-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
When is Violence Justified?
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
Those are too many questions in a row!
All violence is justified. That is the problem with violence.
The death penalty is always justified, too. The questions for me are what are the alternatives, and what is the justification for keeping someone in a cell where they are mentally harmed. It is a cruel punishment.
All violence is justified. That is the problem with violence.
The death penalty is always justified, too. The questions for me are what are the alternatives, and what is the justification for keeping someone in a cell where they are mentally harmed. It is a cruel punishment.
Audie
Veteran Member
Self defense.
We Never Know
No Slack
When its needed. Sometimes its needed. Sometimes it isn't.
Justified? As in self-defence (personal or otherwise), and with which few would probably disagree, but also as to removing oppressive regimes - like the Taliban or even such as Putin's regime - where so many are discriminated against and/or controlled by some particular ideology. But then the latter might see so many countries in turmoil if such was acted upon - and there might be less violent means to obtain the results wanted.
Heyo
Veteran Member
The simple answer is self defence.
The better answer is, it depends. Self defence is defence in eminent danger and it justifies as much violence as is necessary to avert the danger.
Sometimes violence can also be justified for latent danger. E.g. against an authoritarian regime with a broken justice system.
I don't see any justification for the death penalty.
PureX
Veteran Member
I think it's a mistake to ever consider violence justified. Even though it is clearly sometimes necessary for the greater good.
Necessity is not automatically justification. The violence of one does not then justify the violence of another. Even if it necessitates it. That becomes vengeance, not justification.
Necessity is not automatically justification. The violence of one does not then justify the violence of another. Even if it necessitates it. That becomes vengeance, not justification.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
The death penalty is government sanctioned murder. The state can’t even use self defence as a justification for executions.
Self defense?
What about in defense of another?
And just to defend yourself from physical harm?
Want about mental or financial harm?
24 US states currently feel the death penalty is a justified use of violence.
55 countries around the world still employ the death penalty.
I would think perhaps when there is no alternative for self preservation or in defense of someone innocent.
Me either. It seems to me a way to justify revenge.
However 60% of the world's population lives in an area where the death penalty is legal.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Justified? As in self-defence (personal or otherwise), and with which few would probably disagree, but also as to removing oppressive regimes - like the Taliban or even such as Putin's regime - where so many are discriminated against and/or controlled by some particular ideology. But then the latter might see so many countries in turmoil if such was acted upon - and there might be less violent means to obtain the results wanted.
Many countries are already in very deep turmoil and their people continually beg the world community for help but no one answers their call and so we witness an alarming rise of oppression and dictatorships throughout the world.
Allowing war criminals, dictators and oppressors to torture and kill innocent men, women and children daily is akin to promoting violence. The blood is on the hands of ‘civilised’ countries who watch on while fellow humans are brutalised and stand by doing nothing.
Toilet paper so far has more value than the UN’s farcical document ‘Responsibility to Protect’ with dictators and war criminals being the only ones being protected by the UN’s abominable VETO rule.
Article 139 Responsibility to Protect (excerpt)
In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
What happened to the Rohingya who have suffered ethnic cleansing and the millions suffering oppression? It seems the world fully approves of the horrible torture going on by its INACTION. Selfish self interest is preventing the saving of millions from oppression.
IF China, EEU and the USA united surely they could stop the atrocities happening in Ukraine, Syria, Iran, Myanmar and many more nations. So many nations are allies with oppressive regimes that justice has become impossible.
The world community is complicit in all these atrocities as long as it continues to just issue verbal condemnations because it does have the resources to stop these massacres if really wants to and can look past its own selfish national interests.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
A clear and present danger, right? Not an imagined threat, or some potential future threat which may not occur?
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I think it’s barbaric and can’t really see any justification. I’m not aware of any evidence at all that the death penalty works as a deterrent either. And if the state executes the wrong person and new evidence comes to light, there’s no bringing the person back.
Of course, not pre-emptive, for don't see that as self defence
Audie
Veteran Member
In gravest extreme, self or other
Heyo
Veteran Member
I guess I can speak for all who mentioned self defence, that the defence of others is included.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I agree. But I also get confused.
Let's say a country is at war with its neighbor. Is it justified for the first country to use violence to seize territory from the other country in order establish a defensible position? They're at war, is that a clear and present danger even if an attack is not currently happening?
Slightly different example... let's say that a country is running out of a critical resource like clean drinking water. The citizens are in clear and present danger of dehydration. Is violence justified to invade another country and take their water?