Old title - Tolerance - Is violence ever justified?

For reference - https://lemmings.world/post/19791264 and all comments below the post about tolerance and non-tolerance

is it too naive for me to believe any and every lives matter? I do understand if someone is coming for my life, and i stop him by retaliating back, most nation’s laws would deem me innocent, maybe even most people will - but was it right?

It has not happened with me yet, and this is post is not politics related, a general discussion about tolerance, but I dont know how will I respond to such a situation, Is there a correct approach?

I know in a imaginary utopia - we can have a society where everyone thinks any violence, or for that matter, any evil deed is evil. And I know real world is far from being a utopia, but i believe most people can differentiate between good and bad. In my opinion, most people who do such acts are not really doing it because they enjoy it, some do because they have to, some think they have to, and they have been brain washed.

I also think if we ask a binary (yes/no) question to everyone - Is violence justified" - most people will vote no. I know there would be some exceptions (even in perfect utopia’s like N. Korea, lords only get like 99% majority)(/s).

Now if we change question - “Is violence ever justified” - many will now vote yes, and start listing out situations where they think it is valid.

This question was also brought up in Avatar. For people who don’t know - should Aang (a person with firm opinions, and more importantly a child - 12(112) years old) kill Lord Ozai (for now, consider him embodiment of evil for simplicity, but still a human). Many shows get away from asking, by basically having monsters (non human) as the opponent, so it is does not feel morally wrong. But here the question was asked. His past lives (in this world reincarnation exists, and aang is the Avatar - person who can control all elements) also suggested he should kill him, and he is tethered to this world, and this is no utopia … In the show they got away with basically a divine intervention.

Maybe here is my real question - Is it correct to have your morals be flexible?

Now for my answer, I have almost never felt correct labeling people good or bad, I have almost always treated people depending on what the situation expects me to (maybe how I feel I should be treating). In some sense I have a very flexible stance, and in some others, I dont. For example - I never cheat on exams or assignments - I can’t justify cheating, If I am getting poor marks, then I should prepare well. But If someone else asks me to help them cheat (lets say give assignment solutions) - I dont refuse either, as I have understood, even though judging people by a few numbers is bad, world still does that - mostly to simplify things, and in that sense, a higher grade for anyone is better for them.

I dont even know what can be a answer. I dont know if it exists, or it can exist, I am not really trying to find it either, consider this just a rant at clouds.

edit - I am not asking a binary question - you are not expected to answer a yes or no, see the line just above this edit. It is not even really about violence - it is about morality

edit 2 - Changed title, old 1 is still here for full context. I dont know why I chose that title. I am not blaming anyone who answered on the basis of title, It was my bad to have some title, and ask a “not really orthogonal but generalised question” in the middle, hoping people answer that, some one did, I thank them. Many people have written (or in similar vein) - violence should be be avoided, but not when it the last thing. I understand this general sentiment - but according to me - having a excuse to ever do violence allows you to have loop hole, just blame the circumstances.

Someone gave a situation where they would do violence - someone trying to assault a kid - and I agree I would too (If I would be in such a situation).

I had a small back and forth with someone about morals - my stance is morals are frameworks to choose if a action is moral/immoral. And then the question is really how rigid should your moral framework be, and should it depend on background of people in consideration?

  • reksas
    1·
    2 days ago

    Violence causes problems that will have to be dealt with later, but sometimes its necessary to deal with problem that is too awful to let be. If you want to prevent violence you need to prevent the situation where its necessary.

    imo there is a line where flexible morals is okay and where its not and its not on same place for everything. Ultimately its about will it make things better or worse for everyone.

    I also dont think anyone is inherently good or evil but everyone has tendency towards something. The tendency comes from genetics, environment and random chance. Its up to them if they want to go with it or not and if they end up doing bad things and dont want to stop then they should be considered evil until they stop and repent. Though they can still pretend to repent so if threat they represent is big enough, you need to also consider what the risks are if they lie and get away.

    In avatar, (major spoiler)

    spoiler

    aang lucked out and had the choice of having it both ways by just taking away ozais power. Without that option I think he would have had to just kill the guy or watch him destroy everything. In that situation, in my opinion, the destruction would have been partially aangs fault too since he could have stopped it. Otherwise you might as well blame anyone defending themselves from ozai for killing fire nation’s soldiers.

    What makes this so difficult question is also that everyone has their own set of morals they live by. One also kind of needs to define what good and evil is, because there definitely is evil at least.

    While I wont push anyone towards any religiousness, there are some good points in some holy texts. If there werent, i dont think civilization living by those religions wouldnt have lasted very long. Unfortunately they are still words written by men and thus corrupted by shitty people, like that one part in bible about “you shouldnt rape kids” that got turned into something that was interpreted as anti homosexual. Religion has always been meant to “control” or guide people, but it isnt always malicious. Though getting the “core” message from some religion still relies on persons sense of morality since you need to know what to keep and what to discard.

    So maybe ultimately being good is about honestly wanting and trying to be good and being willing to adapt and change towards it. It doesnt matter if you dont definitely know what “good” is, you can “construct” it from what others think is good. Also, its critical you dont lie to yourself about anything, that is surefire way to lose your way. Educating yourself, being capable of media criticality and watching and reading many kinds of stories also helps.