It is very difficult to convince a large population of people connected by information which includes history and factual information like news as well as sensory stimulation and disruption such as pain and grief that active violence is ethical. Passive or potential violence is more commonly used ie. negligible manslaughter or the law of robotics "allowing a human to come into harm through inaction". "I was doing something more important" and perhaps you can convince others that you in fact, were. Who knows, perhaps as an absolute fact you were. However, perhaps it's an equal fact you knew whatever you were doing would not last or result in a net positive of life so you were in fact just doing nothing intentionally. But that's difficult to prove. After all you know what they say never assign something that can be explained as stupidity or ignorance as malice or intent. Something like that. Is it right? You tell me.

Is it right? You tell me. — Outlander

Mm. It's neat how some ethical reforms were built on the backs of violent revolutions, which isn't necessarily hypocritical in this case, but kind of anyways.

Is violence ethical, and if so, when and where? — john27

Well in general it is not, it hurts people. Generally it is not nice to hurt people. It can be ethical, when it saves someone (or many) from a greater hurt. Even in that case it not always is, but sometimes violence is justified, unless you are a very strict Kantian perhaps.

:up:

Is violence ethical, and if so, when and where? — john27

Self-defence - but with minimal force.

Here's an interesting situation: Before WWII began, the British were making plans for war--as were everybody else. The airplane people in the military thought that the highest and best use of air power was bombing. Fine, so what should the Air Force bomb? Should they support ground troops? Should they attack shipping at sea? Should they bomb railroads? Should they bomb factories? Should they bomb housing? What?

It seemed obvious to some planners that bombing factories, oil refineries, mills, and the like would be most productive. Other planners felt that bombing factories, refineries, mills... would kill too many people. The British government officially decided that they would not et out to kill people. Property yes, people no.

Despiser what the government officially decided, once WWII started, it became obvious that deliberately killing people made sound military sense--in the context of "total war" and in the context of (possible) existential threats. So they soon starting bombing factories and, significantly, neighborhoods. (So did the Germans.). The British were very careful to maintain the PR fiction that they only bombed "military targets" even if the "military target was a neighborhood where ordinary workers lived.

all this was complicated by the fact that a bomb intended to hit a railroad might instead hit a house or a school. Bombs aimed at a factory might end up hitting the surrounding workers' homes.

Is violence ethical, and if so, when and where? — john27

I don't know; I believe just about any violence will be declared "ethical" IF and WHENEVER large nation interests are at stake. This goes for pretty much any country. "War is diplomacy conducted by other methods." Violence is not always useful, it doesn't always achieve what is desired; but it works often enough that it is high on the list of options.

Ethics applied to individual cases are much easier.

The only time violence is condoned is when people who resort to it do so out of desperation. What is necessary can neither be good nor evil.

when it saves someone (or many) from a greater hurt. Even in that case it not always is, but sometimes violence is justified, unless you are a very strict Kantian perhaps. — Tobias

Is justifiable and ethical the same thing?

Self-defence - but with minimal force. — Tom Storm

Hm. Suppose you are in a lethal situation with another dude, would you still follow this?

I believe just about any violence will be declared "ethical" IF and WHENEVER large nation interests are at stake. This goes for pretty much any country. "War is diplomacy conducted by other methods." — Bitter Crank

Sometimes, I feel like we should just enact a global presidential boxing match. Let them fight their own problems.

I'm just reading Foucault's Madness and Civilization, which characterizes the horrific brutality with which the Age of Reason addressed what is antithetical to reason, madness. I guess in those terms, violence is seen as being ethical when it is applied to unreason:

...the age of reason confined. It confined the debauched, spendthrift fathers, prodigal sons, blasphemers, men who "seek to undo themselves," libertines. And through these parallels, these strange complicities, the age sketched the profile of its own experience of unreason.

violence is ethical when used in defense against an aggressor. Some would suggest that it should be the minimal use of force needed, however I am a proponent of using whatever amount of force I chose to get the job done in the most efficient manner possible. So yes, if that means someone has to die, they are going to die as efficiently as I can make it happen. If I can end the threat without death, great. If I am not sure, oh well, efficiency wins.

what is antithetical to reason, madness. I guess in those terms, violence is seen as being ethical when it is applied to unreason:

...the age of reason confined. It confined the debauched, spendthrift fathers, prodigal sons, blasphemers, men who "seek to undo themselves," libertines. And through these parallels, these strange complicities, the age sketched the profile of its own experience of unreason. — Pantagruel

Huh. So violence is like a cure/response to madness, if I understand correctly?

So yes, if that means someone has to die, they are going to die as efficiently as I can make it happen. If I can end the threat without death, great. If I am not sure, oh well, efficiency wins. — Book273

I don't know if I entirely agree...

The only time violence is condoned is when people who resort to it do so out of desperation. What is necessary can neither be good nor evil. — Agent Smith

I agree with that.

Huh. So violence is like a cure/response to madness, if I understand correctly? — john27

That is the suggestion, as an historical analysis. Violence as enforcing reason. It is kind of chilling.

That is the suggestion, as an historical analysis. Violence as enforcing reason. It is kind of chilling. — Pantagruel

Yeah, despite the dire setting, I wouldn't necessarily agree that violence is an ethical response.

Yeah, despite the dire setting, I wouldn't necessarily agree that violence is an ethical response. — john27

I don't believe that violence is ever an ethical choice. But I think that the "defense of reason" position may be one of the strongest.

edit:

Toward the middle of the eighteenth century, a farmer in the north of Scotland had his hour of fame. He was said to possess the art of curing insanity. Pinel notes in passing that this Gregory had the physique of a Hercules: "His method consisted in forcing the insane to perform the most difficult tasks of farming, in using them as beasts of burden, as servants, in reducing them to an ultimate obedience with a barrage of blows at the least act of revolt."

Is justifiable and ethical the same thing? — john27

No, but they are complementary. Preemptive, proportional violence sufficient to neutralize violent aggression and deter (disincentivizes e.g. punishes) further aggressions is justified. Responsive, proportional violence sufficient to reduce further harms to aggressors and/or victims is ethical. Protection from violence and reduction of violence, respectively.

I am a proponent of using whatever amount of force I chose to get the job done in the most efficient manner possible. So yes, if that means someone has to die, they are going to die as efficiently as I can make it happen. If I can end the threat without death, great. If I am not sure, oh well, efficiency wins. — Book273

How reactionary (monkey brain "macho") of you. :brow:

If one considers violence, in itself, to be unethical, or at least undesirable, then minimizing the time one, or any other, is exposed to violence would be paramount to the reduction of harm from exposure to said violence. Therefore, achieving a state of maximum efficiency with violence could be considered the best way to reduce the amount of violence anyone is exposed to, and thereby reducing the harm associated with violence. An ability to achieve a violent outcome, when required, as painlessly and rapidly as possible would be the ultimate goal.

Example:

A) One is attacked in an alley, and having no previous training or weapons with which to defend oneself, one is subject to the will and whims of ones attacker. However long, or painful the attacker wants thing to go, that is what the victim must endure. Wallet theft, rape, murder, whatever the attacker wants, the attacker gets, within whatever parameters they elect to pursue. The victim relies on the goodness of their fellow man for protection.

B) One is attacked in the same alley, same attacker, however, the victim is packing a knife and knows how to use it. After two minutes the attacker is dead, the victim, bleeding, goes to the hospital for minor stiches. One is more reliant on the self to defend against fellow man.

C) Same alley, same attacker. The person attacked is highly trained in highly efficient use of violence. Within seconds the attacker is incapacitated (dead or unconscious) and the victim of the attack carries on along their previous path, having barely broken a sweat.

Option A has the largest, longest violence and the most suffering for the victim, and potentially for the attacker, on the premise that violence harms in both directions. Option B) has the next highest level of violence, as violence occurs to both parties and the event lasts longer than it needs to. Option C has the least violence involved, both in duration of time and energy expended committing violence, therefore Option C is the most ethical position.

Violence should not be one's opening option, however, once it is there, one should be fully conversant with it and use it as efficiently as possible, minimizing suffering.

s justifiable and ethical the same thing? — john27

Well justifiable is a legal term, so when violence is justified depends on the system of law. Whether violence is ethical depends on what ethical theory one follows. "is violence ethical?" Is actually an incomplete question. Firstly because the answer is rather straight forward, in no ethical system is violence per se ethical, all frown upon it, but then the thornier question becomes: when is violence considered ethical. This depends on one's system of ethics. A utilitarian might for instance argue in favour of torturing a terrorist in case of a ticking time bomb scenario, whereas a Kantian would argue against.

I tend to take a rather casuistic approach in such matters, because I do not believe in context independent ethical systems and generally take recourse to law, a field that has more experience in casustic conflict resolution than ethics. Therefore my argument would be that the default position is that violence is unethical, but there might be cases in which it may be ethical to use force.

Violence should not be one's opening option, however, once it is there, one should be fully conversant with it and use it as efficiently as possible, minimizing suffering. — Book273

Minimize suffering? Someone's dead!

I don't believe that violence is ever an ethical choice. But I think that the "defense of reason" position may be one of the strongest. — Pantagruel

Well it certainly is understandable.

"His method consisted in forcing the insane to perform the most difficult tasks of farming, in using them as beasts of burden, as servants, in reducing them to an ultimate obedience with a barrage of blows at the least act of revolt." — Pantagruel

What a picturesque scenario. Almost romantic, in a weird way.

"is violence ethical?" Is actually an incomplete question. Firstly because the answer is rather straight forward, in no ethical system is violence per se ethical, all frown upon it, but then the thornier question becomes: when is violence considered ethical. — Tobias

How could we complete/reform the question?

Therefore my argument would be that the default position is that violence is unethical, but there might be cases in which it may be ethical to use force. — Tobias

I see no harm in that.

What a picturesque scenario. Almost romantic, in a weird way. — john27

Yes, although I'm not sure if picturesque or graphic is the word I'd choose....

How could we complete/reform the question? — john27

Well first I think you need an indication beyond yes and no. Is violence always ethical, sometimes ethical, never ethical, now it becomes a yes or no question as if there are two flavours possible, yes violence is ethical, no it is not. Whereas here I think midddle grounds are possible. I think the responses would also be batter if you limit the question to a certain ethical theory. "I violence always unethical according to Kantian ethics?" The problem here is that people will jsut tell you there own observations but as you yourself pointed out already, many meanings are still unclear, for instance the difference between justifiable and ethical.

Responsive, proportional violence sufficient to reduce further harms to aggressors and/or victims is ethical. Protection from violence and reduction of violence, respectively. — 180 Proof

I suppose then it wouldn't necessarily be violence, but a physical act of control. However, violence is often brutal. Sometimes justifiable, yet not necessarily ethical, which would illustrate a sort of conflict between the two. I guess maybe a more accurate question would be, is the act of inflicting injury upon someone else ethical?

I think the responses would also be better if you limit the question to a certain ethical theory. "I violence always unethical according to Kantian ethics?" — Tobias

But then it'd be too easy! :joke:

No, I see what you're saying. Perhaps in the question of ethical reform, or societal reform, are acts of injury permissible? (i.e riots, revolutions)

I suppose then it wouldn't necessarily be violence, but a physical act of control. However, violence is often brutal, and sometimes justifiable not necessarily ethical. I guess maybe a more accurate question would be, is the act of inflicting injury upon someone else ethical? — john27

Same answer. When your threaten to slit Proof's' throat from ear to ear with the flick knife you are wielding and I punch you in the face disarming you, then my 'act of control' amounts to inflicting injury aka violence, maybe even public violence if this were to happen in the street. Is this justified? Legally it is. (I know of no legal system which would convict in this case). Is it ethical? I think saving Proof''s life is an ethical action. hitting you might be unethical in normal circumstances but it was the appropriate means to a right end. In my book this would be a form of ethical violence.

No, I see what you're saying. Perhaps in the question of ethical reform, or societal reform, are acts of injury permissible? — john27

Ahhh, see that is a different question and will indeed beget different answers. None of mine yet as I have to get back to work.