James T

I've started to get interested in some of John Dewey's philosophy. Not having read any I was reading a critique of Dewey in an old essay of Bertrand Russell's and found myself liking how clearly Russell expressed the distinctions between his views and Dewey's yet preferring Dewey's.

I haven't read enough to pick it yet, however my reading of it so far is that Dewey considers thought in terms of the tools suitable for realising purposes and the success of ideas is measured in their outcomes, their efficacy in creating a better situation. That their stability is provided by the vital functions they serve.

Chris Weimer

Violence is never justified. If you are subject to violence, than you're doing something wrong (such as being a woman, or being rich).

The Bearded One

Or outcome, as pointed out by James T

In order for the intent to be honorable, A would have to take into account the possibility that they could be mistaken about B's intent. This seems to greatly raise the bar on what can be taken as sufficient provocation for a preemptive attack.

I'm unclear on what this means. If you mean that A's preemptive strike caused B to engage in violence for self-defence, and that B's use of violence for self-defence was sufficient justification for the preemptive strike; then I strongly disagree, since that would be totally circular.

It's like saying "I'm justified in attacking that man, since when he defends himself, that will prove that he's prone to violence." :down:

I'm afraid that you might have to spell it out in light of my comments above. Of course, I may also be misunderstanding your arguments, in which case I ask for clarification.

-- The Bearded One

Wallener

Violence is justified when it supports both your short-term and long-term goals. IE, when you can get away with it, and when it actually does you some reproductive good. That said, I'm using 'justified' in a loose sense as I do not believe it is appropriate to discuss violence (or any other action) in such Outside Observer terms.

The Bearded One

You seem to be using the word 'justified' in a biological sense. But in a biological sense, the toughest schoolyard bully is always justified in using violence to maintain pack dominance. Surely that isn't what we should be discussing in a forum called "Moral Foundations & Principles".

In a moral sense, very few people are willing to defend the principle that "might makes right". The reason is that we aspire to be better than we are now. We would like to find moral principles that will improve our lot in life and that of our descendants. Acting on a "might makes right" principle only continues (or escalates) the cycle of violence. Don't we want something better?

-- The Bearded One

James T

Historically I think we are in an interesting period. We have reached a point where it has become possible for a small number of individuals to carry out an utterly disproportionate act of violence.

Up until about now the might is right has had inherent limitations in that there is only so much that individuals (even in large groups) can actually do.

As we go forward it becomes more important to recognise (for our survival) what harm a few can do and to try to create a worldwide objective that reduces resorts to violence to the exception, in large part in an attempt to mitigate the motivation that might drive people to horrific acts.

In this respect, A attacking B because A thinks B will attack becomes self defeating because it is possible that A's acts may simply guarantee the attack that was feared from B.

Wallener

Only in the school yard. Outside the school yard, social skills become much more important and bullying is far less useless. Most of life happens outside the school yard. Nice example, thanks for furthering my point.

Good. Because that isn't what I said.

Volkov

I. Revolution against an oppressive ruling stratum, class, etc.

II. Self defense.

MsChutzpah

Many times it is just the threat of violence that gets some people to get a clue and stop what they are doing wrong.

I'm the kind of person who wants to and will try anything and exhaust every peaceful means to solve a problem or conflict, and am not above even resorting to begging, but when that does not work, a line has been crossed, and then the stubborn pig-headed troublemakers had better get the hell out of my way.

atechnie

Define "revolution" and "oppressive ruling stratum/class."

How war-like does a revolution have to be a revolution? I take it, simply taking up a gun and shooting people isn't what you had in mind?

If I sincerely believed that X is oppressing me, what kind of violence may I inflict upon X and still be right?

-atechnie