Is there an ethical justification for initiating violence?

Question

Violence can ethically be justified when it is designed to prevent or respond to violence.

Is violence ethically justifiable, however, to deal with a conflict when there is no expectation or threat of violence from the opponent? What reasons do you have for your position?

In response to nickkap1:

An example of violence in response to violence is as follows: A thief with a drawn weapon invades your home. You have a baseball bat and have snuck up behind him. Most ethicists would say you are justified in disabling the thief, even if you accidentally kill him, because of the threatened violence toward you, your family, or your property. (Some ethicists would exclude the property from such consideration.)

In response to jimhaleii:

Boy, I have to issue you the same invitation to return to school. If you think ethics are deemed universal, you've not read much philosophy.

Answer 1

may be...i ll give you an example, say there is a country which is dependant on a river for fresh water (life or death issue) and there is a group of people/other government/country who live at the source of the river (like Sudan, Ethiopia, etc. with Egypt as an example). let's say that the other country insisted on building a dam on the upriver, for whatever justifications, (notice that there is no violence till now), and let's say that all negotiations to solve the conflict peacfully were in vain. then the question will be does egypt has the right to use violence especially it's a matter of life or death situation to the egyptians?!
i say that "ethical" is flexible and is somehow relative and afterall it's a timely related variable. in other o\words, what we consider ethical now may be in other different times is not and vice versa.
so, i think that violence can be stongly justified and be labeled "ethical" from certain point of view. it always were!

....and ...Willy! the example of the middle eastern woman is not accurate because the basic values are undisputable. you say it is normal in the middle eastern countries, but i m telling you it is not in the eyes of the opressed. it is a matter of domination of opressors on weaker group of people and it is not acceptable too by middle eastern common sense.

Answer 2

Yes.
Sometimes the wrong thing is the right thing, and sometimes a full stop must be used to end a matter.
These are occassions when a good old fashioned punch in the head work.
It can be more violent not to act than to ignore some things.
I hate violence, but I grew up a skinny white boy in a dark neighbourhood.
From safe secure living rooms comes the call for all people to denounce violence, but in reality have these people ever looked at the big picture.
A wise person would not discard a tool that has proven to be the most powerful vehicle for peace that history can show ( debatable yes ),
however a wise person will know the right time to use these tools.
I hate liars.
By my ethics I am bound to call a liar out if that person has lied to me.
By my ethics I always give a warning to that person that it is safer to say nothing than it is to lie, and from that moment my ethics demand that I stress my response to a lie physically.
Be it a slap punch or severe thrashing. I dont call it violence. I call it ethics.

Answer 3

violence cant be ethically justified if it is designed to prevent violence. How would violence prevent violence? thats just stupid.

Violence responding to violence could be ethically justified, but it stupid too. Then the one who continues the violence is as stupid and as bad as starting the violence.
I have never seen anybody counter there own arguement within the same arguement. If YOU are responding to violence with violence WHY and HOW would anybody else stop or be prevented from committing violence with violence?? You are an idiot. Stupid thinking. You must be part of the Bush administration.

violence can not ethically justifiable with or without a threat of violence in return.
besides ethically justifing anything is within yourself. You can find any way to justify it to yourself, but it does mean you're right.

Answer 4

violence obviously has many different triggers that are influenced by the environment in which it is conducted. "Ethical violence" is a sort of oxymoron depending in which society it is observed. For instance, in the middle east when a wife was looked upon before married it would be custom and normal for her observers head to be taken. The western powers would see this as an atrocitous act, seemingly barbaric and therefore in their eyes it would be unustified and blatantly wrong. We ourselves have our own codes of conduct to which we abide by and these ethics depict our sense of disturbance of violence there by leading us to the fact that ethical violence cannot be tolerated. However, with our world being so diverse and so cultural stimulated ethics vary from region to region. Ethical violence can only be decided right or wrong by the society who examines its ways

Answer 5

The only thing I can think of is scenarios that would force one into violence, which isn't a philisophical response. Perhaps when violence isn't the expected opposition (rather inaction or non-violent obstruction) and the stakes are life or death. I could come up with a few scenarios where this would apply, but I'm at work. :)

Answer 6

first of all, your first statement is incorrect. you must ask yourself, 'what are ethics'? are morals or ethics universal? there is only one logical answer...yes! there are universal 'rights' and 'wrongs'. no matter what your personal opinions, ideas, religious beliefs, upbringing, education, etc...there still remains a set of universally binding morals that are unhindered by any relative influence.
once we allow room for relative opinions to influence when, where, and to what we respond to violence with this supposed 'ethically justifiable violence', well, then we are simply saying that majority rules...and under this philosophy of justified violence, we can in fact, commend people such as Hitler for his overall determination in trying to achieve his goal...his relative opinion...his relative, yet mass supported belief that jews must be cleansed from the planet.
THERE IS NO ROOM FOR RELATIVE ETHICS! LOGIC PREVAILS AND LEAVES ROOM FOR ONLY ONE RIGHT ANSWER...'THERE IS ONLY ONE SET OF UNIVERSALLY BINDING MORALS.

ethically justified initiation of violence is not only an unsound speculation, ...it's just plain illogical. go back to school and either take, or re-take philosophy 101, intro to western phil., and then follow it up with a class on formal logic.

thanks , jim

Answer 7

Your question would require a term paper to answer all the aspects you have asked. Is violence ever justified? Yes. When is it justified? To protect ones genetic and cultural pool. Otherwise your family, genetic pool, and/or society will cease to exist. It is called evolution, and evolution is unforgiving of mistakes in making decisions on how to behave.

Answer 8

initially I would answer your question with a NO but reading on I would say it depends on the circumstance ...
For example: a friend of mine has a daughter who was viciously raped several years ago, when she was only 5 years old, in Germany. They caught the guy who did it (who had raped 12 girls under the age of 10) and he was sent to prison for 2 Years (yes,TWO years)...if that little girl was MY daughter I would personally wait outside that prison until this guy walked out and I would KILL him !

Answer 9

there is ethical justification to fight against violence for the survival of the humanity. the epic wars were fought to gain the impotence of the good for social hominy. it so happened in Ramayana and M aha bharatha.

Answer 10

No, violence provokes a violent reaction....escalation is inevitable. It solves nothing!