Is violence necessary to maintain a moral society?

1230 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Arguments against pacifism

Violence is necessary to maintain a moral society. However this statement remains a contentious issue for many individuals. There are those who view violence as immoral and unnecessary. On the other hand, others view it as necessary only if it translates into benefits for the entire society. However, some individuals remain divided between both sides due to the subjectivity of determining violence’s necessity.
Pacifists view violence as an immoral act that results in further degradation of the society. Individuals with this standpoint believe in amicable resolution of conflicts where opposing sides set their differences aside and work towards reaching a compromise. The process of conflict resolution is lengthy and riddled with many barriers; ensuring proper communication proves crucial in mitigating the conflict. Effective communication depends on both parties listening to each other’s arguments without passing any prior judgment. It also entails developing sensitivity to each other’s cultural background. The presence of a neutral third party charged with the responsibility of mediating the conflict enables feuding parties to address their concerns in a rational manner. For example, feuding countries rely on peace delegates to mediate their conflict resolution talks in order to prevent war.
Other non-violent methods can also preserve morality. These methods negate the use of physical force or verbal threats by encouraging the use of peaceful methods to foster lasting, positive political and social change. Pacifists also realize the negative repercussions of retaliating to violence with violence. The nature of the majority of humans compels them to engage in counter-violence aimed at instigators of preceding violent acts. This pe...

... middle of paper ...

...individual’s appraisal of the causes and consequences of violent acts. Freewill enables individuals to analyze situations and choose options that appeal to their sense of morality. Violence born out of oppression garners the support of many because it functions to liberate the oppressed. On the other hand, violence resulting from wounded egos, failure to communicate receives condemnation because it only seeks to advance the needs of the minority. The negative consequences of violence such as loss of property and death make it a costly affair preventing feuding sides from unnecessarily resorting to it. Violence is necessary in maintaining a moral society; however, it must result in the good of the entire society and not seek to fuel inequality. Moreover, it is the responsibility of individuals to analyze the consequences of violence and opt for the positive ones.

Show More
Related

  • Rhetorical Analysis Of Is American Nonviolence Possible

    705 Words  | 2 Pages

    ¬¬¬Though most American people claim to seek peace, the United States remains entwined with both love and hate for violence. Regardless of background or personal beliefs, the vast majority of Americans enjoy at least one activity that promotes violence whether it be professional fighting or simply playing gory video games. Everything is all well and good until this obsession with violence causes increased frequency of real world crimes. In the article, “Is American Nonviolence Possible” Todd May proposes a less standard, more ethical, fix to the problem at hand. The majority of the arguments brought up make an appeal to the pathos of the reader with a very philosophical overall tone.

    Read More

  • Similarities Between Martin Luther King Jr And Malcolm X

    1180 Words  | 3 Pages

    “Non-violence is a powerful and just weapon without cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.” - Martin Luther King Jr.

    Read More

  • The Just War Theory

    1705 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...fists can be uneffective in a war minded society. If an aggressor is attacking with no opposition, one cannot rely on the morality of the aggressors to halt the attack. Intervention of the attacks would be impermissible by the standards of absolute pacifism, as it would contribute to the overall amount of violence. The absolute pacifist would become a martyr for their beliefs, and without opposing the aggressive force societies would be annihilated. I believe while pacifism is morally better than war in terms of the amount of violence projected, and diplomatic negotiation should be the main solution to world issues, it is a commonality of society that war can potentially be the quickest solution to stop an aggressor. Although the notion of a Just War is unattainable, the causes of war as described in the theory set a standard for global leaders to promote justice.

    Read More

  • Violence as a Catalyst for Change: A Study on 'The Outsiders'

    815 Words  | 2 Pages

    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. ‘

    Read More

  • The Motivation Behind the Columbine High Shootings

    3724 Words  | 8 Pages

    Violence in all of its manifestations is based on an exercise of power. It represents a means to gain power, to maintain power, or as a response to a threat to one's power. As long as a society maintains the legitimacy of social hierarchies, of the right of some people to have power over others, there will be violence. One can either seek to diffuse the concentration of power or to control violence. By its very character, the attempt to control violence is self-defeating. The control will itself become violent.

    Read More

  • Segregation Heroes: Heroes from two different time periods

    810 Words  | 2 Pages

    “I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends.”

    Read More

  • Coady's Violence Definition

    715 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Should Christians ever use violence on behalf of religion?

    664 Words  | 2 Pages

    In different circumstances using violence on behalf of religion has aided a reformation, or the spreading of the gospel. Other times, millions of people have died due to resistance. Some situations call for violence and others do not. However, there is a failsafe way of determining whether violence should be used on behalf of religion, or not.

    Read More

  • Violence Against Aboriginal Women

    712 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Domestic Violence in Lesbian Relationships

    4764 Words  | 10 Pages

    THE SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE OF VIOLENCE AS A MEANS OF CONTROL OR AS A SIMPLE, EVEN PREFERRED, SOLUTION TO PROBLEMS

    Read More

  • The Center of Gravity During the Falkland Conflict

    1940 Words  | 4 Pages

    M. E. McGuinness (Eds.), Words Over War: Mediation and Arbitration to Prevent Deadly Conflict (pp. 293-320). New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

    Read More

  • Anti-War Pacifism

    1408 Words  | 3 Pages

    Lackey, Douglas P. "Pacifism." Contemporary Moral Problems. By James E. White. 9th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2009. Print.

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Pacifism

    747 Words  | 2 Pages

    On the one hand, war is a terrible thing that can happen in this nation, but pacifists will tell you that it isn’t worth the death of innocent lives. “Pacifists hold that war is wrong because killing is wrong.” This is understandable. War and violence should not be an excuse for conflicts. Negotiating problems could be more helpful than violence and war. Negotiating would be more effective than war because it will help prevent the situation from getting worse and will help find a solution to the problem or issue. Talking to the enemy would shock them, since they would be expecting for us to fight back. Instead of returning with ruthless violence they have towards us, this nation should maintain its superior position and meet them with acts of kindness and gentle words “Negotiation, mediation, diplomacy—these would be the means of settling international disputes, not the sacrifice of human lives."

    Read More

  • Low Context Communication Lead to Increased Conflict

    748 Words  | 2 Pages

    Ott, Marvin C. "Mediation as a Method of Conflict Resolution: Two Cases." International Organization 26.04 (1972): 595-618. JSTOR. Web. 3 Dec. 2013.

    Read More

  • Violence and Freedom- Exploring the Use of Violence to Liberate the Oppressed

    2156 Words  | 5 Pages

    The role of violence in the liberation of peoples from systems of domination is necessarily entwined to the concept of freedom. Herbert Marcuse and Frantz Fanon argue that violence, in various forms, is the only reasonable rebuttal to the abhorrent system of subjugation, whether it is in shape of something as transparent as apartheid to thinly veiled laws that take away the rights of humans under the capitalist system. To even understand the relationship between freedom and violence it has to be established what it is even meant by the phrase “violence” while simultaneously attempting to understand what means are necessary to achieve this end. Furthermore, what does it mean to be “violent” and is it always acceptable to use violence as a device to achieve a certain objective, even if that goal is something as vital as human emancipation? Conversely, the argument against the use of violence, in all its forms, to achieve freedom needs to be explored. The contrary argument that will be explored is from various texts of Martin Luther King Jr. and while our fundamental argument is opposed to King’s his views must still be taken into account if, for nothing else, to add structure to the argument at hand. It must be remembered that while the role of violence and freedom are necessarily bonded to one another this does not mean that violence is the only means to achieve freedom but that violence is the “best” way to achieve the ultimate goal of freedom.

    Read More

More about Is violence necessary to maintain a moral society?

Open Document