3 ms·

For a nation or for a person?

olliej 5y ago
Does it matter? For example if a nation chooses to use force it needs the citizens to participate. Similarly violence of an individual against the state may also be morally justified: for example many people argue the US revolution was a good thing, a slave using force to escape, etc. This isn't to say the reverse can't also be true: a person using violence against the state because they're committing a robbery, but again that leads to questions of morality - the classic primary school question: if a friend is dying, and someone has a cure but my friend can't afford it, is it morally right for me to steal it to save my friend? Anyway, a lot of this is the fairly standard philosophy question of what is morality? The answer to that question depends on the framework you're using, personal values, etc My main point was stating an absolute: "no violence is always the morally correct choice" is not necessarily true
- blockwriter 5y ago
  I think no violence remains a fantastically right choice, even if it is infeasible. Nietzsche describes somewhere how great a nation willing to be destroyed would be. I am unconcerned with abstract moral grey areas, but the only life that makes sense to me is one revolted by violence and is motivated by peaceful being. I understand that contemplation of those grey areas is important and valuable all the same. Still, in my view, individuals lack autonomy in no few instances. It is beyond the power of the individual to resist compulsory acts, provided that the lever of compulsion is significantly insurmountable. It seems that every act short of violence is preferable to violence. Violence remains inevitable; it is simply appalling. I understand that this position is the result of a kind of moral luck, but this is also a statement of gratitude for so much good fortune. What I cannot comprehend are those that benefit from this same luck and squander it.

Does it matter? For example if a nation chooses to use force it needs the citizens to participate. Similarly violence of an individual against the state may also be morally justified: for example many people argue the US revolution was a good thing, a slave using force to escape, etc. This isn't to say the reverse can't also be true: a person using violence against the state because they're committing a robbery, but again that leads to questions of morality - the classic primary school question: if a friend is dying, and someone has a cure but my friend can't afford it, is it morally right for me to steal it to save my friend? Anyway, a lot of this is the fairly standard philosophy question of what is morality? The answer to that question depends on the framework you're using, personal values, etc My main point was stating an absolute: "no violence is always the morally correct choice" is not necessarily true

blockwriter 5y ago
I think no violence remains a fantastically right choice, even if it is infeasible. Nietzsche describes somewhere how great a nation willing to be destroyed would be. I am unconcerned with abstract moral grey areas, but the only life that makes sense to me is one revolted by violence and is motivated by peaceful being. I understand that contemplation of those grey areas is important and valuable all the same. Still, in my view, individuals lack autonomy in no few instances. It is beyond the power of the individual to resist compulsory acts, provided that the lever of compulsion is significantly insurmountable. It seems that every act short of violence is preferable to violence. Violence remains inevitable; it is simply appalling. I understand that this position is the result of a kind of moral luck, but this is also a statement of gratitude for so much good fortune. What I cannot comprehend are those that benefit from this same luck and squander it.