On Violence

[TheWhiteMarten]

Deleted post for no need to derail, my apologies.

[John 6IX Breezy]

(1) It assumes that violence and power, consent and coercion are mutually exclusive. Sadly, our history demonstrates that it's possible to have both. In-group power and consent producing out-group coercion and violence is a pretty common theme in our tribalistic little species.

It's not so much that they are mutually exclusive, but rather that they are inversely proportional. And so, from a wholistic standpoint, a system with societies that favor in-group consent, but with out-group coercion, could be said to function at something like 50% efficiency. But if they improve their outgroup relations with more trade, etc., the numbers might improve to 70% let's say.

As for my claim that they cannot coexist, I pictured something more restrictive like the oddity of a group having internal violence towards the same thing that it doesn't. You cannot be both discriminatory towards Black people and claim to offer equal opportunities to them. But I agree, across groups and variables both things can exist.

[Paleophyte]

Would it be morally justified to use violence to stop a man who was raping a child? If not, then standing by and letting the rape proceed must be a more moral act, then.

Boru

The word violence is not the word I would use. Yes, it is justified to use force in this scenario. However, at least in the American system, you are not justified in killing him or maming him. I would assume the law allows you to use only enough force to stop the act. (Of course, the jury may be completely fine with you killing him.) So I would consider the unjust act of force to be examples of violence.

This isn't an arbitrary distinction. The word violence, even though it refers to force, still carries a negative sense. No one hears the word violence and infers a neutral or positive use of force. The force used when teams play sports, for example, is not the same as the violence used when teams start physically fighting.

This feels like philosophy by definition. If we define violence as the unjust, unethical, or unnecessary application of force then yes, by definition, it's going to be pretty counterproductive.  You need to use a definition that isn't going to result in a lot of circular reasoning. I think that'll be difficult for you. There have been more than a few examples in recent history where we've done some pretty horribly violent things that are widely viewed as being the right thing to do.

If good people do not engage in violence, then who is left to oppose bad people who do?

[Paleophyte]

(1) It assumes that violence and power, consent and coercion are mutually exclusive. Sadly, our history demonstrates that it's possible to have both. In-group power and consent producing out-group coercion and violence is a pretty common theme in our tribalistic little species.

It's not so much that they are mutually exclusive, but rather that they are inversely proportional. And so, from a wholistic standpoint, a system with societies that favor in-group consent, but with out-group coercion, could be said to function at something like 50% efficiency. But if they improve their outgroup relations with more trade, etc., the numbers might improve to 70% let's say.

History and evolution beg to differ. We have these nasty tribalistic tendencies precisely because evolution hard-wired us for those ugly little instincts. Violence benefits the in-group. The whole suffers, so it is a common bad, but that's taken us a fair bit of skull sweat to figure out and is taking us even more work to tamp down on.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You cannot be both discriminatory towards Black people and claim to offer equal opportunities to them.

America has done that for well over a hundred and fifty years. Maybe you mean "cannot rationally be both [...]"?

[John 6IX Breezy]

If we define violence as the unjust, unethical, or unnecessary application of force then yes, by definition, it's going to be pretty counterproductive.  You need to use a definition that isn't going to result in a lot of circular reasoning. I think that'll be difficult for you.

Although I agree that by definition (and by almost every other metric) it will be counterproductive, I don't think that is something people realize.

For example, with the UnitedHealth shooting, the shooter can both understand that his actions were wrong or unethical (hence why he ran away) and also believe that the murder would be productive. My stance is simply to say, no. And so far: The CEO was easily replaced, they have doubled down on their policies, it's divided people who wanted change, it led to the arrest of both the suspect and others, and the list goes on. It was a counterproductive act, with no observable progress beyond a little bit of temporary exposure.

ps. And I don't consider the definition to be circular. It's simply an observation that violence is a subset within the broader category of force, etc.

[The Grand Nudger]

It may feel that way, but studies of extremism show that extremists don't hurt more mainstream dissidents the way we think they might. A violent extremist normalizes the previously unheard of and makes other lesser™ forms of that same extremism seem more acceptable.

[John 6IX Breezy]

It may feel that way, but studies of extremism show that extremists don't hurt more mainstream dissidents the way we think they might.  A violent extremist normalizes the previously unheard of and makes other lesser™ forms of that same extremism seem more acceptable.

Yes, I agree with that. The way I would frame it is to say that, in isolation, nonviolent strategies outperform violent ones. However, in the context of a greater nonviolent movement, a violent minority does have the effect of motivating otherwise resistant people towards the support of nonviolent group. Unfortunately, with the UnitedHealth shooting there isn't really a larger nonviolent movement advocating for reform. I'm not sure Bernie Sanders, for example, is still leading such a movement. There's a sense in which he's passed the baton down to A.O.C., but she hasn't really mobilized people on this issue. 

That said, even though I agree such effects exist, I would still object to the use of violence on principle and consistency grounds.

[Sheldon]

Would it be morally justified to use violence to stop a man who was raping a child? If not, then standing by and letting the rape proceed must be a more moral act, then.

Boru

The word violence is not the word I would use. Yes, it is justified to use force in this scenario. However, at least in the American system, you are not justified in killing him or maming him. I would assume the law allows you to use only enough force to stop the act. (Of course, the jury may be completely fine with you killing him.) So I would consider the unjust act of force to be examples of violence.

This isn't an arbitrary distinction. The word violence, even though it refers to force, still carries a negative sense. No one hears the word violence and infers a neutral or positive use of force. The force used when teams play sports, for example, is not the same as the violence used when teams start physically fighting.

We seem to have moved from violence being morally "verboten", to it being morally relative, but then that's true of morality generally, as it seems to be both subjective and relative. We are part of nature, and nature "uses" violence as part of evolution. That we have evolved brains capable of self awareness, and thanks to agricultural and industrial revolutions, have the time to examine moral choices, and if we choose, be appalled by that violence, is another matter.

[Belacqua]

It may feel that way, but studies of extremism show that extremists don't hurt more mainstream dissidents the way we think they might.  A violent extremist normalizes the previously unheard of and makes other lesser™ forms of that same extremism seem more acceptable.

Yes, I agree with that. The way I would frame it is to say that, in isolation, nonviolent strategies outperform violent ones. However, in the context of a greater nonviolent movement, a violent minority does have the effect of motivating otherwise resistant people towards the support of nonviolent group. Unfortunately, with the UnitedHealth shooting there isn't really a larger nonviolent movement advocating for reform. I'm not sure Bernie Sanders, for example, is still leading such a movement. There's a sense in which he's passed the baton down to A.O.C., but she hasn't really mobilized people on this issue. 

That said, even though I agree such effects exist, I would still object to the use of violence on principle and consistency grounds.

One related point:

A high-profile instance of violence like the insurance CEO shooter gets a lot of attention. And a lot of people think that what he did is actually reasonable justice. Maybe it is, I'm not sure.

But the trouble is that images are more powerful than reality, and media-hyped symbols can give the impression that something is happening when really we just have business as usual. 

So a lot of the "violence for good" that gets attention is just hype. It comforts us to think that someone is finally doing something. It's performative, gets a lot of attention, gives people fake hope, and then nothing.