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 …show more content…
Seeing that it is easier to decide illegitimacy based on our morals. However, because of this variability illegitimacy is evaluated on a relative scale, the illegitimacy is shaped by the degree that the violence can be justified by our morals and values. Illegitimacy centralizes on the forms of the violence and the status of its actors. The purpose of having this distinction between legitimate and illegitimate violence is to express the finality of the law. It is a “reassertion of a hegemony that would permit no rival claim to the legitimate exercise of political violence” (Boyd 159). By law violence by anyone excepts the state is considered illegitimate; this is known as the monopoly on violence and will be discussed later. So, under the law, it would appear as if there is no legitimacy to violence by non-sate actors. The exception to this rule is the ability to direct force against an aggressor as they bear the liability they bring upon themselves through their unjust actions. This use of violence is seen as necessary to prevent injury of equivalent magnitude (Finlay
Structural violence is differentiated from direct violence both in terms of etiology and nature. D...
Political violence is action taken to achieve political goals that may include armed revolution, civil strife, terrorism, war or other such activities that could result in injury, loss of property or loss of life. Political violence often occurs as a result of groups or individuals believing that the current political systems or anti-democratic leadership, often being dictatorial in nature, will not respond to their political ambitions or demands, nor accept their political objectives or recognize their grievances. Formally organized groups, Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), businesses and collectives of individual citizens are non-state actors, that being that they are not locally, nationally or internationally recognized legitimate civilian or military authorities. The Cotonou Agreement of 2000 defines non-state actors as being those parties belonging to the private sector, economic and social partners and civil society in all its forms according to national characteristics. Historical observation shows that nation states with political institutions that are not capable of, or that are resistant to recognizing and addressing societies issues and grievances are more likely to see political violence manifest as a result of disparity amongst the population. This essay will examine why non-state political violence occurs including root and trigger causes by looking at the motivations that inspire groups and individuals to resort to non-conforming behaviors that manifest as occurrences of non-state political violence. Using terrorism and Islamic militancy on the one side, and human rights and basic freedoms on the other as examples, it will look at these two primary kinds of political violence that are most prevalent in the world ...
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. ‘
Today there are many controversial subjects discussed throughout the media. One of the most discussed is race and the Black Lives Matter movement. Recently, I came across an article titled “The Truth of ‘Black Lives Matter’”, written by The Editorial Board. The article was published on September 3, 2015, to the New York Times. In the article, The Editorial Board writes about what they believe African Americans are facing as challenges in society today, including the all-too-common police killings of unarmed African-Americans across the country. The Editorial Board is right that some African Americans have been treated unfairly, but all ethnicities have been. Life is a precious thing that comprises all ethnicities. This brings us to ask; why
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
In the world today, racism and discrimination is one of the major issues being faced with. Racism has existed throughout the world for centuries and has been the primary reasons for wars, conflicts, and other human calamities all over the planet. It has been a part of America since the European colonization of North America beginning in the 17th century. Many people are not aware of how much racism still exist in our schools, workforces, and anywhere else that social lives are occurring. It started from slavery in America to caste partiality in India, down to the Holocaust in Europe during World War II.
In the creation of a better society, violence is justified, but only to the point the protection of yourself and your rights. If violence is used for personal satisfaction or gain, then it is no longer justified. Regarding the French Revolution, the violence was justified as it was necessary to improve conditions for the people, until the death of Louis the XVI, and Marie Antoinette during the “Reign of Terror” (The French Revolution: A New Republic Is Born in Blood).
During everywhere I go from shopping or in campus, Thai people are afraid of them or don’t want to sit with them or be friends with them because, Thai people think that Indian people is from another world and not part from the Thai sociality, some Thai people are being prejudiced and racist to them by moving far away from Indians due to the different skin colors and closing their nose because of their body smell. During one day I was on the way home wanna get a cab and saw and long line but the first two people that was in the front was an Thai and a Indian person, the cab arrive and the Thai women saw the cab was just sat by an Indian and quickly call for another cab, the one at the back of that Thai women an Indian guy sat into the cab instead. This could easily tell you that the Thai people were trying to move away from the Indian people.
Rethinking Violence: States and Non-state Actors in Conflict. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2010. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed April 22, 2014).
Pregnancy outcomes are affected by racism and chronic stress due to many life’s factors such as social and economic. Studies have proven that the majority of African American babies are born premature and with weight problems in comparison to white American babies, and it is no a coincidence that these race is the one most affected by discrimination. Racism could be the answer to this dilemma because it is an issue people have been dealing with for decades, which has increase people worries to the point of becoming a chronic stress. A century ago, the average American lived only about 48 years, but as living conditions and medical care improve, people began living longer as mention of the “In Sickness and in Wealth” video. The society made possible for living conditions to improved, but still was not able to fight racism. For example, in the 1930’s the new social programs prevented an economic crisis from becoming an even worse health crisis by providing services that protected children and good health. The same happened when the returning veterans got the GI bill, offering them home...
There are many problems in today’s world, one of which is the existence of racism. Obviously it has improved dramatically over time, however racism is still out there in our every day lives. The movement Black Lives Matter has spread nationwide attracting the attention of many different parties. Black Lives Matter has had a large impact on the whole country with many people taking different stances on it.
Discursive Essay on Racism Racism has existed for centuries, but during the last two hundred years hatred toward ethnic minorities or even majorities has fluctuated. Racism occurs all over the world, can happen to anyone and will always exist. There are three different forms of racism, open racism, violent racism and secret racism all express forms of hatred towards ethnic groups. These forms of racism, although different, all have the same main purpose, to promote hate towards ethnic groups. Open racism expresses freedom of racial thought and speech.
The concept of state terrorism is highly debated. The main opposition to state-terrorism declares that states have legitimate monopoly over violence, therefore, state-violence cannot be considered terrorism (Lacquer). Furthermore, conceptualizing particular properties of state-terrorism has furthered complicated the debate. For instance, should state-terrorism constitute external conflict or internal conflict; also is the normative strength of non-state violence as compelling as
Lynching is people taking laws into their own hands there is history of it, and why people are supportive of lynching,and re-emergences of it in modern day. Lynchings didn't really do anything but scare off black people from others, those black people that were working during the reconstruction period earned their right to do all those thing because they were free. The white people were have mad that they didn't have a job and they did. So since the white people were mad they decided to kill the black so they can find work for themselves. So I think the lynching were wrong.
Race and crime is a major topic in today’s world because it is a highly debated subject and has a major impact on how society is today. Race and crime go hand in hand. No matter who commits a crime, there is always a race involved. With race and crime there are many stereotypes that come with the subject. Race and crime are both active matters in everyday life. It is everywhere. Social Media involves race and crime in practically anything. If one is active on say for example twitter, the point of twitter is to keep your followers interested by what you are showing them. There is a reason why the news opens up with the most violent crimes and twitter is no different. As a matter of fact any form of media grasps onto it. Another example would