File: 1673273912856.png (300.27 KB, 435x523, 435:523, 3017267.png) ImgOps Google
I have a moral perspective that violence is bad, and especially that those who escalate violence are not doing good deeds. Violence in this case are actions that [purposefully] cause, are open to the likelihood of causing, or are intended to cause physical harm. I don't know if I call causing psychological trauma violence, but I'll say in this paragraph I have similar feelings about that.
I believe morals to have a degree of subjectivity, so likely my personal moral beliefs are not debatable. If you would like to debate something, let me also claim that this is not conventional view. Violence is often seen as an important tool for maintaining order, encouraging desirable behavior, asserting control or rule, responding to fear, and maintaining systems of respect. I likely am seen as naive for my view, and perhaps I have not been subject to enough violence to wish it applied to others liberally, but I wish only to debate how much my view differs from conventional ethics. Thank you for your time.
File: 1673480785689.jpeg (27.55 KB, 320x332, 80:83, FMonGxUXMAou521.jpeg) ImgOps Google
I'd say that of the *initiation* of violence, but self-defense is good. Are you familiar with the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP)?
The problem with self defense somewhere is the question to how far can it be allowed?
Like, letting others attack yourself without reacting will result in others abusing you. Letting others violently assault someone else without you coming to the victim's aid, hence sacrificing the victim's well being over a principle can be morally wrong itself.
But if someone slaps me one and I react by throwing them on the ground and kicking them so they need to be hospitalized, that also doesn't seem acceptable morally.
>>11830>is the question to how far can it be allowed?
A rough answer is self defense is acceptable when it is the minimum force needed to neutralize a threat. Generally self-defense should not escalate violence unless there is no other option for survival.>sacrificing the victim's well being over a principle can be morally wrong itself.
I think I'd agree with that. My sense, though, is violence used with the purported goal of protecting others and especially hypothetical others (society) is often really oppression.
Comes down to perspective some, but as I see it, the ideal ought be to essentially ratchet to the next level as necessary, only when you cannot match the force given.
The baseline for justice, after all, at its bearest, is an eye for an eye.
So if someone slaps you, slap back. If you're not going to be able to retort the same for whatever reason, a punch may well be appropriate escalation.