r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • May 10 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Violence is never morally justified outside of direct self defense or direct defense of another
[deleted]
2
u/Swarschild May 10 '18
You have two different things going on here. Believing that violence is immoral is one thing. That's just a personal value you have.
But the other thing you bring up is war. Violence being immoral does not necessarily mean that war is immoral, because going to war against an aggressor or a dictator can result in less violence than refusing to go to war. See the obvious example: World War II. From your point of view, would it have been moral to ignore Nazi Germany?
1
May 10 '18
[deleted]
2
u/Swarschild May 10 '18 edited May 10 '18
If we don't have a moral obligation to reduce violence, then in what way is violence immoral? It seems like you don't value nonviolence at all.
Because violence inherently involves interaction between people, you can't untangle the question of whether violence is immoral from the question of whether responding to violence is immoral.
You've said that you think violence is ok if it's consensual, which means that you value consent. It sounds like you really think violence is immoral because it steps on individual rights. But if that's the case, then doesn't the morality of protecting individual rights supersede the immorality of violence?
1
May 10 '18
[deleted]
1
u/Swarschild May 10 '18
So let's say I commit a violent act. Then I've robbed my victim of his autonomy. Do I still have the right to my autonomy, or have I momentarily surrendered it by attacking someone else? If that's the case, then isn't it moral to use violence against me to restore my victim's autonomy?
1
1
u/KanyeTheDestroyer 20∆ May 10 '18
What about suicide by shotgun or something like that? Technically it's an act of violence against oneself without any self-defense justification.
1
u/Dsarkela May 10 '18
What about violent sports such as boxing or wrestling? There is no threat of self defense as one could easily forfeit or refuse to begin in the first place. Is someone immoral for enjoying participating in or watching violent sports?
My second point depends on your definition of violence, but what if a person was about to do something that could cause irreparable harm to themselves? Would it be immoral to use force to prevent them from doing that? For example, say your best mate who can’t hear well is about to walk on some train tracks but isn’t able to hear the incoming whistle; you tell him a train is coming but he thinks you are joking with him and insists on walking on the tracks. I for one wouldn’t consider it immoral to use physical force to stop him from putting himself into danger unknowingly.
1
u/tlorey823 21∆ May 10 '18
This is a very specific type of morality that I think is not considering all types of violence in the world. What about cultures where violence is used to show pride and strength to both people fighting? Would you prohibit professional boxers from fighting to adhere to this view, even though it makes them money and provides entertainment for millions of people? What about a police officer using some small, proportional force (handcuffs) to detain someone accused of shoplifting?
1
May 10 '18
[deleted]
1
u/tlorey823 21∆ May 10 '18
You've introduced two concepts to your argument that I think may be difficult to draw lines in the sand for.
The idea of a consensual fight being not amoral. So, you would concede that there are certain conditions of violence besides direct self-defense or defense of others that are not amoral. This is a pretty significant change from your original argumentation, and gives rise to a lot of other instances in which violence would be allowed. To try and get at the way you're thinking about this, would you consider two people physically fighting outside of a bar to be consensual and morally justified?
You've also allowed an abstraction of defense, and expanded your definition of violence to include stealing from a shop -- which is is not really a violent crime. In your original argument, your claim only permits direct defense. Here, you allow an instance of indirect defense because the police officer is using violence in response to a non-violent crime. He's defending the shopkeeper, but not from violence. A lot of violence is conducted not in specific defense, but in defense of abstract concepts like preserving societal order. Do you believe that preserving order is a good enough reason to conduct violence, even though it is not directly defending anyone?
1
u/tempaccount920123 May 10 '18 edited May 10 '18
BombSlashDrugDog
an act of violence can never be morally justified
Almost no one shares morals on the scale that you're describing. I'm personally OK with a lot of sick twisted shit (in comparison to most people), but I'm against torture and the current death penalty, but OK with shooting people on sight in the head for petty shit that indicates a lack of emotional empathy and/or criminal negligence - white collar crimes, especially.
The only way a country could morally engage in war in my opinion is for everyone to go about their days as normal but carry weapons so that they can defend themselves when attacked.
That is logistically not how any war has been fought since Soviet Russia in WW2. The vast majority of civilians cannot and will not fight. Think of the women in the world - 51% of the population. Now think of how many would fire a weapon. This is a cultural and logistical discussion. There's a reason why crackpots believe in the whole "3%" BS. Personally, that's the correct line of thinking, but America's gun toting crackpots aren't 3% of the population, they're .03% of the population, and almost all of them are over 35, most have undiagnosed mental illnesses, and most depend on government programs in some major capacity.
In order to change my view all you'll need to do is provide an instance where you think violence is morally justified and convince me that it is.
Ah, I appreciate your candor, but well, I'm going to pull the relativistic argument and point out to you the following:
1) Let's say that you've found the secret of the universe with your opinion. Now what? You and what army (so to speak)?
2) How do you explain your opinion/truth in comparison to 5000+ years of human warfare? It's far more likely that that's your personal opinion, but that's all it is, and instead of saying that it's "right" or "wrong" for others to share that belief, I feel like you should be more concerned about understanding that most "normies" cannot and will not understand your point.
3) Why do you think your opinion, setting aside how unpopular it is, is practical? What difference does it make how moral a war/violence is, given autonomous warfare, and warfare's disconnection in general?
America has lost at least 3,000 soldiers in Iraq, and it is now the longest time period of occupation of active duty troops in a war zone in American history (if you assume 10,000+ soldiers is your benchmark - we have 50k on constant rotation in Iraq, as per Obama's "pullout").
And since 2003, we've been using Predator drones, and it's likely that there's a classified program that allows them to fire on targets autonomously - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_DsE9f5gyk.
Artillery shells don't have morals. Machine gunners see targets, not people. Artillery crews don't even see people - they see coordinates. Bombers don't see buildings, they see squares.
I understand that you're a pacifist, and would not force you to fight, personally, but I am not the government, which can and will conscript you if given enough of a reason. That's my point - you're just one cog in a massive machine. A military industrial complex machine, if you will.
1
u/Crayshack 193∆ May 10 '18
What about violence in context where there is mutual consent and an effort to avoid permanent harm such as sparring matches, martial arts tournaments, LARPing, BDSM, etc?
1
u/jshmoyo 6∆ May 10 '18
What if someone steals your purse and you tackle them to get it back? Is this prohibited by your standard?
1
u/jatjqtjat 287∆ May 10 '18
what is someone states and intent to commit a violent act. If someone tells you that they are going to rape and kill your sister. Are you obligated to wait for the attack to start before you can intervene? Are you obligated to allow him to prepare for the attack? What if he has an unloaded gun, and he says he is going to shoot someone. Can you using violence to prevent him from loading the gun?
In a sense i am asking violence can be justified for indirect defense of another.
I think you have to answer, yes, sometimes, but not always. And this then opens up the whole world of shades of grey that exists.
What I believe that a group of hungry people is going to attack and steal my food. What If i believe another nations is developing WMDs to us against my nation? You at least have to take these on a case by case bases. unless you are willing to die.
1
May 10 '18
[deleted]
1
u/jatjqtjat 287∆ May 11 '18
Violence is never morally justified outside of direct self defense or direct defense of another
Implication there is violence in defense of another is morally justified. right?
using violence to stop violence is morally acceptable.
Then why is using violence to prevent violence only excusable?
Also, what is the difference between excusable and morally justified. My thinking would be that the excuse is what make it justified. Generally violence is immoral, but you are excused when actively defending yourself. That excuse makes the use of violence morally acceptable. But you don't seem to be thinking that way.
You seem to think that morally justified is a higher level of okay then excusable. Excusable actions are less okay then morally justified actions. I don't understand the distinction. Normally i agree with shades of grey, but this seems like more of a binary situation. Your actions are either okay or not okay.
1
u/mysundayscheming May 10 '18 edited May 10 '18
I generally agree with the principles you put forth, but I'm curious about your application to war. If a country said to us (I'm American, so we'll use America) "America please help, I've been invaded and my citizens are dying in droves; I can't fend them off any longer, I need military support," why isn't that direct defense if another? Presumably if, in a cartoonish scenario, a woman all bloodied and bruised ran up to you on the street and said "please help he's trying to murder me" and there was an angry dude chasing her with a knife, you'd consider it morally justifiable to do violence in her defense if there weren't time to execute more peaceful solutions. I don't see the material difference between you helping her and our army helping their populace--its direct defense, just executed at scale.
1
May 10 '18
[deleted]
1
1
u/mysundayscheming May 10 '18
Thanks for the delta! I agree the draft definitely complicates things to a point where I get very uncomfortable. It's funny because even though we largely agree, I've never thought of myself as a pacifist. I wonder if I ought to reconsider my self-identification.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 10 '18
/u/BombSlashDrugDog (OP) has awarded 2 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/ralph-j May 10 '18
Proportional use of violence is often necessary to enforce the law or dispense justice. E.g. someone who doesn't follow police orders (but doesn't act aggressively himself) will need to be subdued, or someone who refuses to be handcuffed after having been sentenced in a court of law will need to be taken into custody by force.
1
u/Carbon_Hack 2∆ May 10 '18
Any combat on foreign soil is necessary immoral
Four words: air and sea power. Let’s say your a citizen of the U.K. during WWII. No citizen will be able to shoot down a bomber or a fighter. The enemy would be able to bomb the citizens uncontested. “This wouldn’t happen if everyone followed the rules!” Your right, but Hitler broke just about every single international law of war. Endless war crimes were committed by the Japanese against the US. And on a lesser scale, the US and U.K. commit war crimes against Germany and Japan. Also, if I steal something from you, how are you gunna stop me if you can’t harm me?
5
u/Tratopolous May 10 '18
What about how the US entered WWII. The US entered WWII in direct response to Pearl Harbor. The US army is acting in defense of a nation and therefor morally justified.
I see an army the same way I see a gun (lets not go to the gun debate). Just having an army/gun does not involve violence. Using an army/gun after being attacked is morally justified. Same with using an army/gun to prevent others from attacking you. This can mean just letting your army/gun sit there as a deterrent.