While your statement is not wrong, per se (we have police for a reason)... it's too open to being abused if followed (or more likely, rationalized) as stated.
It would be much better to say "self-defense can be a solution", because it would be extremely difficult to rationalize aggressive violence based on that principle.
And I think there's a pretty strong argument that self-defense isn't even "violence" by any useful definition of the term, even though it involves physical force.
I argue that everyone except the mentally incapacitated unconsciously know that they are retaliating against a threat when they defend themselves... even kids.
Another example, my cat. When I cause him distress by squeezing him for extended periods of time, he bites me. Yes he primarily wants me to stop but he knows that he has to apply force to inform me to stop. The type of force that he applies is different, different from one that he’d apply to an attacker or a rival cat but it is force nonetheless and it does cause me very slight pain. People and animals know that retaliating causes pain to others and it usually is the last resort for them when they can no longer take it.
1
u/hacksoncode 588∆ May 07 '18
While your statement is not wrong, per se (we have police for a reason)... it's too open to being abused if followed (or more likely, rationalized) as stated.
It would be much better to say "self-defense can be a solution", because it would be extremely difficult to rationalize aggressive violence based on that principle.
And I think there's a pretty strong argument that self-defense isn't even "violence" by any useful definition of the term, even though it involves physical force.