I think you overestimate my ability to read minds.
My mistake. But you don’t need to read my mind in order to answer your original conjectures in this thread.
(1) I think violence exists in the first place because many people are violent: they are driven by a desire of domination. They use some vague ideas (moral code (e.g. honor), ideals, virtues, etc.) to justify domination. When normal people start paying into this logic of holding vague ideas as the highest good, instead of holding human welfare as the highest good, the cycle of violence unfolds.
It is the responsibility of normal people to start holding human welfare as the one and only highest good, and discarding vague ideas as candidate ethical framework and way of life.
(2) That being said, I don’t think we should use violence as a criterion to judge if an entity is good or not, but only the moral values of the entity and the consequences of the action. This is because, as you said, violence can be offensive or defensive.
(3) When we speak about violence, we often imply physical violence. We should keep in mind that violence can come in two forms: physical and psychological violence.
IMHO, violence exists because humans, as a species, are primitive still.
(1) What do you mean by “primitive”?
(2) You don’t think some individuals are more violent than others?
The normal people are probably the most likely to use violence. Non-violence is abnormal, which is why it only exists in a few niches.
Exactly that or 2B and C , as well as 3B in the link, if you must have a definition:
Primitive Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Yes, some are more violent than others and some are less violent. I myself wouldn’t kill anything except bugs and rodents that invade my home.
I could even go as far to say that humans are primitive animals concerning their violent tendencies.
I must be abnormal, because I only harm bugs and rodents that invade my home. So far, I have not even run over an animal with my car either and I hope I never do. I’ve been told I need a bumper sticker that says, “I break for all animals.”
This is kinda naive to me, as though some enlightened state is the result of purely being able to communicate what you want to everyone else around you and being rational and understood. But the reality is that some positions are diametrically opposed and in some cases you can’t talk your way out of something.
Violence like anything else is just a tool and knowing when to use it is the key. Pacifism and such ideas are, ironically, endorsing violence in their effort to avoid it. Violence doesn’t exist because humans as a species are primitive, it’s just a fact of the world.
The irony of saying that violence is rooted in vague ideas while saying we should value human wellbeing as the highest good.
What if violence is the means of achieving human welfare? Furthermore human welfare is a rather vague idea that people disagree on what it means exactly. I mean…philosophy still doesn’t have an answer after hundreds of years and you’ll get different answers as to what it means.
Also “normal people”? This is starting to read more like sanctimony than actual arguments.
You’ll need to discard notions of “primitive” or “normal people” if you want to get at why violence is a thing. Domination isn’t always a bad thing after all, some ideas do need to die out for people to live peacefully. I’d certainly be happy if homophobia and racism did.
Already responded to that in points (1) and (2)
This is because you believe that everybody is violent while I do not, I think that there are normal people who are not violent
You’re just wrong there. Everyone has the capacity for it under the circumstances. Your notion of “normal people” is utterly void of any meaning. People just invoke that to support their idea of normal.
not exactly. Point 1 was a contradiction. You chide people for upholding vague ideas while you hold the vaguest of them all.
Point 2 doesn’t answer the question and just kicks the can down the road. Everyone thinks their point of view is moral and just.
Didn’t say the contrary.
You can read the work of Richard Tremblay, if you believe what I say on human violence is void.
It is void. Like I mentioned above your perspective on this is naive, like most I see talk on it.
You also did suggest it with that bit on normal people.
Gaza being the perfect case in point
Welcome to the forum Z.
Seems the case of Gaza hasn’t been shown yet. Or, if you look at Palestinians now, the violence that got them there has not created much welfare
Palestinians were the forgotten people staring into the abyss and it took violence to shake the world and take notice of their plight to end the occupation
What’s sad is, that was true in the 70s when they started hijacking airplanes and it’s still true
Not really. People sort of always knew they just didn’t care that much. Violence didn’t change the awareness of what’s going on. The only thing real issue is that the US doesn’t want to condemn them while the rest of the world seems to.
The Palestinian question is on the front page now and the pro Palestinian public support has exploded around the world. I have never seen the media in general push back so hard on the israeli propaganda as they are now
I am very sad toi say that, but without the terrorist campaign of the 70th, the Oslo agreements would never have been concluded