Justification of violence.

[Muaguana]

Originally Posted by Kwesi

I want to support rehab but when I comes to stuff like this I just want some kind of severe punishment. Call me a spiteful person but some people need to be beat repeatedly with bats.

This quote got me thinking on what, exactly, motivates people to accept violence as a legitimate course of action in any situation. Unfortunately, I can't learn much with just one brain to pick, so I turn to you, TB OT: Can you think of valid justification for an act of violence?

Obviously, given our species' history, many people at many instances in time have found their own reasons, so rather than focus on the objective, let's discuss the subjective: what reasons and/or circumstances do you, personally, believe can justify an act of violence?

No political or religious motivations, please.

[knumbskull]

[HEIST]

Someone posted a thread about a mom who set her daughter's rapist on fire after he got out of jail and was taunting her. I applaud her actions and would do the same.

[nickbass79]

Easy!
A threat of physical harm to a persons physical body, family(friends) or in some cases country.

An eye for an eye can be a bit harsh sometimes, but sometimes it can be warranted. That is where we as conscious human beings need to differentiate between our natural animal instincts and our educated minds. We have a lot of evolution until the prior is less considered.

[Steve]

Courts, prisons, judicial process...whatever are fairly recent development's in the "civilized" world (cough, gag, choke) if you look at the timeline of human history.

Prior to that, it was kill or be killed. We are one helluva lot closer to the jungle than we we would like to admit to ourselves.

I personally, am not at all convinced that humane treatment of inhumane sociopaths does anything otherr than generate more sociopaths.

Want to be treated humanely? Act Like a human.
Act like a monster, get treated like a monster.

IMHO

[jmattbassplaya]

When you or those closest to you's autonomy and/or well-being is in jeopardy of being threatened or is currently being threatened.

[nickbass79]

Originally Posted by Steve

Courts, prisons, judicial process...whatever are fairly recent development's in the "civilized" world (cough, gag, choke) if you look at the timeline of human history.

Prior to that, it was kill or be killed. We are one helluva lot closer to the jungle than we we would like to admit to ourselves.

I personally, am not at all convinced that humane treatment of inhumane sociopaths does anything otherr than generate more sociopaths.

Want to be treated humanely? Act Like a human.
Act like a monster, get treated like a monster.

IMHO

+100
Be held accountable for your actions. "Insane" means society doesn't need you, not I got caught and don't want to be held accountable.

[fmoore200]

Originally Posted by nickbass79

+100
Be held accountable for your actions. "Insane" means society doesn't need you, not I got caught and don't want to be held accountable.

I can't agree with such a black and white perspective.

What about the legitimately mentally ill? At times people with mental problems can get violent. Should they be cast aside, or treated as if they knew exactly what they were doing?

[jmattbassplaya]

Originally Posted by fmoore200

I can't agree with such a black and white perspective.

What about the legitimately mentally ill? At times people with mental problems can get violent. Should they be cast aside, or treated as if they knew exactly what they were doing?

+1

[nickbass79]

Originally Posted by fmoore200

I can't agree with such a black and white perspective.

What about the legitimately mentally ill? At times people with mental problems can get violent. Should they be cast aside, or treated as if they knew exactly what they were doing?

I was talking about the sociopaths and the legal system that allows a "sane" person to plead insanity because they got caught. At any time, someone can plead insanity to get a softer sentencing. Legitimately mentally ill persons, which I have worked with in my educational process, can have the tendency to become violent. No Doubt! Most, in historical matters don't have the sociopathic tendencies that persons with stronger IQ's have. Like I previously stated, and Eye for an Eye can be too harsh sometimes!

[MEKer]

Originally Posted by knumbskull

OK, knumbskull...You want to do WHAT with JB one time?
<snicker><snicker>



Meanwhile.......C'mon, OP, there are plenty of reasons for justifiable violence as I am sure you are aware. Unless you don't want to live in reality.
Yeah, yeah yeah, we all know "justifiable" can vary by culture and penchant. There are some universals though, where "justifiable" cuts across all lines as righteous, needed and deserved.
And no word games, please. The word violence does not have to be negative, as though from some sort of holier-than-thou false moral hilltop.
Violence at all sorts of level is necessary throughout much of life.
Think about it.

[Kwesi]

Originally Posted by Muaguana

This quote got me thinking on what, exactly, motivates people to accept violence as a legitimate course of action in any situation. Unfortunately, I can't learn much with just one brain to pick, so I turn to you, TB OT: Can you think of valid justification for an act of violence?

Obviously, given our species' history, many people at many instances in time have found their own reasons, so rather than focus on the objective, let's discuss the subjective: what reasons and/or circumstances do you, personally, believe can justify an act of violence?

No political or religious motivations, please.

For whatever reason it made me smile to think that one of my posts inspired some deeper thought somewhere across the internet.

Personally, I take just about everything on a case by case basis. I think that, deep down, we all know when a person needs a good few homerun swings to the knees followed by one to the back of their head but I'd be hard pressed to come up with rules to designate who gets it and who doesn't. That said, I still believe in that quote just as much today as I did when I wrote it.

A question that I often see brought up when "extreme" cases of self-defense and/or retaliation are discussed is "Do you think you could sleep at night knowing that you killed someone?" I'd like to believe that if I thought a person deserved it then I'd sleep like a baby. Of course, one can never say for sure until they've actually done it themselves.

[Waterpilot]

A case for violence is situational.

[Muaguana]

Originally Posted by MEKer

Meanwhile.......C'mon, OP, there are plenty of reasons for justifiable violence as I am sure you are aware. Unless you don't want to live in reality.
Yeah, yeah yeah, we all know "justifiable" can vary by culture and penchant. There are some universals though, where "justifiable" cuts across all lines as righteous, needed and deserved.
And no word games, please. The word violence does not have to be negative, as though from some sort of holier-than-thou false moral hilltop.
Violence at all sorts of level is necessary throughout much of life.
Think about it.

Think about what, exactly? The fact that you didn't actually answer the question in the OP?

I never claimed that there could be no justification for violence or, in my contemplation, was "stumped" and needed help arriving at a conclusion. In fact, I said nothing at all about what I believed or thought; I just asked a question.

[fmoore200]

Originally Posted by nickbass79

I was talking about the sociopaths and the legal system that allows a "sane" person to plead insanity because they got caught. At any time, someone can plead insanity to get a softer sentencing. Legitimately mentally ill persons, which I have worked with in my educational process, can have the tendency to become violent. No Doubt! Most, in historical matters don't have the sociopathic tendencies that persons with stronger IQ's have. Like I previously stated, and Eye for an Eye can be too harsh sometimes!

I'm no legal expert, so take this for what its worth

I don't think that any person accused of a trial can just say "hey, I'm insane! Give me a lighter sentence!" I think before you are allowed to plead insanity there has to be some medical evidence that can on some level be used to support such a claim.

And if a person does use that as a defense, I don't think the trial is handled any differently, or the person is automatically given a lighter sentence. The district attorney can still put on a vigourous prosecution, AFAIK ...

[hrodbert696]

Honestly, to me an eye for an eye is the starting point. A person deserves to have the same thing done to them that they do to others. If you don't grant this principle, then I'm not sure what "justice" is supposed to mean and without any sense of justice, I'm pretty sure society comes apart at the seams.

However, one may depart from that starting point. In the name of the good of society, it may be more beneficial to seek rehabilitation rather than retribution. It may be better to offer mercy to a person and not treat them as harshly as their actions deserve. I think there are strong reasons to act in this way, and probably such mitigations of the strict demands of justice are better in the majority of cases.

Nevertheless, I think we get ourselves confused and incoherent, to nobody's benefit, if we forget the fundamental, simple principle of justice that merciful responses start from. You don't need to justify justice, you need to justify the decision not to seek the full requirements of justice.

[yodedude2]

Originally Posted by Steve

<snip>

Want to be treated humanely? Act Like a human.
Act like a monster, get treated like a monster.

IMHO

<sarcasm> okay, now i'm confused. whos' the monster again? the human monster that treated a human like a monster? or the human monsters that treat the human monster like a monster? </sarcasm>

i quite liked the first two sentences of your post. later, ron

[Boot Soul]

Don't overthink this answer. The cause of violence is simple.

Humans are just animals with superior cognition, but we are first animals.

By nature, when unthreatened and secure, animals are passive. Even predators are passive until they become hungry.

Now take that same animal and place it in a threatening, insecure environment or situation from which it cannot escape. The animal becomes fearful.

In the human animal, (what one perceives to be) the inescapable thing may be psychological (a family member was assaulted), or economic (you lost your job and your home is repossessed), or visceral (you are starving, or a drug addict with no means to your next fix), or a combination of these (a drunken fool stumbles into your new $6000 boutique bass and snaps the neck in half) etc.

Fear begets anger and defensiveness.

Anger and defensiveness begets violence.

This is known as "fight or flight". If there is no perceived escape, a living beast will fight.

This is natural, and this is necessary. This is a behavior that has been selected for through evolution. This is survival of the fittest, where fitness depends on adequate defense.

[fdeck]

There's violence that's an immediate response to a threat. And there's violence that's a social entitlement, such as revenge.

I think those are separate things. And I also think that civilized societies take revenge out of the hands of individuals and put it under the control of governments, for the sake of social stability. Different societies may approach it in different ways.

[L-A]

^ A very acute observation.