Do We Ever Have a Moral Right to Violence to Achieve a Political Goal?

[Sunstone]

If a group has a legitimate and long-standing grievance against a government, and peaceful appeals for redress have not worked, does the group have a moral right to resort to violence directed at compelling the government to redress its grievance?

 

[oldbadger]

If a group has a legitimate and long-standing grievance against a government, and peaceful appeals for redress have not worked, does the group have a moral right to resort to violence directed at compelling the government to redress its grievance?

No

Directed violence.......... No.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

You'd have to not only define morality and what it's based on, but also talk your way through how the Golden Rule [may] not apply here and how that's okay.

I'm not sure one can make a very simplistic moral argument out of it. Instead, they might have to decide like most things in politics, what is the lesser of evils. But that still doesn't look ahead... say you overthrew the system of rule - does your group have the capabilities and know-how to form a better system of rule or take over and meet the needs of a population and properly communicate through the networks and channels of that original rule?

While you didn't say "overthrow", anything can happen once a large angry mob is formed - one cannot always control such a group.

 

[exchemist]

If a group has a legitimate and long-standing grievance against a government, and peaceful appeals for redress have not worked, does the group have a moral right to resort to violence directed at compelling the government to redress its grievance?

I suppose you are asking whether there can ever be a just civil war.

I think there can, but the criteria would be pretty strict for that, especially in a democracy.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It all depends on how violence is deployed.

Is violence intended for whatever it is a person hates, or is collateral damage of no consequence in order to get at that object of hate?

 

[Heyo]

If a group has a legitimate and long-standing grievance against a government, and peaceful appeals for redress have not worked, does the group have a moral right to resort to violence directed at compelling the government to redress its grievance?

Depends on your moral compass. Is it based on well being, equality and liberty?
Is the grievance that the government doesn't guarantee those values or even violate them? Is the violence useful to restore or implement the values?
Most of the time the answer is "no" but I wouldn't cut violence out as an option especially when that violence can be seen as self defence.

 

[MonkeyFire]

As violence moves closer and closer to oblivion.

 

[Secret Chief]

Yes.

And governments seem to have the moral right to deploy violence against their own people in order to maintain or create a new status quo.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

From a moral standpoint Violence is never an option.
However from a practical viewpoint, retaliatory Violence, is sometimes the only way to overcome ongoing violence.
There are always ways to achieve just aims with out the use of violence.

However the result of non violent means as demonstrated by Ghandi, in achieving independence for India. did involve a massive amount of violence against the protestors. And when Independence was gained it led to a phenomenal amount of violence and death between the future citizens of India and Pakistan. Whether or not this death was justified or even considered as a possibility by Ghandi, before the initial peaceful protests began, is not at all clear. But what is clear is that even a positive avoidance of violence can lead to more violence down the line.

When it comes to civil strife, and all other options are closed by the powers that be, then all that is left is violence.
such violence might be morally wrong, but it is likely to be inevitable.

The human race has repeatedly demonstrated that it is as yet insufficiently evolved to forgo violence as a tool to achieve its aims.
Morals and Ethics are too weak a tool to be a useful in countering our baser instincts.

Religion offers no help at all, as it is proven to stoke the fires of division and enmity and violence.

 

[Erebus]

I'm torn on this one.

My immediate thought when I saw the title was that I'd have a hard time considering the assassination attempts on Hitler to be immoral. This is coming from somebody who's anti-death penalty too. Hitler's regime was so utterly monstrous and uncompromising that violence really was the only option. I can't bring myself to consider assassinations or attempted assassinations of Nazi leaders unjustified.

I'm not sure if assassination or the overthrow of government is quite within the scope of your question. However, it does lead me to believe that there's a certain point when violence ceases to be immoral. I honestly can't say where the lines are drawn on that one though. It's far too murky and subjective for me to say precisely when a government has acted in a way that justifies violence and exactly how much violence is appropriate.

One thing I'm much more certain about though is that if people must resort to violence, it shouldn't be aimed at the average citizen. Even if you feel that voters share some responsibility for a government's actions, they're still not the ones actually performing the deeds.

 

[joe1776]

If a group has a legitimate and long-standing grievance against a government, and peaceful appeals for redress have not worked, does the group have a moral right to resort to violence directed at compelling the government to redress its grievance?

What you're describing is a moral dilemma but your question can't be answered as asked. We'd need to know the specific actions involved. What's the nature of the grievance and how much violence would be involved?

Conscience is intuitive. In a moral dilemma, typically two optional acts are involved and both feel wrong. The consequences of each act must be weighed by the rational mind to determine which does the least harm.

 

[Secret Chief]

My immediate thought when I saw the title was that I'd have a hard time considering the assassination attempts on Hitler to be immoral.

On face value, it would seem to be a moral act to have assassinated Hitler. But I have read that in matters of warfare (rather than the preceding political matters) Hitler was less than a genius but that there were senior military people around him (who fervently believed in Nazism) who would have more successfully prosecuted the war. In other words, assassination of Hitler (in 39/40) would have led to far worse outcomes.

Tricky things, morals.

 

[Erebus]

On face value, it would seem to be a moral act to have assassinated Hitler. But I have read that in matters of warfare (rather than the preceding political matters) Hitler was less than a genius but that there were senior military people around him (who fervently believed in Nazism) who would have more successfully prosecuted the war. In other words, assassination of Hitler (in 39/40) would have led to far worse outcomes.

Tricky things, morals.

Definitely tricky, particularly when you factor in hindsight.

Say somebody successfully assassinated Hitler and his successor ended up being even worse. Would that unintended consequence change the morality of the act? I don't think I have a good answer to that one.

 

[Kenny]

It would depend on the grievance... (I don't like the speed limit) vs "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If a group has a legitimate and long-standing grievance against a government, and peaceful appeals for redress have not worked, does the group have a moral right to resort to violence directed at compelling the government to redress its grievance?

Yes, such as resistance to the Nazi regime, the slave-owning or Jim Crow South, or apartheid South Africa. When a government dehumanizes part of the population and does not respect basic human dignity, it is permissible to overthrow that government by force in my view. Non-violent resistance only works if the forces you're resisting respect that principle in the first place. The Nazis just killed non-violent resisters so that didn't work.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If a group has a legitimate and long-standing grievance against a government, and peaceful appeals for redress have not worked, does the group have a moral right to resort to violence directed at compelling the government to redress its grievance.

I think such action is legitimate, but the group has to be ready to pay the price.

 

[Secret Chief]

Definitely tricky, particularly when you factor in hindsight.

Say somebody successfully assassinated Hitler and his successor ended up being even worse. Would that unintended consequence change the morality of the act? I don't think I have a good answer to that one.

I think maybe the morality can only be evaluated for the time when the act was perpetrated. No one can act with hindsight, only on current circumstances and information.
(There was at least one attempt to assassinate Hitler).

 

[joe1776]

There's no absolute moral rule against killing or any other violent act because any act can become justified in a moral dilemma when it does less harm than its alternative.

Killing an innocent child can be justified if, for example, that child would otherwise only suffer a painful death by radiation poisoning. In this situation, the doctor's intent is to prevent suffering and not to harm.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is a moral right to self defense. It is not a mandate - it could well be tactically or strategically problematic - but neither is pacifism a moral imperative.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm torn on this one.

My immediate thought when I saw the title was that I'd have a hard time considering the assassination attempts on Hitler to be immoral. This is coming from somebody who's anti-death penalty too. Hitler's regime was so utterly monstrous and uncompromising that violence really was the only option. I can't bring myself to consider assassinations or attempted assassinations of Nazi leaders unjustified.

I'm not sure if assassination or the overthrow of government is quite within the scope of your question. However, it does lead me to believe that there's a certain point when violence ceases to be immoral. I honestly can't say where the lines are drawn on that one though. It's far too murky and subjective for me to say precisely when a government has acted in a way that justifies violence and exactly how much violence is appropriate.

One thing I'm much more certain about though is that if people must resort to violence, it shouldn't be aimed at the average citizen. Even if you feel that voters share some responsibility for a government's actions, they're still not the ones actually performing the deeds.

I'm glad that you did the heavy lifting so that I didn't have to.
It was easy to just frubal your post in agreement.