Condoning violence?

[sawthelight]

Is it considered as condoning violence if you choose to arm yourself and learn how to defend yourself?

It seems like a black and white answer with no grey in-between. The grey answer seems like a paradox-contradiction: saying it's okay to use violence when necessary but is not necessarily considered to be really violent - thus condoning just violence as a defender as opposed to being the attacker.

Because to use force-for-force is technically using violence to defend yourself - which is very legal in Canada.

Do others consider the most basic of self defense to equate to violence? Why or why not?

I'm starting to think it actually does mean you condone violence if you learn to defend yourself and then exercise that right to do so. Violence is still violence after all isn't it? As a punch is still a punch.

[Divine Insight]

I do condone violence to deal with a dangerous threat. I have no problem with that at all.

This does not mean that I condone violence being used to harm innocent people or commit crimes.

I don't see these as being anywhere near the same thing, nor do I see them as being a contradictory stance against violent criminal acts.

I can still stand against violent criminal acts can't I?

[sawthelight]

I do condone violence to deal with a dangerous threat. I have no problem with that at all.

This does not mean that I condone violence being used to harm innocent people or commit crimes.

I don't see these as being anywhere near the same thing, nor do I see them as being a contradictory stance against violent criminal acts.

I can still stand against violent criminal acts can't I?

Yes. I agree here. I guess it is condoning self-defense-violence. As opposed to offensive-violence?

I think it is a touchy subject though to say you condone violence nonetheless. Imagine going around encouraging violence to kids and other people. Lol. What a skit-show that would be. I guess it's how you present it that matters.

But thanks for agreeing with me on this one. I feel not so crazy after all. Lol

[sawthelight]

I condone violence! :2gun:

Self-defensively! Go on everyone! Get some AKs! Lol.

[Divine Insight]

I think it is a touchy subject though to say you condone violence nonetheless.

From a purely idealized philosophical perspective I agree with you. I realize this is posted in the "philosophy" forum, but even in philosophy shouldn't it be required to take into consideration the facts of reality?

In other words, to say from an idealized perfect philosophical view we refuse to condone violence, then we must necessarily also say that we refuse to condone reality. We refuse to condone nature herself.

Violence exists in the real world. This is why we are stuck with having to deal with it whether we condone it or not.

To take an idealized philosophical stance that we don't condone violence is no different from saying that we don't condone reality. We don't condone nature.

Other than this being an extremely useless idealized philosophical position to take, what practical value does it have?

Refusing to condone violence isn't going to change the nature of the reality in which we live.

If a rabid bear is violently attacking you with all of its sharp claws and teeth and your only available defense is to violently stab back at it with a single hunting knife, what should you do?

Passively allow the bear to maul you to death rather than "condoning" the violence that is being unleashed on you with no mercy by desperately trying to STOP the violence via your own need to resort to a violent defense?

I think when my life is on the line my desire to be an idealized philosopher will probably take a back seat to my desire to survive the moment so I can philosophize another day.

In fact, I recently wrote a song, it's actually about the history of man's evolution through life, but here is one stanza that actually touches on the topic of this thread:

Life became a game of hide and seek
if they find you, you'll be what they eat
don't think to deeply or philosophize
just keep reacting to avoid demise

[sawthelight]

Passively allow the bear to maul you to death rather than "condoning" the violence that is being unleashed on you with no mercy by desperately trying to STOP the violence via your own need to resort to a violent defense?

Lol! True! You are in reality condoning violence if you allow a bear to attack you to death. What a true irony. So subconsciously people are condoning violence whether they are aware of it or not simple because to do nothing against an attack is like consenting to the attack while defending yourself is consenting to return force for force - a fight.

Amazing. It's always a fight either way then.

But what I meant by 'violent defense' is actually using weapons or fists or whatever to repel the attacker. Rather than being the offender.

[Divine Insight]

But what I meant by 'violent defense' is actually using weapons or fists or whatever to repel the attacker. Rather than being the offender.

Well, I am certainly a supporter of the idea that violence should only be used as a "last resort" when no other options are realistically available. If there is any possible way to bring the threat to a peaceful end without using violence I'm all for it.

Diplomacy and any other form or prevention that can stop violence from becoming a problem is naturally the most desirable. But it's often too late for that once the violent situation has actually begun to unfold.

A peaceful deescalation of a potentially violent situation is the next best option if possible.

Of course, once the violence has actually begun often times a violent response is the only viable solution.

So I'm all for using violence as a "last resort", but I'm also prepared to recognize that sometimes we are faced with this "last resort" instantaneously where the other more peaceful options are simply no longer available.

An example would be if a crazed shooter has just entered a building and is already mowing people down. Diplomacy and deescalation aren't realistic solution at that point. Disabling the active shooter becomes the only solution available. And that will usually require violence. It's just the most certain way of stopping the shooter.

I wouldn't say that the person who shoots a crazed shooter who is mass killing people has just "condoned" violence. To the contrary, I would say that they did what they had to do to stop the violence.

But it sure would be nice if we lived in a world where there was no violence that needed to be stopped. I would certainly love to live in such a world myself. That would be great to be sure.

[sawthelight]

[Replying to post 7 by Divine Insight]

Yup. I too would rather be peaceful than violent. But like the examples you bring, there are those who exist who do terrorize other people. History has shown there will always be people like that.

[ttruscott]

Because to use force-for-force is technically using violence to defend yourself - which is very legal in Canada.

Do others consider the most basic of self defense to equate to violence? Why or why not?

You are using a mixed terminology that has caused you the concern. I've been involved in violent encounters and use of force issues since the later 1970s.

Violence is best used for an illegal use of force. "Use of force" is best used for the legal management of someone's violence. Use of force for self defence from violence is indeed lawful in Canada and the US.

Use of force has a moral base and follows legal niceties.
Violence has neither.
Writing about them as if they had the same definitions and distinctions destroys the morality of use of force and and causes it to be accused of being unrestricted by moral and legal limits, that is, as evil as violence as if it was violence.

[Divine Insight]

I agree with ttrusscott. Philosophers should not be afraid to take some semantic liberties.

Violence = immoral use of force.
Enforcement = moral use of force.

By simply being careful to define our terms meticulously we can fix many apparent philosophical problems.

In this way we can support "enforcement of peaceful behavior" without any need to "condone violence".