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. 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...

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...