Violence
Violence in itself is not good or bad. It is merely force, the motion of matter. There can be no inherent moral value to such a thing. The only moral value is what we attach to the force ourselves, and what we attach to that force is based on our own thoughts, our purposes and such.
So what are the things we attach to such force? Positive and negative emotions. What determines which emotions are attached to violence? Our evolution, our biology. We humans don't have claws, natural armour, fangs, or anything like that. We have groups and intellect/sentience. Our ancestors survived by living in groups. To remain intact, those groups had to develop common behavioural standards. Obviously a group could not survive as a group if its members would hurt each other. Violence was always something one used to get food, to defend against other groups, to defend against dangerous animals, et cetera. Violence can thus be considered "good" if it is for the defence of your self or your group. And of course "bad" if used against your own group, as it threatens the survival of group members and the stability of the group.
Violence is a force. It only has moral/emotional value of any kind when interpreted based on the subjective opinions of the perpetrators, victims, and observers. Generally violence is seen as 'good" if used for defence, and 'bad" when used for harming people who do not need to be harmed for any reason.
HOWEVER...
An advanced species should be capable of settling disputes without resorting to violence. If not required for immediate action, resorting to violence indicates that the mind is too weak to solve a problem. An advanced, sentient species should always be able to solve its disputes with rational thought and discussion, but should retain the ability to employ violence if required.
MY OWN VIEW
Violence can be good. It can be the best thing in the world. If someone incapable of defending himself/herself is being attacked, violence is a very acceptable response in defending that person. It accomplishes what words might not, and can immediately ensure the victim's safety. That is what professional soldiers are all about. They are there to apply force to defend those who can't defend themselves, and are thus the most effective and expeditious force a nation can muster (as opposed to a nation's political, economic, and cultural forces, et cetera).
What I don't like is people who use violence on others for their own gratification. Whether it's a holy war, punching people out over a football game, rape, or whatever, they are all the same thing: people trying to get some form of gratification (psychological, sexual, egotistical, religious, whatever) by forcing it down someone else's throat. And since these people have clearly given up on the civilisation thing and elected to simply use unnecessary violence, and words will not stop them from doing so, it is fair and reasonable to use immediate violence against them to protect others. And any amount or degree of violence as may be necessary to totally neutralise any threat from such people is acceptable.
Why don't I like people using force against others for their own gratification? Because it is weakness. Apart from such basics as water, food, and in some places warmth, all other things are unnecessary. All other things are gravy, cream on top, the good stuff. As such, those other things which are unnecessary for life should obviously be good, comfortable, fun, et cetera. Introducing conflict or negative emotions into that gravy, that whole world of extra topping on life, is absolutely counter-productive and can only be bad for both the person who does it and the person they do it to. There is simply no reason to do bad things to people. Life beyond basic survival is all gravy, icing on the cake. It exists to be enjoyed. Unless someone is screwing you over, there is nothing in life which can't be enjoyed or ignored. You enjoy the stuff you like, and ignore the rest. Thus there is nothing in life which requires unecessary violence or such (meaning it may still be required for survival, such as if you need to killa fish to eat or whatever). The course of a life, like electricity, water, or any other thing, is in its most natural state when following the path of least resistence; that being the path already described. So to do unnecessary violence against anyone is to go completely against the natural way of life.
END NOTE
I'm not even sure if I believe any of that. I'm still trying to figure out what I believe. But I suspect I'm on a good track there. Anyone who believes any philosophy absolutely is probably dangerous anyway. Or selling something.
|
