In Violence (1989), C.A.J. Coady argues that it would be preferable to adopt a more restricted definition of violence. He does this by considering two popular views and argues that both: 1. Have counterintuitive consequences and/or do not reflect ordinary language usage, and 2. Lack the ability to aid us in practical decisions. He then argues that a restricted definition of violence would score higher on both of these considerations and consequently (given the lack of negative upshots) be preferable to either of the popular accounts. Specifically, Coady begins by pointing out that we demand as much as clarity as possible from our definitions. Moreover, our definition should be as objective as possible in order to provide fair and accurate …show more content…
2) This is because a violent act’s illegitimacy follows by definition, and if a disputed/borderline act is deemed justified then the act is non-violent by definition. This seems counterintuitive because most people see a justified killing of say, an active shooter by a police officer as an act of violence, albeit one that is morally permissible or even required. In other words, the intuition that it is legitimate does not seem to be at odds with the intuition that it is violent. In short, the legitimacy view seems to produce awkward consequences and it also seems unhelpful in practical …show more content…
Coady then claims that the structural view is counterintuitive; specifically, he points out that our ordinary usage of the term rarely refers to many non-physical acts, such as those of social injustices. For this reason it seems that the structural view appears to be overly general, in which it is confusing and unhelpful. Moreover it appears as if the proponents of the structural view over-moralize it when they endorse certain social reforms that will supposedly eliminate all structural violence. Claims like this seem to assume that all violence is morally wrong. This assumption is itself dubious if we are to trust the common intuition in cases similar to the active shooter case mentioned earlier. Now that we have seen the shortcomings of two popular views of violence, Coady proposes his positive account; namely, that we ought to adopt a restricted definition. He begins with a dictionary definition (physical force with intent to damage/injure another), but he then observes that this is too restrictive and that we ought to include some psychological considerations. A restricted definition, Coady argues, is less morally loaded than the other two views given that it allows us to call an act a violent one without being committed (at least not as committed as the other views) to a certain ethical
Structural violence has been a major topic in this course “Cooperation and Conflict”, and it has also been one topic that I can relate to and speak on. In the Henrietta Lacks story, structural violence is a big theme. Doctors completely violated her human and civil rights as a patient by not informing her of certain procedures that were done on her body. They took small slices of a cell of hers to research and run tests on it. Though these cells aided in great developments in research and medicine, Henrietta at the very least should have been informed of what exactly they would do it. Also, by that I do not mean in medical terms that she would not understand, but the doctor taking the time to explain to her in a way that she would at least
Once upon a time, the theory that the majority of violent crimes was caused by biological reasons, was a trendy opinion. However James Gilligan a notable psychiatrist, who has been working with prisoners and prison systems for years to study and develop the general method to prevent crimes, sees this psychological perspective, and comes out with a different conclusion. In the article “Shame: The Emotions and Morality of Violence,” Gilligan emphasizes that shame is the reason why most people commit crimes, and they tend to “diminish the intensity of shame” by violence.(44) He explains the concept of preconditions, which are key elements for violence to happen, to discuss the origins of violent crimes. Gilligan suggests that violent men are “shameful to feel ashamed about themselves.”(43) They also believe that they have no
If King defines violence as “immoral and destructive means” (King, 400), and Mitchell claims that violence can be used to bring about peace and equality. And King further states that “immoral and destructive means” (King, 400), can only bring about immoral and destructive ends. Then it is possible to infer that peace and equality are immoral and destructive. This is an error brought about through a lack of a definition to the terms violence and non-violence. As with the time King found new terms to differentiate between the types of love, he must find a number of new terms with which we may differentiate between the types of violence. The lack of variety has led to confusion that can possibly be eased through an ability to discriminate meanings. A possible distinction King could make between his violence and Mitchell’s violence is by using the terms brutality and brouhaha. A brouhaha could be what King calls non-violence, and brutality being what King calls violence. Brutality being a physical, forceful and damaging act of cruelty. A brouhaha is an enthusiastic act of abnormal behavior for the purpose of causing discomfort in others. An example of a brouhaha would be what King would call a non-violent protest. An example of brutality would be smashing in the windows of a store that refused to serve someone. To fix the claim “the type of peace King predicts from non-violence is better than one from violence,” Dr. King need only add a disclaimer stating the fact that such a claim is purely conjecture and wrought with bias. These changes could cause the essay to lose some of its power over the public, a group that has to think very little about the information that moves them, but it is personally believed that the changes would make the document more accurate for the people who
On April 16, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho, a 23-year-old college student, shocked the nation when he perpetrated the deadliest shooting massacre in U.S. history. The violent rampage took place on the Virginia Tech University campus in Blacksburg, Virginia, where Cho was a senior majoring in English. Before turning the gun on himself and delivering a fatal gunshot to the head, Cho murdered more than 30 of his classmates and University faculty; numerous others were injured. In a strange twist, several days after the tragedy, a package determined to have been mailed by Cho during the shooting spree was received at NBC News in New York. The package contained photos of Cho posing with guns, as well as video clips and various pages of Cho’s writing. Portraying himself as a martyr avenger of the weak and defenseless, the targets of Cho’s angry ranting included wealthy students, bullies, Christianity, and society (Kleinfield, 2007). In the wake of tragedies like Virginia Tech, an automatic public response is to want immediate answers, explanations. It seems logical that something so extraordinarily awful and wrong must have been caused by an equally unusual and outrageous problem or anomaly. However, explaining heinous crimes of violence is not so straight-forward; understanding violent behavior involves multiple, and sometimes conflicting, theoretical perspectives and disciplines.
The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton proves the point that violence can be justified if necessary. To inflict change in their lives people often fight with violence instead of peace to evoke change. The world strives for change everyday whether or not you like it. How the people create a change in society whether they use peace or war, it is up to them to decide how to modify our ever changing world. Violence and fight between the Socs and Greasers tells us that both can be justified if it inflicts positive change in society. ‘
This all shows how different things in and around us can influence or cause us to behave in a certain manner. Whether it be, domestic violence or another criminal act. The sociological concept allows for blame to be taken away from some individuals, victims and or perpetrators and have it placed on society. This is a good thing as it allows us to look into ourselves, and see where we can be responsible for some of the evils of the world. It forces us to take some of the blame instead of always pointing fingers on the other person. Though not all criminal behavior follow along with this concept, many do, and it is therefore important for everyone to be familiar with it and be able to put it to use.
Once we understand what violence is the question that is raised is how does one decide the difference between a legitimate and an illegitimate act of violence? Since violence is bringing harm to others whether that is individuals, property or organizations why would violence be considered permissible or legitimate on some occasions but not others? Universally, the idea of legitimacy is “that something is right, proper, or appropriate within the bounds of a system of norms, values, or beliefs” (Schoon 779). Since norms and values are changeable depending on the culture, legitimacy can be “shaped by the availability of alternatives to that which is being evaluated” (780). While legitimacy is not solely based on cultural norms and values, it is also based
Law enforcement officers as perpetrators of such conduct are often immune from facing accountability (Opotow, 2001). Judicial and prosecutorial misconduct also receive similar impunity and this lack of accountability is systemic in nature, and creates a culture of impropriety and misconduct within the system. Often the voices of those most impacted by the impunity are forced into situations of social unrest to counterbalance the system of structural violence. Structural violence is defined by Opotow (2001), as imperceptible violence occurring gradually against those within a society whose voices are systemically ignored and unheard creating a system fostering greater results for those with personal wealth and access to resources over those who do not have equal wealth and access to resources. Structural violence is not designed to kill or injure directly, however it places persons in lower socio-economic classes at greater risk of harm at the hands of others protecting the elite social class.
Although we have a general definitions of crime, some criminologists argue that crimes is better placed within the concept of social harm, Stuart Henry and Mark Lanier (1998) as quoted in Muncie, Talbot and Walters (2010). pp 16-17 were leading authors who done just that. Criminologists such as “Tifft, 1995 an...
Violence causes a great deal of suffering and harm in the world today and yesterday (Cross 2013). Peace and conflict researchers are undeniably justified in their selection of inter and intra-state violence as objects of study because the social context for both the performance and understanding of violence is of central importance (Cross 2013). However it is surprisingly rare to find a definition of violence (Moore 2003). Thus uncertainty prevails as to whether violence is limited to physical abuse or includes verbal and psychological abuse (Moore 2003). Agreeing with Moore (2003), Galtung (1969) said it is not important to arrive at a definition of violence because there are obliviously many types of violence. Violence is not
Two stories were recently told to me, independently of one another, and although I was struck by each, it was a third story that emerged from the collision of the first two that most challenged me. The first story is about the violence of literature: "That's my current definition of literature: a cataclysmic event, one that disrupts what we think we so-settle-edly-know..." (Dalke). The second story is a definition of violence that I heard used in the context of a conversation about racism. "Violence is the denial of humanity." Although the implication seemed to be that humanity is denied to the victim of violence, I also suggest that violence diminishes the humanity of the perpetrator.
... Social Policy, and Violence, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 70, No. 5, 1996.
Through a functionalist perspective, the justice system is an institution based upon the belief that justice, equality and fairness help to form the basic framework of society. If there is deviance, defined as “behavior that violates the standards of conduct or expectations of a group or society” (Witt 135), the society must discover how to deal with it. Examples of crime, which is an aspect of deviance, are theft, murder, and sexual assault. Another concept of this institution is the concept of social control, defined as “the techniques and strategies for preventing deviant human behavior in any society” (Witt 130). Through this concept, the justice system strives to direct individuals to be morally correct. The justice system is a dominant part of this by handling crime through punishment such as arrest. Therefore, when the officers that were a part of the justice system in this article partook in shooting different individuals, this can be viewed as the institution handling deviance through social control. If there was not this social control, then the justice system would not be doing its job that contributes to the overall higher structure of
Freud believes that aggression is a primal instinct, and civilization thwarts this instinct, making man unhappy. Civilized society controls man's tendency toward aggression through rules and laws and the presence of authority. These mechanisms are put in place to guarantee safety and happiness for all individuals in a society. However, the necessity of suppressing the aggressive drive in m...
It might seem complicated to define violence by the fact that notions of what is acceptable behavior and what constitutes traumas are culturally influenced and constantly under review as values and social norms evolve. However, there is one Truth, a Moral Law, that governs and condemns violence of all forms.