/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10890300]

Are there any good arguments AGAINST violence? Why is violence considered immoral? and can you ever justify violence?

Are there any good philosophers/philosophical texts that argue in favor of violence besides people like Ragnar Redbeard?

[Anonymous No.10890318]

The best arguments I can think of against violence are arguments based on pragmatism when it comes to violence at an individual level, for instance most people dont want to be attacked so we make a pact not to attack eachother so we don't have to live in a state of nature, but thats still not a moral argument against violence, its just a decision in our self interest.

I cant think of a moral argument against a state using violence to secure its sovereignty or to capture territory either, because ultimately if a state can over power another state, then the state that was overpowered was not fit to secure the sovereignty of its people because it was weak.

[Anonymous No.10890559]

>>10890300
Same as any other moral argument. Unvirtuous, bad for social cohesion, results in overall loss for you, results in overall loss for everyone, doesn't feel good, goes against your nature, etc.

Do you enjoy it when others override your goals/work or kill your loved ones, using violence? No? But it's okay for you to do the same to others? No because then it's okay for others to do it to you, the thing you don't enjoy. If it were, it is easy to spiral into a world of decrepit ruin. It destroys but the world has no ability to build up again, such an environment and social state a doesn't allow it. You need peace and prosperity to do so. If you have nothing to destroy, then you no longer have a world. No world, no people. Maybe you want this, that's alright but most would rather something than nothing.

[Anonymous No.10890662]

>>10890559
>Unvirtuous
But why, that is my question, I understand that people do not like violence and it is not pragmatic for society of have violence, but I dont think thats necessarily a moral argument against the utility of violence. Of course I dont want people to override my work or goals or kill my loved ones, but why would that bar me morally from using violence for my own ends?

Plenty of cultures in history have seen violence as virtuous, Nordic cultures, Germanic cultures, Gaelic cultures, Roman Culture, Persian culture, the list goes on, many cultures of antiquity saw violence and strength as a virtue.

The idea that violence is unvirtuous is slave morality, people who are victims of violence will call violence morally reprehensible because they cannot defend themselves, they call violence tyranny. If they were the ones wielding the violence and benefiting from it they would think differently, they would call it strength and see it as a virtue. No where is this clearer than in the ethical divergence between the Romans vs Christians.

We do things every day that other people do not want us to do and that we would not want done to ourselves, why do we draw the line at violence?

[Anonymous No.10890671]

>>10890662
>>10890300
Why isn't the pragmatic argument sufficient? Any method of defining some sort of objective morality is going to involve a massive leap of faith.

[Anonymous No.10890694]

>>10890300
>Ragnar Redbeard

[Anonymous No.10890704]

>>10890662
it has a moral realm only from the perspective of the religion, i think. otherwise there is nothing to do with morality, only agreement.

[Anonymous No.10890713]

>>10890671
Because as I said, I think there are arguments for the utility of violence. Here are some exmaples

>Self defense
>Over throwing a state
>Securing national interest/Sovereignty

And beyond that, if theres no objective moral standard for whether violence is right or wrong, what do you do in a scenario where you (or anyone) wants to use violence for what ever reason, and there are no pragmatic arguments against using violence in that particular instance.

[Anonymous No.10890730]

>>10890300
Faith and forgiveness.

There are countless reasons why anyone has the right to be angry, there are countless amounts of hate (from very little to hatred in a state of possession) and there are countless ways to take out your anger on the world or inidividuals. We can't judge a school shooter if he was diagnosed with a brain tumour because he felt as if he is under attack by the world and must fight back, or even yet, he feels as thought morality in the conscious world is worthless and might even think that he is doing the morally superior thing by doing what he does. This would be teh case when Pakistani jihadists would excuse their public attacks on schools when they would claim "We did it to save these people of their own sins, to allow them to go to heaven before they sin." and so violence is not only justified but supported. Some individuals were abused and threatened as young children and would later take out their anger on the world (perhaps only on the specific people who abused them) and in these cases can we also judge them for being victims of past crimes?
The answer is that everyone suffers and none have the privilege of surviving eternally, we all have reasons to grab the nearest rock and swing it in rings as we walk by people but forgiveness is what ends the never ending conflict between individuals and between one and his own existence. It's the hardest path to take because you not only have the right to lash out but you may have the power (especially if you have been attacked yourself).

[Anonymous No.10890742]

>>10890300
i think what stands between a human and a violence is a law which may have different sources. and i disagree that violence is unnatural for a human being.

[Anonymous No.10890746]

>>10890694
Yep, thats why I said is there anyone other than redbeard because he's fedora tier

>>10890704
Yes I agree, I think the only arguments that can be made against violence are ones that Hobbes makes in leviathan or similar such arguments from more contemporary philosophers.

Most people seem to say that you shouldn't do to other what you wouldn't want people to do to you. I don't think anyone is true to these kinds of moral axioms though, I think humans treat each other harshly and unfairly all the time, I don't think the whole "Don't do something because someone doesn't want you to" argument is necessarily a strong one. I'm just looking for a stronger argument against violence and coercion in general.

[Anonymous No.10890750]

>>10890300

The easiest path to be able to argue in favor of violence would be to atomize it into distinctive and non-mutual kinds of "violent act". I believe I can only recall of Zizek doing this explicitly (too bad because I'm not exactly his greatest fan) by differentiating between what he calls "subjective violence" and "objective violence".

Subjective here is a direct relation to actual people perpetrating outburst of violence. When someone punches you and when you punch back, when someone kills a robber and when a robber kills someone, when people break glasses during a riot, etc. Objective violence would be something that is not necessarily perpetrated by any particular subject (this is where I have issues with the definitions but I'll do my best to explain it neutrally), meaning A. symbolic violence which is embodied in forms and language (one example would be words we use that are explicitly traced back to oppressive relations among individuals), or B. systemic violence which arise as if "natural" consequence of the ebb and flow of our political and economical schemes. I can only assume Zizek is talking about a subtle notion of segregation and alienation here.

With these definitions in mind you can proceed to defend the use of the former kind of violence to combat the structural ones present in the form of objective violence. This is problematic in itself but the advantage is that you don't have to make any moral claims other than "I don't like being stomped by the system", it doesn't even need to acknowledge that people inside a society are purposely not being virtuous to each other or any such thing, and even though you are plainly making use of subjective violence, all that you want to do is break down the structure that is actually doing harm to you.

>and so on and so on

[Anonymous No.10890807]

>>10890750
If the only moral claim that needs to be made is "I dont like being stomped by the system" can't the state and its supporters equally argue "We don't like having violence perpetrated against us".

My other problems with zizek's arguments here are
>Why does language = violence
>If language does = violence, whats morally reprehensible about societies or individuals using "violent" language against other societies or individuals
>If you can justify violence against the system, why can't the system justify its violence against violent groups
>Also is there anything morally reprehensible about "oppressing" people in the first place

[Anonymous No.10891948]

bump

[Anonymous No.10892024]

>>10890300
Yeah, sure. Let me stab you in the neck and and then you can ask your shit question again m8.