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

[Stevicus]

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?

Perhaps in some cases, although it might presuppose that government has a moral obligation to redress every grievance made against it. If people asked peacefully first and the government ignored them, would the government be morally responsible for any violence that follows?

Why would a government be so stubborn as to resist and delay any reforms until the peasants are at the gates with torches and pitchforks? Why do some people need to have a gun pointed at their head before they'll do the right thing, whereas others would just do it as a matter of course without the need to be compelled?

I think of numerous incidents when there have been labor disputes and other unrest, why do business owners resist and refuse to pay better wages? Why don't they just give in to the strikers' demands immediately and save everyone all kinds of trouble and bother? Why do they stubbornly hold to their position until the very last minute when it becomes untenable? There's got to be something immoral about those who are unreasonably intransigent like that, even more immoral than those doing violence.

 

[joe1776]

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.

If the intent of the assassin was to prevent great harm his act is morally justified regardless of the consequences. I think there were something like 20 attempts to kill Hitler.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

That's why they wanted to assassinate Himmler and Goering as well. There was so much infighting and rivalry among them that, without Hitler to lead, the government probably would have collapsed in short order.

 

[PureX]

There is no "moral right" to commit violence against others. There are, however, circumstances that make doing so unfortunately necessary. We live in an imperfect world, where we don't always get to be "morally right" if we want to continue existing in it.

 

[Howard Is]

I have been thinking hard on this question for six months.

I think that humanity is sorely oppressed by people I call the Paranational Psychopaths.

There is nothing to be gained by playing fair with psychopaths.

In answer to your question, if it were in my power to organise intelligence services to carry out a Night of Long Knives and take them all out, I would.

An oft overlooked aspect of the Bhagavad Gita is that it addresses this very question.

Krishna tells Arjuna that it is his duty as a Kshatriya to slaughter the corrupt families.

 

[Polymath257]

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."

I was going to quote the same thing.

Violence should be a last resort, but it is a valid tactic when needed changes have been consistently ignored.

So, yes, absolutely, in a state that is oppressive it can even be a moral requirement to fight against that state. I think of Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia. Those that fought against the establishment and continuation of those states, even using violence, usually did so for moral reasons which I would support.

Of course, the next lines are also relevant:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience has shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

(emphasis mine)

 

[amorphous_constellation]

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.

It really shouldn't happen in a democracy if populations admit responsibility for the faults in their nature, because if they do fight, they are fighting themselves, and their own errant nature. No one tells a democratic population what to think, they generate views of their own accord. If they think otherwise, they aren't taking responsibility, not even when it comes to voting, but of choosing what to think. Every government edifice in a democracy, is a projection out of you. There is nothing there to fight that is outside of oneself, as they are projections that you brought out externally from within

 

[SalixIncendium]

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?

That depends on one's moral compass.

For me, the answer is no.

I'm certain without even starting to scroll here that the answer will be different for others.

 

[The Hammer]

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 the nature of the grievance and the harm it is causing the affected community. But IMO, yes, they have a moral right/standing to violent action if necessary.

 

[Shaul]

Violence happens, unfortunately, there is no good reason to seek justifications for it.

 

[osgart]

If the policy is murder, thievery, then the use of force is your final option. There are other options before force. But the severity of injustice determines the degree and use of force. It's a defense against blatant, egregious corruption. It's only justified under those circumstances where life is threatened and the damage or loss of civil life is a very real possibility.
An honest assassination based on known actual lethal, murderous guilt is moral.

Good people are dangerous to murderers, and other crimes of severity. Whether it is politically based or not makes no difference when the severity is real and actual. Then it is morally right to use force.

 

[PureX]

The problem, here, is that of 'biased justification'. The state, on behalf of the majority of it's citizenry, subjugate and oppress a powerless/targeted minority. That minority then feels it has no other alternative but to engage in a violent response. The state (and it's citizen majority) then takes that violent response as further justification for even greater oppression of the targeted minority, and now the escalation to annihilation has begun. And once begun, it becomes very difficult to reign in before the total annihilation of one side or the other results.

 

[sun rise]

@KenS and @Howard Is spoke for me. The Declaration of independence and the Gita are my true signposts.

They both are about that it should not be done easily or quickly, but there are times it's necessary.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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, but only against the oppressors and most definitely not in a way that creates innocent victims.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The problem, here, is that of 'biased justification'. The state, on behalf of the majority of it's citizenry, subjugate and oppress a powerless/targeted minority. That minority then feels it has no other alternative but to engage in a violent response. The state (and it's citizen majority) then takes that violent response as further justification for even greater oppression of the targeted minority, and now the escalation to annihilation has begun. And once begun, it becomes very difficult to reign in before the total annihilation of one side or the other results.

What happened to the queers? When were annihilated in response to the Stonewall Riots? How is possible SSM was legalized and sexual orientation and gender identity added to lists of things you can't legally discriminate against?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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 the nature of the grievance and the context, IMO.

If a government is committing genocide, then violence is certainly warranted to stop it.

If a government's policy is unwise but the will of the majority and nobody's fundamental rights are being violated, then violence likely isn't warranted.

In between... depends.

 

[Valjean]

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.

But what gives a government this authority, divine right; or is there a social contract with the people?

This would justify the forced removal of unwanted minorities like Jews or Armenians, or the enslavement of a menial demographic, if the government decided this would create a better status quo.

Such a right was explicitly denied by the US Declaration of Independence:

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....

Bolding mine

 

[Valjean]

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.

There's also the question of violence against persons vs violence against things. Would tearing up the train tracks en route to Auschwitz have been moral? How about Destroying feller-bunchers or trucks in an illegal logging operation, to defend the planet?

 

[sayak83]

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?

Today's insurgent is tomorrow's heroic freedom fighter.

 

[Secret Chief]

But what gives a government this authority, divine right; or is there a social contract with the people?

This would justify the forced removal of unwanted minorities like Jews or Armenians, or the enslavement of a menial demographic, if the government decided this would create a better status quo?

Such a right was explicitly denied by the US Declaration of Independence:

Bolding mine

I suppose I should have made "seem" more explicit. I was being ironic, given the actions of governments in the names of law, democracy, freedom, nationalism....