Is the rejection of all violence a valid principle?

[Ori]

I don't believe in violence, but if someone were to try and hurt someone I loved I would probably resort to it, but still feel bad later.

What do you think?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Polish children imprisoned in Auschwitz look out from behind the barbed wire fence. (July 1944)


Nonviolence as a principle in the face of genocide is complicity.​

 

[Ori]

Good point Duet, frubals for you.

 

[fromthe heart]

I reject violence but still I think if encountered with a situation not expected and thought on we as humans act out of instinct to survive and our instinct to protect our young just as all creatures do here on this earth. If my family was all of a sudden being threatened I would probably fight to the death to protect them without regards to my own safety but it would be acting on just preserving life. I can't say given past experiences I wouldn't do the same for a stranger either. I've risked my life many times for someone else just because I was the one there first. I know most people will do the same...it's just a reaction to a situation. I'm no hero by any accounts I'm just saying I never have stopped to think before reacting when life of any sort is in danger..A part of you just seems to do and not think.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Deut... you said it perfectly. If I hadn't just Frubaled you, I would do it again.

However, for MOST wars and aggression, there is no justification. Why, for instance, do we fight a war in Iraq and leave Darfur completely alone.

Romans 12: 17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. NIV

 

[CaptainXeroid]

I don't believe in violence, but if someone were to try and hurt someone I loved I would probably resort to it, but still feel bad later...

I don't seek out violence, and have only been in 2 fights in my life. Both were in self-defense, and I had a choice between defending myself or being badly injured. I ended both fights.Knockout

In light of Deut's powerful message, if I were faced with such an evil, I would feel bad if I did not fight against it.

 

[michel]

I must admit that I was ready to post, and Deut's post stopped me in my tracks......


I suppose I have to revert to what I remember my parents telling me about the war - in which they both fought; " We were both pacifists, but when push came to shove, we did what we had to do" - The trouble is, this opens a can of worms.....The middle East, parts of Africa, Afghanistan - dare I mention Iraq ?... when is going to the help of an oppressed people permissable?

 

[Green Gaia]

If by 'vaild' you mean 'realistic', then no.

 

[DreamQuickBook]

I don't believe in violence, but if someone were to try and hurt someone I loved I would probably resort to it, but still feel bad later.

What do you think?

I support violence in opposition to all assaults on my liberty through force or fraud. However, I believe that everyone should be willing to accept responsiblity for the consequences of their violence.

 

[Engyo]

Rejection of violence does not necessarily mean that one cannot defend one's self or family, or come to the aid of a friend or stranger. It can be a rejection of violence as a means to accomplish one's goals, rather than "beat on me all you want, I won't respond" if one encounters violence by others.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Rejection of violence does not necessarily mean that one cannot defend one's self or family, or come to the aid of a friend or stranger. It can be a rejection of violence as a means to accomplish one's goals, rather than "beat on me all you want, I won't respond" if one encounters violence by others.

Word play ...

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

To kill is a sin
Defence of the innocent will be judged favourably by God.

Terry
_____________________________
Blessed are those who bring peace, they shall be children of God

 

[Fluffy]

Violence is right when it is done to protect another from harm (no matter what form that harm may take). It is wrong for every other reason.

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

the rejection of all violence is a foolish principle. I am bound by faith to defend my family, myself, my nation, and all others i deem worthy. Violence and agression are sometimes necessary.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

However, for MOST wars and aggression, there is no justification. Why, for instance, do we fight a war in Iraq and leave Darfur completely alone.

I'm sorry, NetDoc. Usually, you are one of the most brilliant posters I know, but to see this shortcoming appalled me... *heavy sigh* (All of the above is just kidding. ND and I seem to share the same opinion on this subject. ) We must remember the importance of human life and protecting what is good! Freedom! We must stop people from hurting innocents!We must remember... um. Oh, yeah.

Iraq has oil. Darfur doesn't.

That makes me want to go bite someone.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I believe there comes a time for violence. Whether defending a friend or family member, or a country, violence becomes a necessary evil when all other peacefull options have failed.

 

[ch'ang]

I beleive that violence should only be used as a last resort because although I really hate it I hate seeing people suffer even more

 

[Engyo]

Word play ...

You are free to see it that way if you wish. For me it is a spiritual principle. Laugh all you like.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Rejection of violence does not necessarily mean that one cannot defend one's self or family, or come to the aid of a friend or stranger. It can be a rejection of violence as a means to accomplish one's goals, rather than "beat on me all you want, I won't respond" if one encounters violence by others.

Word play ...

You are free to see it that way if you wish. For me it is a spiritual principle. Laugh all you like.

I wasn't laughing. I was characterizing what I view as a purely semantic effort to sanitize a position. You write ...

Rejection of violence does not necessarily mean that one cannot defend one's self or family, or come to the aid of a friend or stranger. It can be a rejection of violence as a means to accomplish one's goals, ...​

... yet the defense of self, family, friend, and/or stranger is nothing other than the use of "violence as a means to accomplish one's goals" - specifically the goal of "defend[ing] one's self or family, or come[ing] to the aid of a friend or stranger".

Be it a "spiritual principle" or not, it remains word play.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Deut,

I understand and respect what Engyo was referring to. Too many times our war policy is determined not by who needs defending (Darfur), but by where we will get the most benefit (The current Haliburton War against Iraq). The current administration has a fixation on oil and a lack of compassion for human misery. While I could never see violence for gain as just, I fully respect violence that seeks to counter violence in a defensive effort.

To that end, I have bit hit without hitting back... but just touch my wife or kids and you will have awakened a maniac.