What are the moral ethical implication of spreading freedom and democracy through violence?

Question

Please don't conclude that I have bias for or against violence to achieve desired outcome. It is a question to encorage thought and debate.

That would be to encourage thought and debate.

Answer 1

Power is the ability to control through compulsion and is backed, ultimately, by the threat, whether stated or not, of physical violence. Sanctions are violence of a sort, be it political or economic. Even though we may graduate the imposition of our power, the failure of more passive measures time and again illustrates the neccessity of conflict. Violence of action; the ability and willingness of a man or nation to carry it out...under circumstances or due to provocations that render it 'just'; that is the root of progress. Morality is subservient to neccessity. Only those who are not threatened, and with full bellies are able to condemn violence without qualification. War is a hell that has occasionally the ability to enoble man; peace causes him to stagnate; and to bloat and become decadent.

Answer 2

I think it defeats the entire purpose. But then again, I apparently have a different idea about what freedom means than most people.

Democracy is based on majority rule. Which is really just a form of might-makes-right. There are more of us than there are of you, so we get to make the decisions for everyone. That's basically what democracy says.

From that perspective, there is nothing wrong with spreading democracy by force, because democracy also imposes the majority belief system on the minority through force (laws).

Unfortunately, democracy and freedom parted company a long time ago, when people stopped being tolerant of different beliefs and when people started imposing their views on others just because they happened to be in the majority. Might makes right.

As for trying to spread freedom by force, you can't. Freedom exists where there is room to grow and room to choose. American abandoned those concepts a while back, and now just pays lip service to them. The way the US has abused its power, it has no claim anymore to be the land of the free.

Even if it has become the best example of might-makes-right majority-rule democracy the world has ever seen.

Answer 3

Freedom & Democracy can only be established by violence because dictators will not give up control. So we should all just accept cruel dictators with their torture, imprisonment and executions, often of millions of people? Abandon the good people who would just like to have an enjoyable life because war is so horrible. Granted it is horrible. Are you sorry that America had a revolutionary war to establish freedom in this country?
I suggest you watch the old movie Sgt. York. He was a concientous objector who learned that good people sometimes must fight to stop other good people from being slaughtered by evil people. I see no moral or ethical problem with this. I do see an ethical problem with the uncontrolled inequities here at home however.

Answer 4

I think it is mixed. Using violence to spread freedom involves a trade-off. When we fight for freedom, we give up peace in order to expedite freedom. When that trade-off makes sense depends on the situation.

For example, the United States in the 1860's spread freedom and democracy in their own country by violently supressing slave-holding states. Some 600,000 people were killed, many more wounded, and countless others left without homes or property after the war.

One could claim all of this death and destruction was a moral wrong, and could take a cynical view of claims that the war spread freedom. One could believe that the best solution would have been to persuade the Southern states to voluntarily abolish human slavery.

But that effort would have taken much longer. Would it have been more ethical to have saved all of those lives if it meant the delaying the freedom of millions for another few decades?

Answer 5

I'll take my freedom and democracy by any means necessary. Violence is always the last resort, but is not worth your freedom? Free Society (not just the U.S.) should have a moral obligation to stand up to these evil dicatorships that threaten the world, not just the people that live in that country.

Answer 6

It is no longer a freedom. If a nation is cruel and harsh, I will not believe it has freedom and democracy in its own country.

Answer 7

The message is simple, if you don't adopt demo racy, we will bomb you back into thee 12th century, where swords, slingshots and longbows will rule the day. no showers, no A/C no cold beer, no hygiene. women will know their place, and goat herding/anti-intellectual misogynists Will be firmly in power.

Answer 8

if the rest of the world was under the control of the Nazis

you wouldn't want to do anything about it?

you are ****** in the head dude