Violence Philosophy

[CoRWiN]

I'm curious what makes violence inherently bad?

Why is a punch in the face worse then lies behind the back?

Why does little johnny get suspended for a week for fighting on the playground where little susy cripples mary's life by constantly calling her fat go un-punished?

Is this remnants of our cultures Puritan background and it's fanatical hatred for anything physical?

Do all cultures percieve Violence this way?

Is violence something to be overcome on the path to enlightenment or is it merely a manifestation of another characteristic such as attachment or conflict?

Are we a pain fearing society? (Vicadon addicts unite!)

Does violence lead to suffering? and if it does, does that mean we are attached to our bodies since all suffering stems from that?

Is violence an aspect of human nature or rather an aspect of nature in all it's forms? (animal vs animal, Viruses vs cells, erosion vs rock)

[Emeraldphoenix]

Good luck with that. I am sure you could spend a life time pondering those questions.

It actually sounds like you have answered your own ?

What has brought this subject up for you personally. It sounds like something was said or done to you to provoke this line of questioning.

[Emeraldphoenix]

Does violence lead to suffering? and if it does, does that mean we are attached to our bodies since all suffering stems from that?


It is said that all human suffering comes from human desire.

[CoRWiN]

this conversation has been goin on in the mexican thug fight thread, decided to give it a thread of it's own, since u have these long paragraphs of great thought and then 4-5 little blurbs talking about something completly different.

[CoRWiN]

As far as i know Buddhist philososphy claims that all Suffering comes from attachment, which in many ways yes is desire. I desire something thus i am attached... or am i? I've asked several times how buddhists justify things such as goals or do they not have any period and the response i seem to be getting is that goals are fine it's the attachment to the outcome in terms of how it affects you is what needs to be controled.

Now bringin it back to violence, does pain = suffereing?

[Emeraldphoenix]

I am not sure that pain = suffering. the intention behind the action would determine the right or wrong of the outcome. Pain can make us strong, pain can forge our spirit. Physical pain? emotional pain? physc pain? Spiritual pain? there are many flavors of pain. Violence has been around since the begining of time and it seems that it will be around for some more time.

[Chief Fox]

you can see the results of violence and often times it is not a pretty picture so a lot of people think it is bad.

You can't see psycological damage so the question of it ever existing in the first place will always be there.

[mantis108]

Well, there is a difference between violence and aggression IMHO. Most people see them as the same thing. You could be provoked by aggression and RESPOND violently which means it's still a passive responce albeit "violent".

Nature is violent. All those natural disasters from human perspective is violent. It is just so - a languistic decription. I don't think anyone would say that nature has an aggression aganist all creatures great and small (unlike some of the religious rightwing folks would want you to believe that their God wants to punish y'all). It's a fact of life and its fragileness.

Now aggression is how animals trying to exercise their most primitive design which is to survive in their environments at all costs. We human are merely one of the member groups of the animal kingdom. We have evolved to a point that we are the only known highest sentient being on this planet (according to our human standard of course). So we think that we can play God to other beings in our greater eccological system. We exercise our aggression on those we percieved as the weak link(s) so that we could eliminate competitions for resource which we need to sustain our existance. Bullying is one of that tactics commonly used today whereas millienia ago we would throw rocks or use bones as batons to be rid of the weak links. We are still the cavemen that we used to be. ;)

Now the boys fights because it's part of our nature to secure a chance to be a man and most important of all to perform our secrat duty of a ritual right to procreate. ;) :D Again it is our cavemen complex that is at work. This of course is totally against the hipocritcal Puritan psyche that is the very core of North American culture. Punishment instead of education is the preferred correction measure of the Puritan mindset. So sorry little Johnny you must suffer the wrath of the big guy upstairs who is represented by the school principle in this case. And that is the LAW.

BTW, Buddhists are not necessarily pacificists IMHO. Ch'an Wu He Yi (Dhyana and martial arts become one) is a fluid and valid path of enlightenment. To kill one to save many, or to save one but kill many? Does the benefit of the one outweights the good of the many? Without the one, where is the many? The correct choice to live life to the fullness is a constant effort of travelling down the path of infinite dilemma; hence, the term Kung Fu.

Just some rants... :D

Mantis108

[tug]

Good thoughts all around.

I would like to add that I believe no one person can define any of this for the benefit of all. It is important to have discussions like this, because it gives us a chance to see/understand how others view answers to questions.

But that is exactly my point - everyone's view is different, therefore we must all individually find our center by contemplating, observing and acting. As long as one tries to do the right thing and tries not to step on the ill-fortuned, all the rest should fall into place.

(of course, I may have just contradicted myself because one's "right thing" is most likely different than another's)

-

[dwid]

I'm curious what makes violence inherently bad?

Why is a punch in the face worse then lies behind the back?

Why does little johnny get suspended for a week for fighting on the playground where little susy cripples mary's life by constantly calling her fat go un-punished?

My personal view is that both send out ripples that perpetuate negativity. The essence of bad karma in my view.

As far as real-world consequences, there is an immediate and verifiable cause and effect relationship with physical violence that is therefore easy to verify guilt and mete out punishment. With psychological damage, the net effect can actually be a good bit worse, but the outcome is more difficult to connect with any single cause and may take a good bit longer to occur. I think it's important to separate what is legal/punishable within the law and what is moral/ethical.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

I like the described difference between violence and aggression, violence can be without ill intention, where aggression implies a conscious choice to impose one's will over another through violent means.. yet, i might aggressively defend myself or others.. aggression becomes brutality when the action or harm exceeds the desired result.. ie.: if you knock an opponent out you have determined a winner in a fight, but if you continue to beat an unconscious person it rises to the level of brutality..

So, i will reframe my position on this issue.. violence may a valid tool for defensive purposes.. aggression, on the other hand, when it seeks to impose the will of one over another ( to the detriment of the other), is a conscious choice contrary to the well-being of others.. Sure, people will devise scenarios where "good defeats evil" through aggression, but i think we all know what the issue is here..

There is a sector of people that choose to believe that aggressive violence is inherent to our nature, that it is an unavoidable instinct.. i disagree. We each make a conscious choice to impose our will upon others, and.. we can as easily choose differently.. the issue is less clear whenever we are defending ourselves against aggression, there is a natural survival instinct.. sometimes, we rationalize the comfort of our accustomed lifestyles as threatened by the desire of others to acquire the same and respond with a self-perceived defensive violence.. this is a gray zone where at some point there is a moral obligation to secure basic human rights for all our brothers and sisters.. which is to say, that a starving and oppressed people may act out of their instinct to survive with a violent attempt to improve their desperate condition.. in this scenario, it is those that refuse to aid or share their bounty with the desperate that choose to be aggressive.. aggression can be a passive refusal of aid.. not unlike the observers in the videos of the other thread, once a winner is decided further aggression should be controlled by the observers as a defense of those unable to defend themselves..

We cannot, as a species, give up our right to choose our destiny.. we cannot blindly accept that we are aggressive by nature, or.. if we do accept that notion, we have to assume that we can change and overcome those tendencies.. otherwise, our species will decend to its lowest common denominator, survival of the fittest.. this condition, ultimately, leaves one man standing, the fittest.. and, no one left to advance the species..

Be well..

Psychological aggression is no different than physical aggression, it is based on an intent to harm without cause..

[CoRWiN]

So if i'm understanding correctly with what your saying violence in manys ways is merely a tool, not good or bad, but rather a vehicle for other motivations. For instance violence out of aggression or any lets say unjustified morals aka, hate, racism, jealousy, and selfish desire(thinking serial kilers here) is completly unjustified.

Where violence that stems from other motivations is perfectly justified which typically means self defence but could also include sport fighters who are willing particpants. Is violence though an acceptable means for conflict resolution? For instance you have two guys in a bar who bump into each other. Now granted thier completly in the wrong for so desperatly attempting to be the alpha male but the two end up in a fist fight. Should they go to jail? Was their something wrong about how they handled that situation? Sure it's not my style but if they both wanted to go at... Isn't the fight, besides understand consecions which is beyond them, the fastest form of conflict resolution.

Now what about spanking of kids, good, bad, is this a perfectly good use of violence and if it's ok in this situation are their more that it is?

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

CoRWiN: If we start with the assumption that violence is undesirable and a tool of last resort.. we can begin to manage viloence that mutates into aggression..

Violence is justified through necessity, as a tool for preventing greater violence or aggression.. as in spanking a child.. where i would first communicate the consequences of unacceptable behavior, (ie.: restricted favors or corporal punishment) then we have an arrangement, future acts of the same unacceptable behavior have an understood consequence and, therefore, the child agrees to the arrangement.. the broader intent of the punishment is to prevent future harm, ie.: a child violently takes a toy from another after being told of the consequences.. the subsequent spanking is a method of intervention intended to dissuade the child from acts that may, in the future, have much more severe consequences at the hands of aggressors or the judicial system.. so, the spanking is a learning tool used lovingly to shape acceptable patterns of behavior.. Spankings administered in anger are simple acts of violence and aggressive behavior no different than the offender's..

In the question of the bar scenario, yes, the brawlers should suffer social consequences as deemed appropriate by law.. it is the equivalent of grown-up spanking.. violence should be tempered with the understanding of consequence, it is society's statement that violence is unacceptable unless mitigated by specific situations, like self-defense, etc...

The moral implications of determining what situations condone violence are too vast for a forum such as this, there are millions of pages of law and research that study this issue.. a simple rule of thumb, is that violence is the tool of last resort..

Be well..

[SevenStar]

Where did these rules of thumb come from? books of law? which was the result of what? somebody's conscious train of thought. We train ourselves to be civil and behave in such a manner. Anyone ever consider that? Laws haven't always been in existence, humans created them as a means of governing people in a civil manner and teaching people to act respectably. By nature, we are not civil - we are taught it. that said, by nature, we are not murderers either, but we are definitely disorderly and/or violent, hence the need for law.

[WinterPalm]

Rule of thumb was actually the allowable width of a whooping stick that was considered legal for a man to beat his wife with in England...Any thicker than that and it was unjustifyable and a crime...:)

[dwid]

Laws haven't always been in existence, humans created them as a means of governing people in a civil manner and teaching people to act respectably. By nature, we are not civil - we are taught it. that said, by nature, we are not murderers either, but we are definitely disorderly and/or violent, hence the need for law.

Actually, that depends on who's point of view you subscribe to. The enlightenment (i think) philosophers Locke and Rousseau both had strong arguments about human nature and the function of laws and society. I believe it was Rousseau who thought pretty much along your lines. That man is inherently uncivil and his nature must be restrained through law and social norms, whereas Locke believed that society comprised a social contract that people voluntarily participated in, exchanging some degree of freedom for the greater good/social order. So, it depends on which side you take in this argument whether we are inherently civil or at least have an inherent motive toward civility vs. controlling our savage nature only for fear of punishment.

I'm sure both views have been substantially elaborated on since the writings of these two guys.

On a weirdly related note, if anyone watches "Lost," there are characters named Locke and Rousseau which I think is not coincidental. But that's another topic for another thread. :D

[CoRWiN]

TaiChiBob,

I'm Glad you brought up the point of society, this is a thought i've been playing with a while... I consider American society to essentially be of protestant/puritan upbringing. Regardless of how practiced these religions are nowadays back when this country was founded many of the laws and social norms were dictated by their beliefs. Now much as changed since then but at our core we are still a protestant society since every group that has come after has had to march to their beat.

Now correct me if i'm wrong but many of the various protestant religions have a particular hatred for the physical being, at least they did back when they were creating the laws. In fact some of these religions teach that the physical world is hell and that our bodies are the tools of the devil. These groups abhored physical contact whether violent or benign. Now many of us would consider that extreem, at least when it comes to the non-violent aspect, but isn't it possible, in fact likely that our entire perception on violence is based on their beliefs.

I think it's interesting that you agree violence is justified with the child in a cause and effect relationship where's it's not justified with the bar fight. It seems to me the child has much less capacity to understand the implications of his/her actions then two grown adults. Why does society get to have consequences for two individuals that have nothing to do with society?

I have to admit i don't know where i'm going with this, or why i asked these questions to begin with. Frankly i enjoy good intelligent conversation, something that is completly lacking in American culture. Let me tell a little story though, I was having dinner with my girlfriends family describing UFC and my San Da fight and her aunt just couldn't believe it. Like the idea was so foreign and barbaric. She kept waiting for me to go on besides the actual event. I've been fighting since i was 5 at the bus stop. No one ever explained it too me, it just happened. I consider myself a pretty enlightened fellow and felt i had no need to offer these people an explanation, as if i should somehow to try to justify it and then my character for participating. I suppose i'm just looking for some answers whatever they be...

[dwid]

Now correct me if i'm wrong but many of the various protestant religions have a particular hatred for the physical being, at least they did back when they were creating the laws. In fact some of these religions teach that the physical world is hell and that our bodies are the tools of the devil. These groups abhored physical contact whether violent or benign. Now many of us would consider that extreem, at least when it comes to the non-violent aspect, but isn't it possible, in fact likely that our entire perception on violence is based on their beliefs..

The Puritans didn't hate the body. They hated/feared earthly pleasures. The body was actually revered in some respects. "An idle hand is the tool of the devil" - they looked at physical labor as essential to avoiding sinful impulses. These were not people who lived totally in their heads. And, if anything, violence was more common in those days, with lynch mobs and public executions.

Furthermore, the founding fathers were not keen on codifying puritan beliefs into our constitution and laws, hence separation of church and state, which is in no small part responsible for our society's capacity to evolve.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

CoRWiN: American society, in fact, all societies develop social contracts for the good of all.. this signifies an inherent struggle between our light and dark sides, with a desire to embellish our lighter or more harmonious aspects.. i think it demonstrates a basic human trait of searching for a cohesive non-violent existence.. that, given the opportunity, we will opt for a peaceful existence.. we only resort to violence when we feel threatened or deprived.. now, it is curious as to what each of us holds as standards of threat or deprivation.. some people feel deprived whenever their personal concept of happiness is unfulfilled, and so they act selfishly and aggressively in an attempt to satisfy their perceived needs for fulfillment.. others, sense the unity of humanity and act compassionately to secure basic human rights and necessities for all.. it is a matter of where we choose to place our values..

Society holds accountable those that can reason for themselves, as in the case of the bar fight.. where reason has not been fully developed, as in the child, society recognizes the various teaching tools including discipline.. and, the compassionate use of temporary discomfort (spanking) has been shown to be an effective link to developing an understanding of "cause and effect".. Personally, i have observed or conceived a link between the absense of corporal punishment in the public schools and the increased tendencies of violence and disrespect in the youth culture.. I went to school in the '50s and 60's and there was a certainty of paddlings for certain behaviors, those behaviors were kept to minimum and there was respect (whether feigned or actual) for the authorities that wielded the paddle.. in any case, order was maintained much more so than today..

Society sets rules for the benefit of all (hopefully).. and we as members, "choose" whether or not it is necessary for society to enforce the rules with its various forms of discipline.. Social constructs that violate basic human rights are subject to change by the same methods of violence, revolution.. either peaceful change or radical violent upheaval.. peaceful change will be perceived as a violent philosophical act by a corrupt government, it will be a perception of threat against their interests.. violent change occurs when governments resist change and continue to act contrary to the interests of its people..

In all of these scenarios people seek harmony, regardless of the validity of their beliefs.. even if they want the rest of humanity to accept their beliefs, they are still looking for a peaceful existence where their beliefs are the doctrine of that peace.. there is a cult of intellects that assert that it doesn't matter what ideology prevails, the abundance created by the absense of a threatening counterpart and the need to deplete resources in defense of the dominate ideology, that abundance will eventually neutralize ill-conceived ideologies.. that a world dominated and controlled by one ideology will, ultimately, find balance in abundance.. Lao Tzu has wisely offered advice for the aspiring leaders in the marvelous work, Tao Te Ching.. which should be required reading for all students of humanities, sociology and political science.. heck, everyone should read it.. and, Sun Tzu's Art of War..

At the end of the day, i sense that everyone would prefer a harmonious and peaceful existence.. it is the separation created by cultures, ideologies and personal values, and, our attachment to that separation that fuels conflict.. For each of us it is a simple choice, to control the Dragon.. or, to let the Dragon control us.. The vast numbers of disciplines, laws, rules and codes of conduct is evidence of a civilization struggling for some type of peaceful existence.. it indicates our nature is to seek harmony, even though we are inherently both light and dark, as a species we desire to experience harmonious lighter aspect of our existence.. regardless of misguided interpretations of our duality..

Be well...

[David Jamieson]

law has existed for pretty much as long as writing. There are Sumerian laws all the way up to the roman laws and through time to the magna carta and then the various and sundry laws we put on ourselves to maintain the social contract.

btw, "rule of thumb" is solomonic law from ancient times. (kent brockman voice)"It's in the bible people!" :p

as for violence, while it is not the same as aggression, aggression is the impetus for violent action. aggressive people are likely to become violent if they are unable to temper their aggression.

one can coldly do violent actions, but is this calmness or is this merely sociopathy? A sociopath acts in this way. With a very clinical view about violence. IN fact, sociopaths make great killers. They should have a special unit of them in teh armies of the world. (sarcasm)

[dwid]

one can coldly do violent actions, but is this calmness or is this merely sociopathy? A sociopath acts in this way. With a very clinical view about violence. IN fact, sociopaths make great killers. They should have a special unit of them in teh armies of the world. (sarcasm)

Well, try getting a sociopath/antisocial personality (the current nomenclature) to follow orders. ;) (I understand you're joking btw)

You have a good point. Violence is a very natural reaction for someone who lacks the capacity for empathy. Why not hurt others if it's impossible for you to comprehend that they can hurt? Interestingly, in context of the original basis for this thread (the felony fights clip), a major diagnostic criterion for antisocial personality disorder is repeated criminal behavior wherein punishment/incarceration does not appear to have had a deterrent effect. By definition, a repeat felon lacking the desire to change his/her ways is likely an antisocial personality (sociopath).

[Ray Pina]

Because sticks and stones (and punches in the face) can break my bones but words never hurt (only inspired) me.

It's wrong to impose your physical will over someone.

[Emeraldphoenix]

We impose our wills over people everyday. How is that wrong? Or did i misunderstand what you meant?

[Christopher M]

If you make some sort of remark -- one which we might understand as emotional abuse -- I am, in principle, free to have whatever emotional reaction I want to it. So emotional abuse is not essentially coercive, that is -- does not essentially impair our natural right to liberty (presuming we have such a thing).

On the other hand, if you break my legs, I'm not free to have whatever reaction I please to it -- my legs are simply broken, as an act of your will utterly independent of mine. Appropriately, violence is essentially coercive, and thus does essentially impair our natural right to liberty -- and it's wrong for that reason.

Violence is the essential coercive act; most other acts we might understand as coercive are often so because they are backed up with the implicit threat of violence.