Does using violence against violence necessarily and always render the people who do it un-peaceful?

[Smart_Guy]

Like, a village gets attacked by bandits who want to rape, rob, murder, take over, etc., and the villagers fight back violently to protect themselves; does that reflex necessarily, always and/or specifically make them un-peaceful (whatever the contextual opposite of peaceful is here)?

I say no, it does not. You?

 

[Laika]

People may want peace, but on whose terms?

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

Like, a village gets attacked by bandits who want to rape, rob, murder, take over, etc., and the villagers fight back violently to protect themselves; does that reflex necessarily, always and/or specifically make them un-peaceful (whatever the contextual opposite of peaceful is here)?

I say no, it does not. You?

I also say No, and from my own life experience ...

as required i had to do my time in the IDF ... fortunately as i was a trained paramedic
i was assigned as a medic .. whilst treating a soldier i was shot at and had to return
fire .. most traumatic for this pacifist ....

 

[Deathbydefault]

Like, a village gets attacked by bandits who want to rape, rob, murder, take over, etc., and the villagers fight back violently to protect themselves; does that reflex necessarily, always and/or specifically make them un-peaceful (whatever the contextual opposite of peaceful is here)?

I say no, it does not. You?

Depends on your perspective of peace.
If you slaughter all the people in the village, wont it end up peaceful anyways?

 

[निताइ dasa]

Not necessarily I think. A easy way to resolve these 'morally grey' dilemmas is to think of peacefulness as a character trait from which peaceful actions arise. A peaceful disposition is that which aims to prevent, or at least minimize unnecessary violence.

In your example, if the villagers fight back but that action of fighting back as a root in their desire to preserve and protect their loved ones and their way of life and also minimize harm to the bandits also (so action is free from any desire of retaliation), then such a defence could be called peaceful (because it arises from a peaceful disposition) . However, if the villagers go further in that their actions arise from a desire to needlessly hurt the bandits (for the sake of hurting them, or for the sake of retaliation) then such an action would not be peaceful.

A peaceful being may be forced to violence for a greater good (to protect something of greater value) but they do not take pleasure or enjoyment in the violence itself. A non-peaceful (violent) being on the other hand enjoys violence also for the sake of violence and goes further then what is needed for a greater good.

For example another action is the act of punishment. Some people punish or retaliate against others because they like to see culprit suffer, (or see 'justice done' in a retributive way). However this type of a response arises from a vice (enjoyment of others suffering) and thus the action is bad. Other people punish others because not for the sake of a greater good (to maintain the intergrity of the Law, so that it deters people from committing such transgressions again). This type of a response arises from a virtue (of peacefulness) and therefore the action is bad. See how both actions and their end result (punishment) is the same, but the intent and the virtue under which the action is performed matters alot.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Depends on your perspective of peace.
If you slaughter all the people in the village, wont it end up peaceful anyways?

The topic is about those who do it whether they are peaceful or not, as people. It is not about the state of having peace.

But anyway, just to answer your question tho it is off-topic, if those rapist, robing murderous bandits slaughtered all the people in the village, it will not end peaceful because that nature holds the intention of doing it again, and that's not peaceful and also (to relate to topic) makes those bandits certainly not peaceful.

That's how I see it.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Not necessarily I think. A easy way to resolve these 'morally grey' dilemmas is to think of peacefulness as a character trait from which peaceful actions arise. A peaceful disposition is that which aims to prevent, or at least minimize unnecessary violence.

In your example, if the villagers fight back but that action of fighting back as a root in their desire to preserve and protect their loved ones and their way of life and also minimize harm to the bandits also (so action is free from any desire of retaliation), then such a defence could be called peaceful (because it arises from a peaceful disposition) . However, if the villagers go further in that their actions arise from a desire to needlessly hurt the bandits (for the sake of hurting them, or for the sake of retaliation) then such an action would not be peaceful.

A peaceful being may be forced to violence for a greater good (to protect something of greater value) but they do not take pleasure or enjoyment in the violence itself. A non-peaceful (violent) being on the other hand enjoys violence also for the sake of violence and goes further then what is needed for a greater good.

For example another action is the act of punishment. Some people punish or retaliate against others because they like to see culprit suffer, (or see 'justice done' in a retributive way). However this type of a response arises from a vice (enjoyment of others suffering) and thus the action is bad. Other people punish others because not for the sake of a greater good (to maintain the intergrity of the Law, so that it deters people from committing such transgressions again). This type of a response arises from a virtue (of peacefulness) and therefore the action is bad. See how both actions and their end result (punishment) is the same, but the intent and the virtue under which the action is performed matters alot.

You understood me very well. That's why I used the compliments "necessarily and always" in the title. Kinda like asking for an unconditional default neutral position.

 

[Deathbydefault]

The topic is about those who do it whether they are peaceful or not, as people. It is not about the state of having peace.

But anyway, just to answer your question tho it is off-topic, if those rapist, robing murderous bandits slaughtered all the people in the village, it will not end peaceful because that nature holds the intention of doing it again, and that's not peaceful and also (to relate to topic) makes those bandits certainly not peaceful.

That's how I see it.

Ah, I misunderstood, then.

I would also say no.

 

[idav]

“a skillful soldier is not violent, an able fighter does not rage, a mighty conqueror does not give battle, a great commander is a humble man”

― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

 

[LuisDantas]

Violence is violence.

It is by definition unpeaceful. That may be healed, but it takes effort and is not a given.

We must understand that everyone uses only "necessary" violence by their own parameters. Always. And the recipients will Always feel the need to retaliate.

So, "Does using violence against violence necessarily and always render the people who do it un-peaceful?" Why, of course yes. Emphatically yes. I am disappointed that it is even asked, let alone answered "no" by anyone.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Violence is violence.

It is by definition unpeaceful. That may be healed, but it takes effort and is not a given.

Agreed.

But what about the people who do it, as per the OP and what the topic is about? The OP is not about the action, it's about the people who do it.

We must understand that everyone uses only "necessary" violence by their own parameters. Always. And the recipientes will Always feel the need to retaliate.

Please define "necessary" and "retaliate" here, with generic examples.

Thanks.

 

[LuisDantas]

Agreed.

But what about the people who do it, as per the OP and what the topic is about? The OP is not about the action, it's about the people who do it.

By commiting violence, they become violent people.

There is really no subtlety hidden there.

Please define "necessary" and "retaliate" here, with generic examples.

Thanks.

People may feel the need to attack others out of fear. That causes fear on its turn. It is a cliche, but a well-justified one: violence generates further violence.

It is a self-defeating cycle, and we all should refuse to participate on it.

Gandhi and Badshah Khan knew what they were doing.

 

[Smart_Guy]

By commiting violence, they become violent people.

There is really no subtlety hidden there.

I disagree.

Do you consider yourself a violent human being?

People may feel the need to attack others out of fear. That causes fear on its turn. It is a cliche, but a well-justified one: violence generates further violence.

It is a self-defeating cycle, and we all should refuse to participate on it.

Gandhi and Badshah Khan knew what they were doing.

According to the above, with all due respect, they seem like they didn't know what they were doing. I love their intentions to bring peace with that pacifism, but that only has the potential to bring misfortune to many people in this awful imperfect world.

Violence does not necessarily always generate further violence in the same context, if done within rules and moderation.

 

[LuisDantas]

I disagree.

Most people do. I don't really understand why.

Do you consider yourself a violent human being?

Not really. But then again, hardly anyone does.

I prefer to judge the objective facts. I have never shot at anyone, never defended hostile action based on ethnicity or nationality, and for several years now I have attempted to denounce the fallacy of the idea of armed conflict as a "means for attaining peace".

According to the above, with all due respect, they seem like they didn't know what they were doing.

Eh. Really?

I am truly surprised.

I love their intentions to bring peace with that pacifism, but that only has the potential to bring misfortune to many people in this awful imperfect world.

Better the potential than the certainty, don't you think? Because that is the choice that we are talking about here.

Violence does not necessarily always generate further violence in the same context, if done within rules and moderation.

Sorry, but I can't even vaguely attempt to agree.

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks...

Hmm - this is a nasty bad and hostile world Im afraid - our own fault entirely ..... we ALLOW it to be this way...Sometimes - violence can be a NECASSARY TOOL...It is not "bad" to use violence to DEFEND your Self , those you love, even your property and even the beliefs you hold and the lifestyle you freely CHOOSE to live - SHOULD ALWAYS BE DEFENDED if necassary - even if that means YOU need use violence...Perfectly acceptable - needed - we are all EQUAL here and no one or no one group should ever be allowed to dominate the others around....That is the only criteria in my book - violence to stop domination or to ensure FREE WILL of the innocents - is PARAMOUNT and that agenda should always take president...I have said it before - we must be RESPONSIBLE for the Self - see an injustice before you act to stop it ALWAYS - and yes - violence may indeed be NECASSARY....

Otherwise - we will end up stuck with THIS world we now have - this word that sucks for many and is so hostile to most of us for most of our lives...it is NOT a nice peaceful world at all - and as sid this IS our fault -we KNOW how to act - yet are cowed down into submission continously and so have mislaid our personal authority , given it away to others who are supposed to "lead us"....

Others such as - Gandhi and Badshah Khan - who tell us indeed violence IS a self defeating cycle and we SHOULD HAVE NO PART O FIT - and this WOULD be true in an IDEAL WORLD - but truth is - this worls is OPPOSITE to the one they envision at present...we are not yet anywhere near a stage where we should embrace that pacifist approach...if we do that now, then those who dominate will just dominate COMPLETELY - and yes there will be "peace" of a kind - but it will be a peace that sees you controlled and ordered around like sheep and not like FREE THINKING SOULS of EQUAL worth...

I DETEST violence actually - do fervently WISH for that peaceful world where all is safe and secure...But Folks we must WORK toward that - and the only way to achieve it IS to stop the domination we witness all around continously...the only way to stop it IS to INTERVENE DIRECTLY to MAKE it stop whenever and wherever you can....And look - those who dominate so - use violence as the chosen "language" - they lay their agenda out WITH violence and so they speak most plainly and none are confused get the message loud and clear - obey or violence comes....So - we may indeed HAVE TO speak to them in their own language so to speak - use violence in return as THAT is what they CHOSE and all they understand....There is nothing wrong in this.....and sometimes we may even need to use violence FIRST even before the other acts - and again - this may even be VITAL and completely necassary....

what if somebody before hand OPENLY tells you they are going to dominate you..?..Or someone else you love..??...You know for usre you know they WILL be violent and you can not stop it at all with words....what then..?...Do you sit passive and ALLOW them to bring it on..?..ALLOW them to go after your loved one with that INTENT to do harm..??....

NO of course you dont sit passive - be RESPONSIBLE - ACT to stop it even before it begins !! Fail to act and you fail your loved ones - simple as that - they WILL be harmed and you sat by did nothing even though you KNEW and COULD prevent it.....Do we see - violence may indeed BE NECASSARY - and it is certainly UNAVOIDABLE in this hostile world WE have made for OUR SELVES ... Just as we need at times slap the child to bring them up short and make them see sense before they harm self or others in their ignroance - so too the people around often need the same shock treatment to break them out of THEIR self ignroance too..

Violence - need not even be "physical aggression" fighting punches or kicks...Sometime - mere words themselves can also be violent - we se eit here onthe forum all the time - it is all about the intent....when you DEFEND the Self - you are NOT being "violent" - even though it may be an actual physical force confrontation with punches and kicks etc etc STILL you are being defensive - HUGE difference in INTENT - and that is the guide - what do you INTEND to be the outcome..?...To my mind it is perfectly ok to use violence if necassary - needed at times - perfectly ok even to take a life in DEFENSE of an innocent...

If you told me to my face that you was now going to hurt my wife children family - or even the stranger in the street - and if you had a weapon or clear intent to do that in front of me, then I would simply put you down first BEFORE you can act on that intent - and I would be fully justified by my Soul and my spirit - despite what the mortal concerns are the Soul always knows best - despite mankinds "judgements" of such things the SOULS judgement of Self is all that matters - therefore take RESPONSIBILITY for the Self and NEVER fail to act if it becomes necassary...We only harm our Self truely when we FAIL to be responsible for the Self and the world WE CREATE...

 

[Smart_Guy]

Most people do. I don't really understand why.

You know what I'm gonna say here.
Hint: me too, against the other side

Not really. But then again, hardly anyone does.

I prefer to judge the objective facts. I have never shot at anyone, never defended hostile action based on ethnicity or nationality, and for several years now I have attempted to denounce the fallacy of the idea of armed conflict as a "means for attaining peace".

I think that means you don't have enough information to make a good decision here!

But the question was if you consider yourself a violent human being. This speaks for possible case scenarios. Like, would you watch your family get "this and that" by serious and heavy offenders and do nothing if you're on your own? (sorry, cant give examples for "this and that" out of consideration. The OP could help)

Eh. Really?

I am truly surprised.

Yup!

I'm also truly surprised at your reaction, as they are humans just like you and I after all

Better the potential than the certainty, don't you think? Because that is the choice that we are talking about here.

Agreed. It is unfortunate that intentions aren't what always happen. They seem to ignore that. I'm starting to wonder if they have/had families they worry about.

Sorry, but I can't even vaguely attempt to agree.

It's okay, I too can't even have a vague chance to understand why you can't

 

[David1967]

Like, a village gets attacked by bandits who want to rape, rob, murder, take over, etc., and the villagers fight back violently to protect themselves; does that reflex necessarily, always and/or specifically make them un-peaceful (whatever the contextual opposite of peaceful is here)?

I say no, it does not. You?

People have the right to defend themselves. Here we have what's called the "make my day law." Put in context with your hypothetical village, the villagers don't have to run away, they can defend themselves. I say yes. Defend yourself with any means necessary . A dead bandit doesn't come back later.

 

[Smart_Guy]

People have the right to defend themselves. Here we have what's called the "make my day law." Put in context with your hypothetical village, the villagers don't have to run away, they can defend themselves. I say yes. Defend yourself with any means necessary . A dead bandit doesn't come back later.

Very well put, my friend.

That red part caught my attention. I think it is a good statement that violence does not necessarily begets violence. My take from it is that once the bandit is dead, or stopped for good any way possible, specially if the villages did it for pure protection, their violence stops and it is possible that no more bandits would come to demonize the village, but if the bandit succeeds with the plan, they most likely will raid another village.

 

[David1967]

Very well put, my friend.

That red part caught my attention. I think it is a good statement that violence does not necessarily begets violence. My take from it is that once the bandit is dead, or stopped for good any way possible, specially if the villages did it for pure protection, their violence stops and it is possible that no more bandits would come to demonize the village, but if the bandit succeeds with the plan, they most likely will raid another village.

It's peace through strength. Harm no one.show compassion to others. But in a life or death situation like in your example of the bandits, Defend yourself or your village decisively and with extreme prejudice. The surviving predatory bandits would do well to repent of there ways or find elsewhere for their mischief.

 

[Parchment]

Like, a village gets attacked by bandits who want to rape, rob, murder, take over, etc., and the villagers fight back violently to protect themselves; does that reflex necessarily, always and/or specifically make them un-peaceful (whatever the contextual opposite of peaceful is here)?
I say no, it does not. You?

No, it's a natural instinct to protect what is yours but diplomatically I agree with Theodore RooseveltBig Stick ideology - Wikipedia