If you could eradicate violence forever, would you use violence?

Answer 1

You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette - so Yes.

But if you have a proposal I'd like to know how violence could prevent violence.

Answer 2

The phrase "eradicate violence forever" sound too good to be true.

Even if it was possible. What is the guarantee that it will last. Lets say after using violence you have peace and calm in the society. And then in a few years people are gonna get right back it. History is the proof that human are bound to fight.

If the intention is to use violence is to eradicate the whole human kind, you will eradicate violence. But I don't think any one with a sane mind will propose to do that.

Answer 3

You'd need (in my view) to eradicate a lot of other things - injustice, the need for self-defence, moral evil - before the eradication of physical violence would look like a very good idea.

From another angle : if violence is intrinsically wrong (which I don't accept) then you wouldn't be justified in using violence however effectively to eradicate violence. If violence isn't bad as such but generally bad because of its consequences, then violence to prevent those consequences would be justified.

But let's keep our feet on the ground. This is a moral fantasy; the eradication of violence by violence isn't a live option. The question's good, though, because it makes us consider whether violence is intrinsically wrong.

Answer 4

I think that question assumes something that is not possible. Violence begets violence. That is the problem in so many ongoing trouble spots in the world. Ethic groups that keep retaliating against each other and keep propagating the hatred.

I have never had to use violence so this is only a mental exercise for me but the only way I could picture using violence would be to prevent imminent harm to those I love.

Answer 5

No, but I wish I could eradicate violence forever and bring peace to this world

Answer 6

The distortion of Socrates by Plato and Meletus is where I would begin. The dialectic is not what he used to find the truth, he used humility with give-and-take-action focused on a common purpose...but that is just so mundane and they really needed some drama/dialectic.
Main problem with this idea is the huge publishing empire build around the applications and reinterpretations of why Plato put his spin on his teacher, etc. May actually begin after more future professors now in Middle School get into their career track. See http://www.philosophyslam.org if you dare to get a glimpse of our collective future...

Just be kind - control your own violence before you try to control someone else's violence. Quote me if you like.

Answer 7

Nope. For starters, I believe violence has a purpose. Ultimately, there has to be a way to put jerks in line. For example: If some criminal needs to be jailed and he doesn't want to go peacefully, the cops ultimately have to resort to physical force. That's violence, folks.

For this question to really work, you'd have to ask: "If you could create heaven on earth...". That way, you'd dodge the "criminal" question, since nobody would do nasty crime-type things.

To the heaven-on-earth question, my answer would still be "nope". I don't consider myself qualified to play god. Some of the worst atrocities in history were committed by people who were attempting to create some brand of utopia, e.g. Pol Pot.

I would be willing to use violence to defend myself or my loved ones. However, I would not be willing to use violence to change another person's behavior for any other reason.

Answer 8

If I could eradicate violence forever, I wouldn't do it.

I would use violence, if I was going to try.

Answer 9

Eradicate violence ??? Bad idea. Don't you think violence is a necessary form for balance???

Law vs. Chaos
Good vs. Evil...

Duh

Answer 10

Well I think that if you could truely eradicate Violence forever, not just temporarily, then of course I would do what would have to be done. But if its just a temporary reprieve, then no, I wouldnt. Anything is worth peace, even my own safety, if I could give the planet peace then my life is expendable.

Answer 11

How do you define violence?

Simply an act that can cause physical harm is not violence. I don't consider that anything considered reasonable and non-excessive force is violence.

That kind of solves the philosophical end of the problem with semantics, but that's what the problem really is, aye?