99Percent

I was about to make a post about objective morality but I thought we should think more about the nature of violence and discuss on its definition.

So, (1)What is violence?

I think there can be violence between humans, between animals, between humans and animals, and violence by nature on itself (like tornadoes). (2)Can a moral distinction be made in all these cases them? (3)How do we distinguish a violent situation from a non violent one? (4)Is this interpretation subjective or can it be objective?

Also, (5)under what conditions can human violence be morally justified?

And finally, (6)can violence be rational?

excreationist

Maybe violence is the same thing as active force if you are talking about physical violence.

pug846

I’ll stick to answering 5 and 6:

Yes, human violence can be morally justified and yes, it is sometimes, although not always rational.

WWII – the violence committed by many of the allies was morally justified in my mind and further, very rational. The US, as a nation, had important national values, such as protecting people from genocide, protecting its allies for self-interested reason, etc. to stop the Nazi’s from winning the war. Given that we had a set objective, the most rational course of action to take was to declare war on the Nazis.

Since you are going to disagree with me ( ) and we never finished our discussion on the other morality thread, on what standard did the US have to operate under doing WW II? Could we have nuked citizens for no reason? If not, why not? Since we were using force, and therefore it wasn’t a “moral situation,” what standard could we base our actions on?

Celsus

(1) From some lecture notes:
Chambers(?): "The state or quality of excessive unrestrained and unjustifiable force, outrage, profanation, injury and rape."

UN Resolution 48, Subsection 104
Violence against women: "Any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering of women, including threats of such acts, coercion, or arbitrary deprivation of liberty whether occuring in public or in private life."

I mention the second definition, because this was largely a consequence of Steven Lukes' book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0814750311/qid=1010262311/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_11_1/102-7841276-5301755" target="_blank">Power</a>, which describes methods of exercising power subconsciously, and therefore important to women's movements. Also a good technical definition for you to answer (3).

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: joejoejoe ]

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: joejoejoe ]</p>

Max Bane

What about chance violence, such as accidents involving man-made structures. Would these be under the nature vs. nature category (since tornados, etc., can basically be attributed to chance)? Or do they not even enter the scope of our particular definition of "violence"? Also, how do you draw the line between the violence of animals on animals, and the violence of nature on nature?

tronvillain

1) For the purposes of this discussion, I am content to define <a href="http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=violence" target="_blank">violence</a> as "the use of physical force to injure somebody or damage something."

2) Moral judgements about violence are made when one can conceive of an other being responsible for that violence. The existence of an other implies choice and responsibility, which are necessary for morality to come into play.

3) To distinguish a violent situation for a non-violent situation, one simply applies the definition - in a violent situation there is the use (or possibly the potential for use) of physical force to injure somebody or damage something, and in a non-violent one there is not.

4) This interpretation is only subjective to the degree that determining whether a situation does or does not fit the definition is subjective. Determining whether physical force is used and whether someone was injured or something was damaged as a result seems open to objective inquiry. When examining cases of potential violence subjective opinion may play a larger role.

5) Human violence can be justified under any conditions - to narrow the answer requires specification of to whom justification is to be made, who or what the object of violence is, and the degree of violence (among other things).

6) Violence can be rational. I myself might choose to be violent in certain situations, defending myself from the violence of others being the one that first springs to mind.

Ism Schism

How can I resist...

What is violence?

To knowingly or unknowingly damage, or to cause pain.(?) Depends on the circumstances, and the interpretation I suppose. In order to ask "what is violence", in objective terms, one must first define pain and value.(i.e., is cutting down a 'living' tree violence, or is killing an animal for food violence?) -- it depends entirely on how you define it.

Can a moral distinction be made in all these cases [then]?

Again a moral distinction requires subjective definition, that is unless -- you provide an "objective" definition; a 'period on the end of the sentance', if you will. If you wish, feel free to further classify the broad concept of violence into more distinct classifications...

How do we distinguish a violent situation from a non violent one?

I'm not quite sure: should I use the degree of pain caused, should I think in terms of a situation of "physical force", or should I think in terms of "give and take".

Is this interpretation subjective or can it be objective?

Should you provide an 'objective' definition(s) of violence, I could then answer this question.

Under what conditions can human violence be morally justified?

I don't have a clue, I assume it would fall under the classifications of one's own morality.

Can violence be rational?

By rational you mean weighing "the actions against the consequences", or "pros vs. cons"? If so...without question violence can be rational.

Define your position better, 2 paragraphs can not define or clarify objective morality. Bring out the big guns, because "smoke and mirrors" is simply not going to cut it.

If you have objectivity, I'm asking you plainly to bludgeon me with it. Spare no expense...