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?
Stature wouldn't be the only factor though in forcing one's hand. As in, when you are in a situation where escalation would be tempting, you also have to look at all options as well as the gravity of the situation. This is perhaps the biggest criticism of a lot of acts of terror, as the choice to harm is oddly specific in a world of other options. For a decade, we had the Me Too movement, and although it was kind of overblown, engaging in activity that caused celebrities to watch themselves by means of lawsuit is, in terms of escalation, much preferred over doing the same thing with violence. And those who could not sue could protest, and those who could not do that could campaign, and so on, and all of those things would be better than violence, unless violence is necessary and matches the profundity of the situation. In a world where escalation is of no concern to anyone, nuclear war would have probably already happened over something dumb like calling Kim Jong-un fat again, a fear that probably is unique in uniting the fediverse. Always weigh things like the pros and cons.
by stature, I meant in context of power sharing in the dynamics.
I also replied to someone else, but how do we know when violence is necessary? And how much?
Violence is necessary when nothing can be done that has less unnecessary ramifications. A cornered mouse fights because it has no other resort, but any other mouse would run and not fight.
Problem is, people are not good at predicting, most people cant think much in future, not really because of our limits, but the problem itself, and having moral allowance ever, allows for being corruptible, and assuming that current situation requires violence, when in actuality it did not
When a situation is clouded, do people not still know at least some of their options? I imagine the people who went through with the Me Too movement weren't sure what kind of results or perhaps humiliation or intimidation they were going to face due to their situation, assuming their accusations towards the celebrities were true. Some, I'm sure, strongly contemplated witness protection. But the ability to sue was a given, and they used it despite how clouded the situation was, and they remained headstrong because they had their eyes on a solution, and the majority won their cases without absolute unrest. They knew what not to look forward to.