3 ms·

Logic does work that way. Just war theory is completely based in the moral logic that committing violence now can be acceptable to prevent violence in the futu

Logic does work that way. Just war theory is completely based in the moral logic that committing violence now can be acceptable to prevent violence in the future. The police are authorized, within limits, to use violence to prevent future violence. An officer, for example, may get end up getting into a fight with someone being arrested for conspiring to commit murder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience#Violent_vs._nonviolent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience#Violent_vs.... is a section on violence in the context of civil disobedience. "Zinn states that while the goals of civil disobedience are generally nonviolent, 'in the inevitable tension accompanying the transition from a violent world to a non-violent one, the choice of means will almost never be pure, and will involve such complexities that the simple distinction between violence and non-violence does not suffice as a guide ... the very acts with which we seek to do good cannot escape the imperfections of the world we are trying to change.'" Lastly, "[T]here is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that, when a Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

refurb 3y ago
No it doesn't work that way. Your arguments don't support your claim in the least. Just war theory isn't blanket justification to go to war based on whatever "threat" you think exists. I mean, was Japan justified in going to war with the US because it felt a conflict was inevitable? Of course not, because such a conflict was not inevitable. The police are empowered with special rights to use violence, not sure how that's at all applicable to an average person. Nobody cares about Godwin's law. If Nazi Germany is a good analogy, it's a good analogy.
- eesmith 3y ago
  I notice you left out my civil disobedience example. > Just war theory isn't blanket justification to go to war based on whatever "threat" you think exists. Yes, that's EXACTLY MY POINT. It's an example of a logical argument used to justify when violence can be used to prevent future violence. It doesn't say that all war is just war. That's why it uses the word "just". Your argument seems to be that no threat justifies violence. Ukraine shouldn't fight back against Russia. Those held as slaves shouldn't be violent to self-styled "owners." Thoreau, author of Civil Disobedience, famously supported John Brown's violent raid on Harper's Ferry, arguing Brown's commitment to justice required him to fight a government which enforced the injustice of slavery. You would deny all of these cases of using violence to (at least try to) prevent future violence by characterizing them as equivalent to an un-just war with horrific genocides? Really? It's actually a horrible analogy because by your logic the US should not have gotten involved in the European theater of WWII - why use violence to prevent future violence? I agree with dgb23 - your view is incredibly naive. Simply say you are a pacifist and reject all violence. That's fine. But that's a moral argument, while you asserted there was invalid logic. MLK Jr. commented that 'A riot is the language of the unheard'. I agree with King's characterization of the riots he was talking about. dgb23's point is a direct parallel: "Violence is inevitable, in some form or another, if the climate effects are ignored to such a degree." I also agree with dgb23.
  - refurb 3y ago
    All of your examples are situations where violence has already occurred, not preemptive. Russia attacked Ukraine. The slave is a victim of violence. Your argument doesn't even make sense in a situation where violence hasn't occurred.
    - eesmith 3y ago
      > All of your examples are situations where violence has already occurred, not preemptive. Incorrect. One of my examples was "An officer, for example, may get end up getting into a fight with someone being arrested for conspiring to commit murder." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37145828 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37145828 Is dumping poison into the town's water supply, knowing it will kill plants, animals, and people, an act of violence? If it is violence, it's acceptable to use violence to prevent that act, correct? If it isn't violence, suppose a staff member see someone about to do that. May that person use violence to prevent the act from happening? May a police officer? If not, and it's too late to try any other options, is it really logical to avoid preemptive violence in order to save lives? Next, re-run the example with someone actually pouring poison into the town's water system, but it will take a day before the first people are affected, and a week until the toxic effects start killing people. When is it acceptable to use violent methods to stop the poisoner? In 23 hours? In 6.9 days? Or right now? Or is that enough that that we can should avoid violence and instead, say, install water filtering systems in everyone's sink and make everyone pay for new filters each month?
      - refurb 3y ago
        It’s really hard to follow your train of logic since it keeps changing. Preemptive use of violence is generally seen as acceptable when it: 1) is equal to the level of violence faced (e.g. you don’t shoot someone in the head if the look like they are going to punch you) and 2) the threat of violence is imminent and threatens humans life. Violence due to climate change doesn’t fulfill any of those requirements: 1) it far exceeds the violence being committed now, 2) the future violence isn’t imminent and 3) it’s unknown if the future violence will threaten human life.

refurb 3y ago

No it doesn't work that way. Your arguments don't support your claim in the least. Just war theory isn't blanket justification to go to war based on whatever "threat" you think exists. I mean, was Japan justified in going to war with the US because it felt a conflict was inevitable? Of course not, because such a conflict was not inevitable. The police are empowered with special rights to use violence, not sure how that's at all applicable to an average person. Nobody cares about Godwin's law. If Nazi Germany is a good analogy, it's a good analogy.

eesmith 3y ago
I notice you left out my civil disobedience example. > Just war theory isn't blanket justification to go to war based on whatever "threat" you think exists. Yes, that's EXACTLY MY POINT. It's an example of a logical argument used to justify when violence can be used to prevent future violence. It doesn't say that all war is just war. That's why it uses the word "just". Your argument seems to be that no threat justifies violence. Ukraine shouldn't fight back against Russia. Those held as slaves shouldn't be violent to self-styled "owners." Thoreau, author of Civil Disobedience, famously supported John Brown's violent raid on Harper's Ferry, arguing Brown's commitment to justice required him to fight a government which enforced the injustice of slavery. You would deny all of these cases of using violence to (at least try to) prevent future violence by characterizing them as equivalent to an un-just war with horrific genocides? Really? It's actually a horrible analogy because by your logic the US should not have gotten involved in the European theater of WWII - why use violence to prevent future violence? I agree with dgb23 - your view is incredibly naive. Simply say you are a pacifist and reject all violence. That's fine. But that's a moral argument, while you asserted there was invalid logic. MLK Jr. commented that 'A riot is the language of the unheard'. I agree with King's characterization of the riots he was talking about. dgb23's point is a direct parallel: "Violence is inevitable, in some form or another, if the climate effects are ignored to such a degree." I also agree with dgb23.
- refurb 3y ago
  All of your examples are situations where violence has already occurred, not preemptive. Russia attacked Ukraine. The slave is a victim of violence. Your argument doesn't even make sense in a situation where violence hasn't occurred.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    > All of your examples are situations where violence has already occurred, not preemptive. Incorrect. One of my examples was "An officer, for example, may get end up getting into a fight with someone being arrested for conspiring to commit murder." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37145828 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37145828 Is dumping poison into the town's water supply, knowing it will kill plants, animals, and people, an act of violence? If it is violence, it's acceptable to use violence to prevent that act, correct? If it isn't violence, suppose a staff member see someone about to do that. May that person use violence to prevent the act from happening? May a police officer? If not, and it's too late to try any other options, is it really logical to avoid preemptive violence in order to save lives? Next, re-run the example with someone actually pouring poison into the town's water system, but it will take a day before the first people are affected, and a week until the toxic effects start killing people. When is it acceptable to use violent methods to stop the poisoner? In 23 hours? In 6.9 days? Or right now? Or is that enough that that we can should avoid violence and instead, say, install water filtering systems in everyone's sink and make everyone pay for new filters each month?
    - refurb 3y ago
      It’s really hard to follow your train of logic since it keeps changing. Preemptive use of violence is generally seen as acceptable when it: 1) is equal to the level of violence faced (e.g. you don’t shoot someone in the head if the look like they are going to punch you) and 2) the threat of violence is imminent and threatens humans life. Violence due to climate change doesn’t fulfill any of those requirements: 1) it far exceeds the violence being committed now, 2) the future violence isn’t imminent and 3) it’s unknown if the future violence will threaten human life.