I certainly don't think we should follow the teachings of Stalin, Hitler or Mao (China). I believe people need to have a fear of severe consequences for violence against others. And ofcourse there are other factors that anger people as well.

There are lots of separations between the "political" versus the "ethical" in Greek philosophy.
They were consumed by the topic.
All of them.

what we can do to face violence? what are the solutions to make peacefull world? — Zekkari Mohamed

I know this thread is old but it is so necessary to put it on the table. It is crazy how the violence increased drastically in the recent years. A group of teenagers killed another citizen of 24 years old just for a simple discussion. Also a group of Dutch citizens murdered another one from their country just because was “fun” getting involved in a riot or fighting against strangers.

I am feeling we are losing as a civilized world because most of the young groups see the violence as a funny issue. There are a lot of hate in the ambient, from the politicians to the social media. We have to stop it immediately. I think we have to reconsider how our educational system is working because I feel is fading away. I would sound totalitarian but I guess ethics should be more important at schools than religion.
One of the main goals should be teach to kids how outrageous is the violence and how important is respect other people’s lives and integrity. If we do not do so we will continue having a lot of disgraces and probably a WWIII. The language and discourse of the public representatives is bad. Only spread words to make conflicts. It remembers me of the new PM of Perú, Castillo, whose first discourse was attacking Spanish for no reasons or just past issues in conquista. I don’t understand why these politicians want to divide us but we have to learn how to avoid their toxic discourse and share empathy through our relationships.

Countries come, countries go, empires rise, flourish, decline, then fail. The zones of influence of the states are constantly changing depending on the real political power relations.

Eventually they all fail, and end up where they belong to, on the midden of history, but everyone has only one god damn life.

The moral lesson here, human being should be treated as an individual, not as a member of a group, masses, nation, commune, and so on. Human being is a human being, no more, no less. Should be treated so, not as a expendable unit.

But it will never happen, as long as our rulers educate our children, and we tolerate it, moreover yearn for it. Which is not an education, rather indoctrination.

The sad truth of society, people don't listen to philosophers and arguments, but listen to demagogues and slogans. And if we let this happen once, the most awful people will take advantage of our naivety, and gullibility. And nothing good will happen, but every bad will happen that can be imagined and that either, which we can't yet even imagine.

SP

what we can do to face violence? what are the solutions to make peacefull world?
— Zekkari Mohamed

I know this thread is old but it is so necessary to put it on the table. — javi2541997

Indeed and thanks for reviving it. You are not alone in your concern.

One of the main goals should be teach to kids how outrageous is the violence and how important is respect other people’s lives and integrity. If we do not do so we will continue having a lot of disgraces and probably a WWIII. The language and discourse of the public representatives is bad. Only spread words to make conflicts. It remembers me of the new PM of Perú, Castillo, whose first discourse was attacking Spanish for no reasons or just past issues in conquista. I don’t understand why these politicians want to divide us but we have to learn how to avoid their toxic discourse and share empathy through our relationships. — javi2541997

Re: the specific focus on 'solutions' to violence.

I touched on this in the thread I started:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11491/war-what-is-the-good-of-war-
There's also this thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11487/avoiding-war-philosophy-of-peace

So - quite a few perspectives and ways of looking at this.
You make good points re the importance of respect, language and learning. How to be aware of 'toxic discourse' and to 'share empathy through our relationships'. Whatever that means...or entails.

...as long as our rulers educate our children, and we tolerate it, moreover yearn for it. Which is not an education, rather indoctrination.

The sad truth of society, people don't listen to philosophers and arguments, but listen to demagogues and slogans. And if we let this happen once, the most awful people will take advantage of our naivety, and gullibility. — Art Stoic Spirit

I share your view that education is crucial. Thankfully, today we have more access to information and other ways of thinking via the internet. Sharing our experience. Knowledge is power. That, of course, works both ways...

So, to become less gullible and not be swayed by the words of those in power...to help find solutions to problems...needs a process...a learning and decision-making process. All the better to carefully consider and make our choices in life. To act rationally and to cope with emotions.
Which philosophy helps us do this ? Perhaps insights from stoicism or pragmatism...

The moral lesson here, human being should be treated as an individual, not as a member of a group, masses, nation, commune, and so on. Human being is a human being, no more, no less. Should be treated so, not as a expendable unit. — Art Stoic Spirit

And yes, it starts with the individual. The knowing yourself bit...but it seems we can't even agree on what constitutes an 'examined life' :wink:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11460/what-is-the-examined-life/p1

The sad truth of society, people don't listen to philosophers and arguments... — Art Stoic Spirit

Perhaps not so sad, given all the conflicting and confusing views and arguments ?
We listen to politicians because they are the ones in power and whose voices we hear via media.
How to counteract any sabre-rattling discourse - again we return to education.

Here is one attempt, free to download:
https://eric.ed.gov/?q=war&ff1=autHaas%2c+Mary+E.&ff2=subUnited+States+History&id=ED392707

This paper addresses how fear and hate have had an impact on the ways in which people and nations behave. A study of World War II reveals to people the terrible consequences of fear and hate. After this long war ended, many hoped that the United Nations would put an end to warfare and the acts that had nourished hatred. Using the theme of "Fear and Hate vs. Hope and Cooperation" to study World War II, teachers can address World War II in a meaningful way with children of different ages, abilities, and interests. Suggestions are given for discussion questions, trade books, large and small group activities, and interviewing techniques — Haas, Mary Fear and Hate vs. Hope and Cooperation.Examining an Important Lesson from World War II.

---------

If interested:
Other downloadable texts from Mary Haas from:
https://eric.ed.gov/?q=war&ff1=autHaas%2C+Mary+E.&ff2=subUnited+States+History

This paper is a collection of lessons that examine the many roles that women played in the Vietnam War and the consequences of their experiences for individuals, governments, and military policies. The series begins with an exercise in which students read 16 statements and then try to decide if they apply to U.S. women, Vietnamese women, or both.… — Mary Haas

This document presents lesson plans and related materials for teaching about the role of women in the U.S. military from World War I to Desert Storm (the Gulf War). The lesson includes a table showing the number of women who took part in Desert Storm broken down by branch of service. Another chart shows the number of women who served in the… — Mary Haas

I haven't looked at these yet and they are probably more relevant to the thread I started.
--------

Another educational resource:
Fear and Paradoxes of War

Through this course, I hope that you will come to appreciate that war is both a natural expression of common human emotions and interactions and a constitutive part of how we cohere as groups. That is, war is paradoxically an expression of our basest animal nature and the exemplar of our most vaunted and valued civilized virtues. You will learn some basic military history and sociology in this course as a lens for the more important purpose of seeing the broader social themes and issues related to war. I want you to both learn about war, but more importantly, use it as way of understanding your everyday social world. So, for example, the discussion of war and gender will serve to start you thinking about how expectations of masculinity are created and our discussion of nationalism will make clear how easy “us-them” dichotomies can be established and (ab)used. I will suggest some readings for you to complement the class and assign some activities through which you will be able to apply the theoretical insights from the course to your observations of everyday life. At the end of the course, you will start to see war everywhere and come to appreciate how much it defines our life. All the features of this course are available for free. It does not offer a certificate upon completion. — Coursera: Fear and Paradoxes of War

https://www.coursera.org/lecture/war/fear-FYLkK

We can also become more aware of different perspectives on 'violence' - not only that of military war but in domestic settings, and self-violence or harm. We are informed by the arts and science.
It starts by looking at the self. The mind. I think.

Thanks Amity for this reply.

The sad truth of society, people don't listen to philosophers and arguments, but listen to demagogues and slogans. And if we let this happen once, the most awful people will take advantage of our naivety, and gullibility. — Art Stoic Spirit

Good one :up: this shows how our modern society works...

Which philosophy helps us do this ? Perhaps insights from stoicism or pragmatism... — Amity

I understand this point but I think we don't need be so necessarily academic. I guess the point is provide to people a good quality in ethics to just develop the basic points of civics. If a few of them want to be more technical, then here is where we bring up the academics papers or researchers.
It is fine if they end up knowing that violence is not the solution in the path of human relations.

Another educational resource:
Fear and Paradoxes of War — Amity

Thanks for sharing it :up:

It starts by looking at the self. The mind. I think. — Amity

Yes it does I am agree with you. Sometimes I have the feeling that I am a part of big mass which orientes me how I should live by. I even make the mistake of forgetting what is the path of happiness according to my own circumstances.
Whenever I look deeply to myself I get a double dilemma: everybody is wrong or I am wrong because I see the life and the individuals so drastically different from how "supposedly" the world does.
I feel sick when I see violence (As Alex in the famous book and film "A clockwork orange") but somehow there are an important who loves it or even feel sexually attracted to it.
I feel the world is sick and the unique vaccine is ethics and a solid educational system.

I understand this point but I think we don't need be so necessarily academic. — javi2541997

The point is that these philosophies are not only theoretical can be practical ways of looking at how to live life.

I guess the point is provide to people a good quality in ethics to just develop the basic points of civics. — javi2541997

Ethics is a major part of stoicism.

The virtuous life is free of all passions, which are intrinsically disturbing and harmful to the soul, but includes appropriate emotive responses conditioned by rational understanding and the fulfillment of all one’s personal, social, professional, and civic responsibilities. The Stoics believed that the person who has achieved perfect consistency in the operation of his rational faculties, the “wise man,” is extremely rare, yet serves as a prescriptive ideal for all. The Stoics believed that progress toward this noble goal is both possible and vitally urgent. — IEP article: Stoic Ethics

https://iep.utm.edu/stoiceth/

I even make the mistake of forgetting what is the path of happiness according to my own circumstances.
Whenever I look deeply to myself I get a double dilemma: everybody is wrong or I am wrong because I see the life and the individuals so drastically different from how "supposedly" the world does. — javi2541997

I think it is easy to forget a 'path of happiness' if we don't recognise daily and take every opportunity to consider others who disagree with us, or attack us. We have to get past, rise above or use any first reaction of anger. There are other options other than knee-jerk retaliations, or ignoring...
Actually, they can provide more of a learning and growth opportunity than those who agree with us.
I can easily lose my 'balance' and perspective...when attacked, if I see it as personal.

The provocation and apparent misrepresentations of our words.
The what and who they think we are or stand for; the assumptions we can all make.
If we manage to step back, take a break and breathe...we can question and reflect on how best to respond. Hopefully with a view to clarify meaning and understanding.

What is your philosophy which sees you through ?

I feel the world is sick and the unique vaccine is ethics and a solid educational system. — javi2541997

Well, many think as you do but might differ as to the exact diagnosis; the specific problems and treatment. What would you include as solid subjects to be taught?
What one person desires, another fears. Such is life, no ?

What is your philosophy which sees you through ? — Amity

Probably it would sound quite basic but Taoism and Confucius helped me out in this issue.
For example, this analetcs of Confucius, developed on me a criteria in ethics.

1. The master said: Isn't that of consideration? What you don't want for yourself, don't do it to others. Key aspects on Confucius.

Taoism:

Verse 104: "When the way prevails, fleet-footed horses are relegated to ploughing the fields; when the way does not prevail in the empire, war-horses breed on the border." Taoism

I know this analetcs are free to interpret but somehow I feel like Asian philosophy is there to provide peace and happiness.
Also, we should not forget about Siddhartha Gautama and buddishm:" Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night" The basics teachings of Buddhism.

Another one:

Isn't it shù?" , "What you do not want yourself," , "Don't do to others."
Confucianism in a single moral principle? This is about , "consideration" or "reciprocity"
This is the Golden Rule with negatives, and so sometimes is called the "Silver Rule." However, it may be better with the negatives. "Do onto others," could mean that masochists are justified in being sadists. This version, merely negative, is more in the right spirit of morality, which is to prohibit harmful and unjust actions

Violence Asymmetry
1. It is rare indeed to find a party [a lone individual or a group of any size (community, state, military bloc)] willing to be the first to assault. Take note of the fact that I didn't say no one and instead mentioned only that it is rare to find people who are willing to initiate violence.

2. No one likes to be assaulted. An obvious truth anyone acquainted with violence is aware of.

The violence asymmetry: (Some) persons maybe willing to be the first to assault but no person wants to be assaulted.

The reasons for this are quite clear:

People want to keep their options open, violence is retained as a possible means of achieving a desired end. If the situation is "normal" using force should be a last resort but if SNAFU, might is right.

On the flip side, everyone is well aware of the horrors of war (extreme, indiscriminate violence) and so wish to steer clear of any recourse to arms.

As should be obvious, the violence asymmetry is the mechanism that kickstarts and sustains what has come to be known as the vicious cycle of arms race - invent & mass produce weapons for offense, this then eliciting a counterbalancing but now defense-oriented identical response. Since this is a positive feedback loop, each component in the system impelling the other forward, there really is no upper bound that could halt the process. Boys with their toys :roll:

During my teens [in the 1980s], I observed how, in general, by ‘swinging first’ a person potentially places himself (or herself) in an unanticipated psychological disadvantage — one favoring the combatant who chooses to patiently wait for his opponent to take the first swing, perhaps even without the fist necessarily connecting.

Just having the combatant swing at him before he’d even given his challenger a physical justification for doing so seemed to instantly create a combined psychological and physical imperative within to react to that swung fist with justified anger. In fact, such testosterone-prone behavior may be reflected in the typically male (perhaps unconsciously strategic) invitation for one’s foe to ‘go ahead and lay one on me,’ while tapping one’s own chin with his forefinger.

Yet, from my experience, it’s a theoretical advantage not widely recognized by both the regular scrapper mindset nor general society. Instead of the commonly expected advantage of an opponent-stunning first blow, the hit only triggers an infuriated response earning the instigator two-or-more-fold returned-payment hard hits. It brings to mind an analogous scenario in which a chess player recklessly plays white by rashly forcefully moving his pawn first in foolish anticipation that doing so will indeed stupefy his adversary.

I’ve theorized that it may be an evolutionary instinct ingrained upon the human male psyche — one preventing us from inadvertently killing off our own species by way of an essentially gratuitous instigation of deadly violence in bulk, which also results in a lack of semen providers to maintain our race. Therefore, in this sense, we can survive: If only a first strike typically results in physical violence, avoiding that first strike altogether significantly reduces the risk of this form of wanton self-annihilation.
In short, matters should remain peacefully peachy, or at least non-violent, when every party shows the others their proper, due respect. It’s like a proactively perfect solution.

It should also be noted, however, that on rare occasion (at least from my many years of observation) an anomalous initiator/aggressor will be sufficiently confident, daring and violently motivated, perhaps through internal and/or external anger, to outright breach the abovementioned convention by brazenly throwing the first punch(es).

Perhaps with the logical anticipation, or hope even, that his conventional foe will physically respond in kind by swinging at or hitting him, the unprovoked initiator/aggressor will feel confident and angered enough to willfully physically continue, finishing what he had essentially inexcusably started. It was as though he had anticipated that through both his boldness in daring to throw the first punch and then furthermore finish the physical job he himself had the gall to unjustifiably start in the first place, he will resultantly intimidate his (though now perhaps already quite intimidated) non-initiator/non-aggressor foe into a crippling inferior sense of physical-defense debilitation, itself capable of resulting in a more serious beating received by that diminished non-initiator/non-aggressor party.

Or, another possibility remains that the initiator/aggressor will be completely confident that when/if he strikes first and the non-initiator/non-aggressor responds with reactor’s fury, he, the initiator/aggressor will himself respond to that response with even greater fury thus physically/psychologically overwhelm the non-initiator/non-aggressor with a very unfortunate outcome for the latter party.

P.S. It has always both bewildered and sickened me how a person can throw a serious punch without any physical provocation; and equally disturbing were the girls clamoring for front-row viewing of the almost-always-male after-school scraps.

What we wish for: Ahimsa in all its glory - the complete abolishment of violence of all kinds.

What we actually get: Violence as a necessary evil - under existing circumstances, renouncing violence is madness/stupidity/both.

The best we can do: Violence, always a last option!

What we actually get: Violence as a necessary evil - under existing circumstances, renouncing violence is madness/stupidity/both. — Agent Smith

Why do you think violence is a necessary evil?

Why do you think violence is a necessary evil? — Joshs

Isn't it obvious? :brow:

Why do you think violence is a necessary evil? — Joshs

Human stupidity (i.e. incorrigibly maladaptive misuses of intelligence / know-how / judgment which inadvertently do harm to oneself and/or others) is the oldest STD and is rarely treatable by culture or medication.

Human stupidity (i.e. incorrigibly maladaptive misuses of intelligence / know-how / judgment which inadvertently do harm to oneself and/or others) is the oldest STD and is rarely treatable by culture or medication. — 180 Proof

Hey, don't give up so easy. — Pretty gal to spurned suitor

:heart: :kiss:

What we wish for: Ahimsa in all its glory - the complete abolishment of violence of all kinds.

What we actually get: Violence as a necessary evil - under existing circumstances, renouncing violence is madness/stupidity/both.

The best we can do: Violence, always a last option! — Agent Smith

Why think in terms of 'we'?

There's nothing stopping you or I from living according to principles of non-violence.

It gets more complicated when one seeks to have others live in accordance with those principles too. It seems desires to impose such principles on others are fundamentally at odds with the principles themselves.

Why think in terms of 'we'?

There's nothing stopping you or I from living according to principles of non-violence.

It gets more complicated when one seeks to have others live in accordance with those principles too. It seems desires to impose such principles on others are fundamentally at odds with the principles themselves. — Tzeentch

Indeed, ahimsa has as a clause non-retaliation policy i.e. to refrain from exacting either vengeance or justice if you catch my drift. This is in keeping with your position that we shouldn't think in terms of we; au contraire, ahimsa is designed for a hyper-violent world! Sad that without a tit-for-tat strategem, good folks will be culled from the herd.

Sad that without a tit-for-tat strategem, good folks will be culled from the herd. — Agent Smith

We all have to die some day.

Better to die a human than live as an animal.

We all have to die some day.

Better to die a human than live as an animal. — Tzeentch

I don't know if I should give you a :up: or not for that comment!

Many have taken the route you recommend, but some haven't and that's what's interesting. I'm on the verge of becoming an antinatalist which, now that I think about it, seems to be stage in what psychiatrists term suicidal ideation that has global potential if you catch my drift. I must think this over more carefully. Suiciders can't procreate! A surefire way of proving one's point...in style, oui monsieur?

How unfortunate that some are faced with such painful dilemmas. However, ahimsa and one other thing which you're already aware of of course.