When is Violence Justified?

[ChristineM]

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?

Personally i think war is never justified and that includes the violence that is part of the package.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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.

I tend to agree that the UN really needs a good shaking up for it to be a functional organisation, and especially with regards the Security Council vetoes - if the principles upon which it is based are of any value. Afghanistan is a prime example for them to step in.

 

[Aštra’el]

I speak for myself and not others.

I operate not out of some subjective sense of “right” and “wrong”, but of the mindset “do I Will it” and “why”. If some action I have taken- violent or otherwise- acts in harmony with my True Will… it is acceptable to me. I look far enough ahead to consider the consequences… if it is really worth it and if I truly Will it, then so shall it be. There are no regrets.

 

[PureX]

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?

You're beginning to illuminate why "justification" becomes problematic. What is "justified" from one perspective is very often not justified from another. Which to my thinking, makes the idea of justified violence very sketchy. I would rather just assume that no violence is justified, even though it may on occasion be necessary.

 

[dybmh]

You're beginning to illuminate why "justification" becomes problematic. What is "justified" from one perspective is very often not justified from another. Which to my thinking, makes the idea of justified violence very sketchy. I would rather just assume that no violence is justified, even though it may on occasion be necessary.

"No violence is justified, but sometimes it's necessary" is very confusing for me.

Justified, in my view, is necessary. Necessary is justified. That's what defines justification?

 

[Twilight Hue]

"No violence is justified, but sometimes it's necessary" is very confusing for me.

Justified, in my view, is necessary. Necessary is justified. That's what defines justification?

One look at Ukraine should answer that question.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Self defense?
What about in defense of another?

And just to defend yourself from physical harm?
Want about mental or financial harm?

Both. Defending yourself or others.

 

[Ostronomos]

What is the line that must be crossed before violence is justified?
Is it ever justified?
Is the death penalty state condoned violence against a fellow human being?

Violence is never justified. Only self-defense and defense of the truth.

 

[Nakosis]

Violence is never justified. Only self-defense and defense of the truth.

Defense of the truth, that is scary.

Who's truth is being defended?
There are several beliefs as to what is true.
People with different ideas of what truth is may justify going to war with one another to defend their truth.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I tend to agree that the UN really needs a good shaking up for it to be a functional organisation, and especially with regards the Security Council vetoes - if the principles upon which it is based are of any value. Afghanistan is a prime example for them to step in.

Yes I forgot to mention Afghanistan but it was on my mind also as in urgent need. Girls not being permitted to go to school. Monstrous regime. I guess the world community won’t act until they themselves are affected. Only a few major countries need to stop backing war criminals to bring their regimes down. China holds the key because it is allied to many of these dictatorships and protects them at the UN. And the west prefers to turn a blind eye to these abuses in favour of good economic ties with China. But if China united with the west to get rid of oppression, this world could change overnight.

Most nations have been oppressive at one stage especially towards their indigenous populations and still are. There are just not enough people standing up against injustice to effect a meaningful change.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Personally i think war is never justified and that includes the violence that is part of the package.

The problem is when we have situations like the genocide committed against the Rohingya by the Burmese military. Villages torched. Ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity with impunity. How long are we going to just stand by and watch the oppression of women? Hardened criminals laugh at verbal condemnations and fear only one thing - justice. But where is justice?

 

[ChristineM]

The problem is when we have situations like the genocide committed against the Rohingya by the Burmese military. Villages torched. Ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity with impunity. How long are we going to just stand by and watch the oppression of women? Hardened criminals laugh at verbal condemnations and fear only one thing - justice. But where is justice?

And is that oppression justified? No... I rest my case