and indulge you.

[Sheldon]

Violence is an impoverished conception of power.

Have you read the bible? Only your claim seems anathema to the much of the bible. You're a Christian no?

[Silver]

When condemning or condoning violence, objectively scrutinize the source rather than your own feelings.

In an ever changing world where powers that be set up barriers to essential human progress, violence is often needed.

[Disagreeable]

To me violence is morally unjustified. Even if it leads to desired outcomes.

[Silver]

When it comes to how I will behave, I'm personally still a strict pacifist.

This does not mean that I condemn the violence of others, especially if their actions are objectively justified.

[Sheldon]

I don't see point two sorry, is there any indication humans are moving away from violence as a means to achieve what they want? If so I must have missed this, just watch the news for a few days. 

Yes, the data has been argued 

Sorry, but when I queried your claim, the data,  or anything beyond your bare claim, was what I expected you to present?

to show that human history has had two major trends: First, that the further back you go humanity becomes increasingly and unrecognizable violent, second, that the further up you go humanity becomes increasingly more progressive. And so, a good example of the two would be to contrast the Dark Ages with the Enlightened.

You have showed nothing? yes violence (per capita) can be objectively demonstrated to have demised, so what? The second part appears to be a false dichotomy?

[Thumpalumpacus]

To me violence is morally unjustified. Even if it leads to desired outcomes.

Even in self-defense?

[Disagreeable]

To me violence is morally unjustified. Even if it leads to desired outcomes.

Even in self-defense?

In that case I see it as practically justified but not morally justified.

Mostly.

I do think that there are exceptions. An example would be when your defense leads to less overall suffering than your non-defense.

In general, then, I would recommend minimal force.