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?
“Violence is never the answer” only because it’s historically the only thing that actually works.
It’s propaganda meant to defang the population because it is an actual threat to those in power.
My opinion:
I think asking “is violence justified” in a binary manner means the question can’t be answered.
Not all questions have binary answers.
Morality itslef is a quagmire of philosophy.
You can have moral killing, and immoral pacifism.
Rigid adherence to a moral code could lead to immoral acts. Too much flexibility in morals leads to amoral behaviour.
Every life is important, but not to the point where it overrides someone else’s rights.
All of this is a spectrum.
It could be naive, but that feels like a binary position on a complex matter.
I never expected a binary answer.
You can have moral killing, and immoral pacifism.
when can be killing moral - how much evil (and of what kind) do you have to do to deserve that outcome. I can somewhat understand immoral pacifism, but is it immoral to take a stand in a non violent way.
Rigid adherence to a moral code could lead to immoral acts. Too much flexibility in morals leads to amoral behaviour.
I agree with the latter, but I dont know about the former - there can be 2 situations - either your morals were not refined enough to tackle the situation - or you did not act correctly according to those morals correctly
Every life is important, but not to the point where it overrides someone else’s rights.
I get this, and can understand it very easily. Great point. But a problem is still there - who should be put in the deciding situation. As a society - In most places we have judges - who are supposedly wise - but they are just as much human, and just as corruptible. There are juries, but still a small finite number, who may all be thinking incorrectly(For example - 12 Angry Men) Can a solution exist where we dont trust any person, but a system. I dont trust a machine predicting likeliness. I can get by with a mathematical framework - but who should be the one forming it ? Constitution is one such framework - and assuming it has mechanisms to update it self - then it should be fine, but do the the people updating it not get a lot of power, who are again corruptible.
Violence shouldn’t be the first action taken, but once all other options are exhausted, violence is necessary
how do we know we have exhausted all options? could it be our ignorance just getting the better of us?
uh, history? paying attention to current events? It’s very cyclical
sorry, i am tired, but i have answered your question above. In short - we are shortsighted, and not really that smart. we always view history from tinted scoped lenses, if we find situations where violence was necessary, then we also find situations where it did not result in violence. And even if last time it required violence does not equate to violence this time to. Re-evaluate all situations, That is the least we can do, and getting violent is a very taxing activity on us. If try to reason, the time it would take for it to be just as taxing is much larger, so reasoning well is still pretty beneficial.
I will argue that if a problem was solved in the past without violence, it’s only because there was nonetheless the threat of violence. Gandhi is the classic example - he’s the one everyone remembers, but he wasn’t the only leader in the struggle for Indian independence. Those in power generally refuse to negotiate with terrorists, but given the possibility of prolonged bloody conflict, they may choose to negotiate with the nonviolent alternative.
Since you used media as an example, let me use another common trope to answer. Do you know when in horror or thriller movies a character momentarily gets the upper hand on the killer by knocking them unconscious and then just tries to run away without even making sure that the killer is dead or at least arming themselves? Does that EVER end well?
The reason that trope is so common is that it’s very effective at eliciting the sort of instinctive emotional response that makes us as viewers want to yell “WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING?? KILL HIM!!” at the screen.
We have that instinct for a reason.
To answer your question more directly, yes, morals ARE inherently flexible. If they weren’t, we would never learn anything or progress as a society or even as individuals. I don’t know where the idea that someone’s morals are supposed to be immutable even comes from. One of the core steps to psychological well-being is realizing that you have no direct control over your “environment”, but you absolutely have direct control over the actions you take to influence it and the way you adapt and react to it, which includes letting go of standards and expectations you’ve set for yourself if you feel that it’s necessary.
Absolutes are not applicable in reality. You’ve mentioned utopias too, and well, the fun thing about utopias is that they don’t exist. They can’t exist. It’s the literal definition of the word: “an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect.” Dystopia, on the other hand, is what happens when you try to force a utopia into existence.
Morals can’t be absolute. Tolerance can’t be absolute. Everything is flexible and eternally changing. It’s scary and it’s complex but people have to come to terms with it.
sorry, I have not seen much horror (or hardly any).
morals ARE inherently flexible. If they weren’t, we would never learn anything or progress as a society or even as individuals.
I dont think so. Why would morality inhibit progress. Stale knowledge does prevent, but morals dont really change. By morals being flexible, I mean - “Killing is very bad, except in so and so situations, you have to”.
but you absolutely have direct control over the actions you take to influence it and the way you adapt and react to it
someone else also mentioned this, but i dont agree with this either, there are situations where you are blinded, in such situations, knowledge is not free, and only a few control it, and I find them to be the wrong-doers. If someone uses gun to commit crime, then these blind people are essentially just weapons.
Morals can’t be absolute. Tolerance can’t be absolute. Everything is flexible and eternally changing. It’s scary and it’s complex but people have to come to terms with it.
I agree with the scary and complex part, but i still uncertain about morals.
I dont think so. Why would morality inhibit progress. Stale knowledge does prevent, but morals dont really change. By morals being flexible, I mean - “Killing is very bad, except in so and so situations, you have to”.
You assume that what’s considered “moral” or ethical hasn’t changed multiple times throughout history and that it isn’t subjective. Sorry to sound pedantic, but once again, it’s right in the definition of the word:
a person’s standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
And nowhere does it say that “morals” imply any degree of immutability. There are countless examples I could make. Just as a personal example, I never particularly paid mind to the suffering of animals until I adopted a pet. I never believed getting involved in political discourse was a duty until I realized how increasingly distorted it’s becoming. Many people say similar things about having children, how the experience just changes the way you see the world, your perception of what is tolerable and what is not, and ultimately your perception of “right” and “wrong”: your morals.
If we as humans didn’t believe that we can actually influence other people’s conceptions of what’s right or wrong, there would be no point to education, history, politics, philosophy, law, religion, art, literature… culture as a whole. We wouldn’t have communication or civilization.
My honest opinion is that what you’re truly asking here isn’t whether it’s okay/possible for morals to be flexible, you’re asking whether it’s okay to stray from what you’ve always perceived to be the general consensus of what is “moral” and what isn’t. And my answer is still yes.
I’m still partial to the general philosophy of Dr Who. Killing is to be avoided even at extreme cost. But when survival is put on the line, it’s time to put a bullet in someone, or blow up their entire species. When you reach that point, go as far as you have to, in order to make sure you don’t have to again.
sorry, i have not seen it, but that basically seems like giving up on the whole species, based on very little sampling. To which I would ask, who gave us that power, and if we have that power, should we keep that power?
Power is never given, it is taken. Might makes right is the only law of the universe. Who gave a cheetah the power to eat a gazelle? Who gave a fungus the power to kill bacteria? The question of tolerance or intolerance is a question of when to use, or not, the individual or collective power of a person or group.
As to when is it right to extinct a species, would you save the dinosaurs from the asteroid? Bear in mind, you extinct your own species if you do. And who gave those dinos the right to use up a whole planet’s worth of resources, that mammals are obviously better suited to make use of. Extincting a species is making ecological room for other species to evolve. It’s just that right now, humans are demonstrably horrible at choosing which species should be around, or not.
Also I highly recommend Dr. Who for the hidden morals wrapped in often ridiculously stupid sci-fi fun.
When we get to fungus killing bacteria - we are discussing ethics of food chain, which is absurd. It is not about survival. If we go by your reasoning (which if i read correctly is definitely a bit sarcastic, so not taking at face value), is survival the only aim? if so, why even bother doing most things?
I am always sarcastic, it’s just my nature. That said, where you are on the food chain is the basis of all power to affect the world/universe. That’s who ‘gave’ us the power to decide if another species should go extinct. We took it, as all power is gained. There was no giving involved. Once that power is gained, giving it up, is giving up your position on the food chain. In a very literal sense. Otherwise you’re not giving up the power to kill another species, you’re just choosing not to. Which in most cases is the best choice, and also is what gives you the choice of tolerance.
As for motivation to interact with the world, that’s personal. In the long run we’re all space dust decaying to barely perceptible heat. In the short run, finding your own contentment might require some adjustments to the world around you. Even just enjoying the day may come at the cost of tomorrow, so choose your actions well.
Also from the evolutionary biology perspective - top of food chain is the worst place to affect anything. These top pedators depend on all the bottom clogs to spin well, and if they dont, almost always top of food chain suffers. Dinos were wiped because they were just too big to handle suffocation, there prey (for carnivore dinos) were either dead or in burrows which they could not access. One of the only good top of food chain members are sharks - because they are just built good and still have large varied diets, and it is not like all shark species have survived.
