Is violence ever ethically justified (a little humor)

[chibajoe]

Sometimes, I think things just too intense around here what with all the back and forth arguments. I was looking around youtube and found this video that does a pretty good job of illustrating what happens around here sometimes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BCCETH1usI

(I have no idea how to embed this)

[PavePusher]

1. That was a great way to kick-start the morning....

Thanks!!!:fistbump: :rofl:

Now I gotta get this coffee of the screen and back in my cup....

[saras]

2. Violence - no. Force - yes.

It's not a terribly difficult ethical distinction to make.

[Euromutt]

4. That's a semantical distinction at best

Because if I use a firearm against an intruder in my home, whether you call it "force" or "violence" makes absolutely no difference to the amount of physical trauma suffered by his body as a result of my shooting him. Whatever you call it, the question is whether the infliction of that physical trauma is justified, and whether you call it "force" or "violence" already indicates to some extent whether or not you think it is, and may be argued to be a matter of "framing the debate."

It's worth noting in this regard that certain Germanic languages such as Dutch and German do not make the same distinction, as reflected in the fact that Max Weber's definition of the state as the entity possessing a "monopoly of force" is originally rendered in German as Gewaltmonopol ("monopoly of violence"). Kraft in German and kracht in Dutch correspond more closely to the word "force," but more in the sense used in the realm of physics (as in "this object exerts so many Newtons of force" or "it will require some force to open this sticky door").

[cleanhippie]

3. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you like Zebra's? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Now THATS funny!

[chibajoe]

5. With ad hominem used as the rallying cry on both sides of the argument

I figured at least a few people would find the video amusing.

:spray:

[Euromutt]

7. I was actually disappointed the guy didn't use the phrase "begging the question/circular logic"

If violence is unethical, then how can it be justified in any context?

That's "begging the question," in that it demands that the opponent accept as a premise the very conclusion that the proponent is arguing towards, namely that violence is by definition unethical.

And frankly, when it comes to questions of morality and/or ethics, the argument that the opponent is hypocritical may not be logically valid (see the "tu quoque" fallacy http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#tuquoque), but it certainly carries weight all the same. Fine, speaking from a strictly logical perspective, when some evangelical preacher who routinely condemns both homosexuality, extramarital sex, and prostitution gets caught going at it hammer and tongs with a rent boy, that doesn't necessarily invalidate his arguments. But when he claims that having done so doesn't automatically make him a bad person, when that's been what he's been saying all along as long as it applied to people other than himself, well, then we have an issue.

Demonstrably failing to practice what you preach is acceptable on debate teams, because the outcome doesn't influence public policy; but when you are trying to influence public policy, it's perfectly legitimate to question whether the proponent of a certain measure actually conforms to its principles in practice. When a U.S. senator who proposes that citizens be prohibited from carrying firearms in public has a handgun fall out of his clothing and clatter on the Senate floor, you're perfectly justified in dismissing his arguments on the basis that he evidently doesn't believe them himself.

[jazzhound]

6. Yes. Violence is frequently ethically justified.

http://www.spike.com/video/mouse-trap/2938280